SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 315 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Laurie Noda. John Diamond and Arla Funk were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright and Planners Janice Lew and Jackie Gasparik.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, July 11, 2002
The minutes of July 11 were not ready to approve due to the timing of the meeting schedule.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-593, by Cingular Wireless requesting a conditional use to install an 80-foot high wireless telecommunications monopole and associated electrical equipment at an existing wireless telecommunications site located at 8710 North 2200 West.
Planner Janice Lew distributed a memo requesting that all zoning applications for Cingular Wireless be placed on hold. Cingular Wireless has decided to hold off further network development in the area at this time.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chambless asked if a time limit had been placed on the delay. Chair Daniels suggested tabling the motion for an indefinite time. Kay (berger) Arnold asked if there was a reason to table rather than cancel the application and asked if public notice will be sent when this application comes back again. Mr. Wilde explained that, when this item comes back, they will re-advertise and start the process again. He explained that a motion to cancel would terminate the application, but a motion to table means the application can come back at some point.
Motion for Petition No. 410-593
Tim Chambless moved to table Petition No. 410-593 by Cingular Wireless indefinitely. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond and Ms. Funk were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Mr. Reed Topham is requesting an amendment to lot 302 of the Capitol Park Planned Development Subdivision Phase 3, located at 310 East Penny Parade Drive, to reconfigure the buildable area of this lot, which is in a Foothill Residential “FR-3" zoning district.
Planner Jackie Gasparik provided a brief explanation of the plat amendment. She reported that she had received a letter from Jan and Sheryl Leonard who contest the amendment.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that this is probably the sixth or seventh lot in Capitol Park that has been amended for various reasons. This request requires the Tophams to get property owners’ consent. The Leonards’ amendment came to the Planning Commission in 1997 and was transmitted to the City Council in 1998, and at that time the ordinance regarding plat amendments had different notice requirements. If there was 100% consent, the advertisement period for the City Council to require a public hearing was shorter. In January 1999, the ordinance was changed to the advantage of liberalization of the State law. With that change, the only plat amendments that go on to City Council are those that involve streets in subdivisions, and all other plat amendments can be approved administratively.
There was not a representative present from the Community Council.
Reed Topham, the petitioner, stated that he and his wife own lot 302 located at 310 East Penny Parade Drive. He stated that the proposed plat amendment is straightforward and would reposition the buildable area of their lot closer to the center and increase the rear setbacks to be more consistent with their neighbors to the east and west. He clarified that he is not asking to increase the square footage of the lot. The proposed amendment would utilize a portion of the tree preservation area. Mr. Topham explained that the tree which used to be in that area was lost several years ago, and there are currently no trees on the lot. The Capitol Park Homeowners Association has asked him to plant another tree in a suitable location, and he has agreed to do so. He stated that throughout the process he has given consideration to the interests of all his neighbors and the entire Capitol Park community. He believed the proposed amendment would be an improvement that would better utilize the space available and provide a balance that is more consistent with the other homes on Penny Parade Drive. Mr. Topham stated that he considered the graded open space running along the west boundary of their property primarily as a storm sewer easement. Although the required setback is 25 feet, he deliberately chose a 27-foot setback to maintain the corridor and provide excellent views from Penny Parade Drive and the sidewalk running along Penny Parade Drive. He addressed the concerns expressed by the Leonards and their alternative proposal to shift the proposed buildable area three feet to the east. He stated that, if he moves the building pad, it would improve the view from certain portions of the Leonards’ property and make the view from his home slightly worse. He believed his proposed amendment would strike an appropriate balance and place his house closer to the center of the lot while maintaining a large open space corridor between his home and the home to the west. Mr. Topham stated that he believed any benefit to the Leonards’ view by shifting his buildable area to the east would only be temporary and would be lost when a home is constructed on Lot 317.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Topham was ready to begin construction since had evidently already designed his home. Mr. Topham replied that the plans are subject to this hearing so they can move on to the permitting office. Mr. Jonas asked where the home as designed would fit within the buildable area. Mr. Topham explained that the building area has a 27-foot western setback, and the primary western wall of his home will run 29-1/2 feet from the western boundary. The extra space is to allow for a chimney and stairs for the rear deck.
Chair Daniels asked who owns Lot 317. Mr. Topham replied that Ross Matthews owns the property, and he is a current owner at Capitol Park. In response to a question from Ms. Arnold, Mr. Topham replied that Diane Lanzl owns Lot 318.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Jan Leonard, a resident at 604 Capitol Park, stated that he owns Lots 315 and 316. When he purchased the property, he knew there was an easement and a setback, and to some degree that was why he purchased the property. He stated that he was trying to maintain his view of the city, and he had hoped to compromise with his neighbors by suggesting five feet instead of eight feet. Mr. Leonard noted that Lot 317 across the street owned by Mr. Matthews is landscaped, and he did not believe Mr. Matthews had any desire to build a home on that lot. Mr. Leonard believed Mr. Topham’s plans would slightly affect the view Mr. Matthews has from his primary home. Mr. Leonard did not see this as a huge problem and agreed to accept the decision made at this meeting. He stated that he was concerned about the precedent of buildable areas being shifted, because it had been done several times. He felt that, if they kept loosing trees based on allowing buildable areas to shift, it would become a huge problem. Mr. Chambless asked what happened to the tree. Mr. Leonard stated that he started building his home in December 1997, and at that time, the tree was there. Within a short time, it mysteriously disappeared. He stated that the tree was gone long before the tornado hit in 1999. The only thing he could imagine was that the developer knew the lot had a small buildable area compared to other lots and removed the tree, but that was speculation on his part.
Diane Lanzl, owner of Lot 318, stated that she is a board member of the Capitol Park Owners Association and a member of the design review committee. She reported that the neighbors agree that, if the Tophams were to place their home in the center of the lot and plant another substantial tree, that would be acceptable. They liked the balance of the house and acknowledged that the tree had not existed since September 1997. Ms. Arnold asked where the owners of Lot 317 live. Ms. Lanzl replied that their home is on Lot 314. She noted that Mr. Matthews is on the Board and has suggested that, as long as the Tophams plant a substantial tree, he would have no problem with this plat amendment. Mr. Chambless asked if Ms. Lanzl knew what happened to the tree. She replied that she believed it was taken down by the developer, but like Mr. Leonard, that was only speculation on her part. Mr. Jonas asked if a tree could be planted in the easement. Ms. Gasparik replied that public utilities does not want any large trees planted on the sewer easement. Ms. McDonough asked what the Capitol Park Development CC&R’s say about maintaining views. Ms. Lanzl read from the CC&R’s and summarized that view corridors should be maintained for the use of other people on the inside and help keep space between homes. She noted that, if the original tree were still standing, there would not be a view corridor. If the Tophams move their house over, other residents will have more of a view because a tree will not block their view.
Mr. Leonard stated that, if the Topham’s move their house, a large tree should not be put back because it would seriously impact his view. However, if a tree is not allowed in the easement, it would become a moot point.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jonas felt this amendment would be a benefit to everyone. Without the tree, shifting the house would provide a better view corridor for the Leonards. The architectural control board has determined that the shift is a benefit to the community and will provide a better corridor on the east side of Lot 302 because it expands on that side. He found this to be a reasonable request that had the support of the neighbors.
Chair Daniels agreed and asked the Planning Commission to consider that the Leonards do not want a large tree planted in the view corridor. Mr. Topham has agreed to replace the tree, but not necessarily in the same area.
Mr. Muir commented that view corridors are never part of the criteria for determining buildable area. Those criteria address vegetation and the desire to preserve vegetation. Mr. Wheelwright agreed that the prime concern of the criteria was to preserve the large species of trees that existed on the site. Without the trees, Mr. Muir felt that the Planning Commission did not have any criteria to judge against except to default to the single-family side yard criteria. Weighing in on view corridors and replacement of the tree falls within the purview of the architectural review committee and the CC&R’s and is not germane to Planning Commission review.
Mr. Jonas felt it was incumbent on the Capitol Park committee to make the determination on the placement of large trees.
Motion for a request for an amendment on Capitol Park PD subdivision Phase 3, Lot 302
Based on the discussion and the findings of fact, with a revision to add a sentence to Finding of Fact 4 that reads, “The plat as proposed to be amended will also exceed the minimum side yard requirements in the zoning ordinance,” Mr. Jonas moved to approve the requested plat amendment for Lot 302 of the Capitol Park PD Subdivision, Phase 3, and to the extent possible, recommend that the City allow construction to begin prior to recording the final amended plat to accommodate the owner’s construction schedule and minimize construction inconvenience to the neighborhood. Ms. McDonough seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
1. All City departments and divisions have reviewed the proposal and recommended approval.
2. There would not be any material harm to other lot owners by the proposed amendment.
3. The original intent of protecting the existing mature trees of the old hospital site is not applicable since the tree was brought down by a natural disaster prior to the lot being built on.
4. If the proposed amendment were approved, the lot would still maintain the required side yard setbacks of the planned development. Currently, the plat shows a 35' setback on the west and a 10' setback on the east, with a minimum of 20' between houses. The current plat exceeds the zoning ordinance minimum side yard requirement of 10 feet on either side. The plat as proposed to be amended will also exceed the minimum side yard requirements in the zoning ordinance.
5. Approval without any net increase to the buildable area is consistent with the other prior plat amendments in this subdivision.
6. The existing 25' utility easement on the west side of Lot 302 will remain and will not be impacted by the shift in the buildable area location.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond and Ms. Funk were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Daniels asked if Mr. Topham would have to wait until the minutes are approved before starting construction or whether the three-quarters rule applies. Mr. Wheelwright replied that it is based on a simple majority vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Briefing on revised Alley Vacation /Closure Policy
Ms. Lew reported that several years ago the City Council decided to re-evaluate its policy regarding disposition of City-owned alleys. Last December a revised policy was adopted, and the ordinance to accompany that policy was adopted in May. This briefing is coming to the Planning Commission because the Planning Commission has not previously dealt with alley vacations. The ordinance lists items for the Commissioners to consider when making a recommendation to the City Council regarding these petitions. The purpose is to familiarize the Planning Commission with the eight items listed and to answer questions regarding this policy change.
Mr. Chambless asked if any crime statistics correlate to alleys in the City. Ms. Lew replied that during the review process they requested that the Police Department provide cases on crime issues pertaining particularly to alleys. Mr. Wilde stated that crime prevention has been a primary purpose for requesting alley closures. More recently, there has been interest in keeping alleys open so they can contribute to an urban trail system, which has been a contentious issue. Alley closures have not previously come before the Planning Commission, but when drafting the ordinance, the Attorney’s office determined that they should be heard by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jonas felt this was a good ordinance and that it was set up to focus on policy issues and what is important and make a determination based on those issues.
Ms. Lew stated that she had not seen any new applications, but she knew of at least seven people who are interested in the process.
Status of the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Draft
Mr. Wilde stated that earlier this year the Planning Commission went through a process of developing Planning Commission policies, and a hearing needs to be held on those policies. The proposed policies have been sent to the City Council for comment, but they have heard nothing back. The Planning Department is ready to schedule a public hearing, but Mr. Wilde thought it would be best to wait until after the retreat in case something new is added. He explained that updated copies of the policies will be provided at the retreat.
Mr. Muir referred to the alley vacation ordinance and asked why individual property owners would not be charged for vacating but multi-units would be. Mr. Wilde replied that, historically, the thought was that often in a single-family setting, alleys exist in neighborhoods where property owners are not willing to maintain them. The City Council had encouraged alley closures because the City generally does not maintain them. Not charging single-family homes would be a means of encouragement. However, because multi-family and commercial properties are income-generating, this has been a way to collect revenue. Mr. Muir felt the document moved away from being pro-active on vacating alleys and would put the burden on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wilde recalled discussion at the last meeting about holding a retreat in September rather than August. After further discussion, the Planning Commissioners tentatively chose Saturday, September 14, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Transportation Engineer Gordon Haight will brief the Planning Commission on the Proposed Salt Lake City Street Lighting Plan.
Transportation Engineer Gordon Haight was not present to give the presentation.
The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.