SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Arla Funk, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; and Planners Marilyn Lewis, Everett Joyce, and Ray McCandless.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:37 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 the Minutes from Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Ms. Scott requested the following corrections:
Page 7, the Findings under Item A should be inserted.
Page 19, fourth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Dansie said it could apply to any television station,” etc.
Page 21, second paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Daniels asked why KUTV wanted to put a television monitor on Main Street.”
Page 22, third paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Jonas said Mr. Hawkins wanted on the one hand news or public affairs shows, and on the other hand he was making a call for any newspaper”, etc.
Mr. Jonas requested the following corrections:
The Attachments which begin on page 7 and end on page 14 shall be deleted.
Page 21, seventh paragraph, third sentence shall be corrected to read, “KUTV ran the Victoria’s Secret program and said they could not change it”, etc.
Page 23, second paragraph, fourth sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Dansie said he understood that the station”, etc.
Page 24, third paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Bus benches with advertising are deemed as billboards by the State”, etc.
Page 25, under the Motion, the third sentence of the ordinance shall be corrected to read, “The third sentence shall be changed to read, “The material displayed shall be the television station’s primary broadcast feed, and must be the same information that is simultaneously broadcast or rebroadcast to the general public (except between the hours of 12 Midnight and 6 AM, where daytime programming, consistent with Community Standards, may be substituted.) Or rebroadcast news, sports, and/or public affairs broadcasts.”
Page 44, last paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “He represented the landowners appealing the decision made by the Planning”, etc.
Mr. Muir requested the following correction:
Page 44, third paragraph, third sentence shall be corrected to read, “He said someone had tried to do something positive for the whole Foothills, and it had”, etc.
Motion
Ms. Noda moved to approve the minutes for May 28, 2003, as corrected. Mr. Prescott seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk abstained. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze reminded the Planning Commissioners that they had received correspondences regarding the Shorelands Plan, which they would hear more of in the forthcoming presentation. Mr. Zunguze met with some of the representatives who wrote the correspondences and they wished to make sure the letters were entered into the record.
Another piece of correspondence presented to the Planning Commission was from Ms. DiSario, relating to the Foothill ordinance which would be discussed later in the meeting.
Mr. Zunguze requested the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to correct an error that was made during the 1995 zoning rewrite. Property on 624 South 1100 East was inadvertently reclassified from Residential R-2 to Institutional. Mr. Jonas said the Commissioners had a memo from Larry Butcher in their packets which addressed this issue.
Mr. Zunguze announced that there would most likely be only one Planning Commission meeting in July. That meeting will be held on July 9, 2003. The second meeting in July is still in question and Mr. Zunguze will keep the Commission advised about whether or not it will actually be held.
Mr. Zunguze advised the Commission that they had not been able to put all the material together yet regarding the retreat and long range items. That has been scheduled as an item for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Jonas asked if any appeals had been heard. Mr. Zunguze said the appeal on Highland Plaza was postponed. The appeal regarding the project on 900 South was upheld. Mr. Pace said he had been informed by the attorney for Smiths Food and Drug that they have appealed the Land Use Appeals decision to the Third District Court.
Petition Initiated by Planning Commission
Ms. Funk initiated a petition to correct an error on the property at 624 South 1100 east, that was made during the 1995 zoning rewrite, as requested by Mr. Zunguze.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
Consideration of the Consent Agenda began at 5:52 p.m.
A. Pinecreek Properties, LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – This is a request for Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a lease agreement for existing signs and landscaping, which were previously allowed under lease to Oceans Restaurant, on Salt Lake City Public Utilities owned property located at 900 East Van Winkle (approximately 4800 South) in Murray City, Utah.
B. Wasatch Front Bar & Grill and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – This is a request for Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a lease agreement for overflow and emergency parking; and a dumpster, located on Salt Lake City Public Utilities owned property located at 900 East Van Winkle (approximately 4800 South) in Murray City, Utah. There has been a similar least in the past to Oceans Restaurant at the same location.
C. Utah Power and Light/PacifiCorp. and Salt lake City Public Utilities – This is a request for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a standard utility permit for a new buried electric power line to be installed under the East Jordan Canal Extension Right-of-way, located at 7200 South 1300 East in unincorporated Salt Lake County. (Staff – Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178)
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to approve the matters on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Noda seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Prescott, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Scott, Ms. Funk, Mr. Daniels, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Consent Agenda business was concluded at 5:53 p.m.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Presentation by Sharen Hauri of Swaner Design on the Salt Lake County Shorelands Plan. The project is a partnership between Envision Utah, Utah Mitigation Commission and Salt Lake County, with financial support from Chevron and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
The presentation began at 5:54 p.m. Planner Marilynn Lewis said the City had been participating with the Steering Committee for the Shorelands Project for the last year. This is a long range issue, and is not the same plan the City will do. The City will do its own master plan, using much of the information gleaned from the Shorelands Project. Ms. Lewis introduced Mr. Sumner Swaner and Ms. Sharen Hauri from Swaner Design, who presented a slide show covering the following points:
1. Salt Lake County Shorelands Plan
- Planning process informed by sound science.
- Stakeholders and landowners working toward unanimity.
- Addressing development and conservation concerns
- Intense education and public participation
- Creating a regional Shorelands Plan leading into a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) to direct future action.
2. Shorelands Plan Area
3. Shorelands Terrain
4. Great Salt Lake Dynamics
5. What is Unique and Important about the area
6. Why Create a Plan?
- Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County have never adopted a plan for the Northwest Quadrant that took development into account.
- Development pressure across the Wasatch Front is forcing municipalities to consider expansion into areas closer to Great Salt Lake.
7. Shorelands Regional Plan
- The Intent of Regional Planning
- Examples of Regional Planning Processes
o Davis County Shorelands Plan
o Tooele Valley Regional Plan
o WFRC Open Space Plan
o Envision Utah Scenarios
8. SAMP Technical Plan
- Use scientific methods to assess resources in a well-defined study area to achieve detailed results.
- Focuses on functions of the natural environment and can include wetlands, wildlife, geology, hydrology, soils and so on.
- Results can be used to inform other plans, to guide management decisions, or to shape land use decisions.
- Will produce a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) in the future.
- Some Examples of Technical Planning Processes
o Tooele County SAMP
o Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve Plan
9. Shorelands Planning Process
- Establish steering committee to guide process.
- Collect base information on resources and planning regulations.
- Host public workshops to create a vision for area, including both preservation and development.
- Compile input into vision alternatives.
- Return to public to comment on alternatives.
- Draft regional planning report.
- Begin technical wetlands analysis and Special Area Management Plan (SAMP).
10. Planning Process
- Shorelands Plan and SAMP can be used to inform local plans and Army Corps General Permit.
11. Establish a Steering Committee
- 70 people on distribution list.
- 25 – 30 people actively participating in monthly meetings.
- All major landowners represented. (Gilmore, Bothwell-Swaner, Zion’s Securities, Kennecott)
- All major conservation groups represented. (Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve, Duck Clubs, Friends of Great Salt Lake)
- All resource management agencies represented. (Army Corps, USDA-NRCS, USFWS, URMCC, Forest, Fire and State Lands, Utah DWR, Farmington Bay WMA, UDOT)
- Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County representatives participating.
12. Collect Base Information
13. FEMA Flood Plains
14. Water & Wetlands
15. Geologic Hazards
- Surface rupture and liquefaction potential special study areas Salt Lake County Plan.
16. Critical Wildlife Habitat
17. Elevation
18. Cultural Resources
19. Conserved Lands
20. Zoning
21. Host Public Workshops
- 70 attendees between 2 workshops.
- 14 maps created.
- Four-hour format, discussing resources, open spaces and development.
22. Airport Zoning
23. Step 1: Identify Open Spaces
24. Step 2: Place Development
25. Alternative A: Maximum Conservation
26. Compiled Results Into Alternatives
- 5 alternatives representing spectrum from heightened protection to new development.
27. Alternative B: Conservation Focus
28. Alternative C: Continue Current Planning
29. Alternative D: Limited Development
30. Alternative E: Community Focus
31. Return to Public for Comments
- 2 public open houses.
- Surveyed public preferences for the alternatives.
32. Regional Vision Report
- Final version complete June 27, 2003.
- Copies on CD are available to all Planning Commissioners, City Council and public.
33. What More Needs to Happen?
- Ongoing SAMP process to identify wetlands and understand resource functions.
- Potential Army Corps General Permit.
- Salt Lake City should begin own planning process to utilize existing steering committee and planning results.
- Need more basis in economics and site specific design.
- Continue the momentum!
34. What Has Been Accomplished?
- Active Steering Committee with buy-in on process.
- Substantial data compiled or created.
- Major issues identified and understood.
- Range of alternatives created at regional scale.
- Written report on issues and alternatives.
- Salt Lake County ready to start planning process this summer.
- Team and committee ready to start SAMP.
Mr. Swaner then asked if the Commission had any questions. Mr. Daniels asked if the five alternatives (Alternatives A-E) had been ranked. Mr. Swaner said they had not been weighted; they were just different levels of development. Ms. Hauri said the people at the workshops felt the lack of planning would be the worst option. There is a very strong conservation bent among the participants of the process. There were also quite a few people who favored Alternative E. Mr. Swaner said the plan is not concluded as yet. When the technical session is done, they will go back to the plan and see what, if anything may need to be modified to take in new information.
Mr. Chambless asked what they envisioned 20 years from now some other site in the country that may serve as a model for what they see for the Shoreline Plan. Ms. Hauri said SAMPs are very new tools that the Army Corps of Engineers use to map out all wetlands and resources ahead of development. There is a project in New Jersey (she thinks it is called the “Meadowlands”) that did a very successful SAMP. Mr. Swaner said other than that, they could look at projects built for the private sector that have involved wetlands, permitting with the Army Corps of Engineers and then it would have to be evaluated qualitatively how they have done in terms of sustainability. Those projects would have to be researched out.
The presentation ended at 6:18 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continuation of Petition No. 410-586, by Total Property Asset Management, requesting a planned development subdivision approval to create a pad lot at 464 S. 600 East as part of the Family Center (Fred Meyer) planned development. This is a request to modify the previous planned development (Petition No. 410-135) to incorporate the McHenry home site (11,730 square foot pad site). This planned development includes a request for modification of zoning ordinance standards. Ordinance modifications are reduction of the front yard landscaping and setback requirements, front yard parking and a change of grade in excess of two feet at the property line. This property is in a Commercial "CS" Zoning District and in the Central Community Historic Overlay District.
The hearing began at 6:18 p.m. Planner Everett Joyce presented the petition as written in the staff report. A similar petition has come before the Commission before. The petitioner is requesting modification of a 10 acre block that was developed in 1994. The petitioner wants to develop a pad lot related to the entire development. They wish to follow similar site plan reductions and changes that were approved in the original Fred Meyer development. Initially, the Planning Commission had asked them to move the pad site to the very corner by the loading dock area. The petitioner came back to the Planning Commission saying that it was not feasible. The Planning Commission then asked if the petitioner could modify the site to bring the building up towards the street. Fred Meyer again said that would not work for them. They wished to stay with the original lease agreement that was created in 2001 which ties the pad site into the overall design of the Fred Meyer development, with a circulation road that comes up from the lower to the higher parking lot on 600 East.
Staff has recommended that the Commission go back to the original findings and orders of the staff report and subsequent memorandum to support the proposed pad site as initially presented. The new pad site that was created in the 2001 lease squares out the McHenry Parcel and adds 12 more feet to it to utilize some of the property by the loading dock. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the pad site as originally requested by the developer with the conditions of the original staff report.
Mr. Jonas invited the petitioner to come forward and speak. Mr. Doug Holmberg, representing Total Property Asset Management, spoke next. He drew the Commission’s attention to a three-ring binder he had put together to detail the project. He said that based on the two previous meetings with the Commission, they had followed up on the Commission’s requests to see if anything could be done and found that it could not. At this point in time, they have a lease is place with Fred Meyer that has been there since 1994. That lease was done based on agreements at that time with the City, Total Property Asset Management and Fred Meyer. The bottom line is, as the owner of the property, if they develop the property it has to be done subject to the terms of the lease. That requires that the pad be back to the west and that traffic circulation goes as originally intended to the east, connecting the upper and lower parking lots. Total Property Asset Management is in agreement with what Staff is recommending.
Ms. McDonough asked for clarification on which graphic in the binder was the most accurate. Mr. Jonas said it was Exhibit C in Tab 5.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Holmberg was suggesting that the terms of the lease are more important than the zoning on the property. Mr. Holmberg said he believed they were in compliance with zoning. He was not proposing that one or the other was more important. He assumed that if the Commission did not approve the petition, the property would not get developed, because the owners are bound by the terms of their lease.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone from the community council wished to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then asked if anyone from the general public wished to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Mr. Jonas felt that the petitioner had made an effort to try and make the Commission’s previous requests work. The Commission now needed to decide if they will allow the petitioner to develop the land.
Mr. Daniels said he felt staff had done a good job researching the project. He also believed the applicant for the petition had done their very best to try to work with Staff and the Commission on trying to come up with a compromise. Failing that, he felt they had come up with the best use of the piece of land.
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to approve Conditional Use 410-586 with the conditions outlined in the original staff report.
Ms. Funk asked if Mr. Daniels would modify the motion to state that the Commission was approving the conditional use based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Mr. Daniels agreed.
Amended Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to approve Conditional Use 410-586 based on the findings of fact in the original staff report, and subject to the conditions outlined in the original staff report. Ms. Funk seconded the motion.
Conditions of Approval
1. That the developer provides a street tree protection plan and the building permit plans be reviewed and approved by the City’s Urban Forester.
2. That the Planning Director or designee approves the final landscape plans.
3. That the Historic Landmark Commission staff approves the final site plan.
4. That the final plans meet all applicable City codes excluding the site plan modifications relating to landscape yard requirements, obstructions in required yards and front yard parking.
5. That the Planning Director is delegated the authority to approve the design of future structures and site plan approval including pedestrian circulation subject to receiving input from the Central City community council and a positive recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Muir asked why Staff had put in the conditions of the Historic Landmark Commission approval as an adjunct to what the Commission does. Mr. Joyce said it was basically a preparation pad site and the building had not been presented yet. Since it is in a historic district, the future building design will have to be presented to the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Muir asked if that did not normally happen before it came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Joyce said Staff has asked for the building design to be approved and given to Administration and Historic Landmark Commission to review, without bringing the building back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Joyce said that was not normal procedure, but once the pad site was created it forced the location of the building. Mr. Muir expressed concern about putting the petitioner into a corner by saying the Planning Commission’s approval is subject to the Historic Landmarks Commission approval.
Mr. Jonas asked why Landmarks has approval on site plan. Mr. Joyce said it was not the site plan, but the future building. Mr. Jonas noted that Condition No. 3 stated that the Historic Landmark Commission staff approves the final site plan. Mr. Joyce said that was an internal review and not a public meeting. The only thing that would be public with Landmarks would be the design of the building. Mr. Jonas asked if Condition No. 3 could be modified to say, “The Planning Director or Designee approves the final site plan.” Mr. Joyce agreed. Mr. Daniels and Ms. Funk agreed to modify the motion accordingly.
Mr. Zunguze said the issue at hand here was the review of a planned development which has been pending because of the dispute related to the site orientation itself. They could not go to the Landmarks Commission because there were no building plans to review since the site design was not approved. The Planning Commission had to settle the site issues before it could go to Landmarks. The Landmarks does get involved on site issues only as they relate to the design of buildings.
Ms. McDonough asked if another condition could be added to the motion. She asked for a pedestrian crosswalk that connects the sidewalk on the street to the proposed retail site. Mr. Joyce said Staff supported that and it had been put in as an option. Once the building design is actually created, that would help to determine where that crosswalk should be located. Ms. McDonough asked if that was specifically in the recommendation. Mr. Joyce said Condition No. 5 included pedestrian circulation. Ms. McDonough said that was too vague. She suggested more particular language be added. Mr. Jonas said it could be modified to read, “…including pedestrian circulation to include a crosswalk from 600 East to the proposed building, subject to”, etc. Mr. Daniels and Ms. Funk were in agreement.
Second Amended Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to approve Conditional Use 410-586 based on the findings of fact in the original staff report, and subject to the conditions outlined in the original staff report as modified by the Planning Commission. Ms. Funk seconded the motion.
Conditions of Approval
1. That the developer provides a street tree protection plan and the building permit plans be reviewed and approved by the City’s Urban Forester.
2. That the Planning Director or designee approves the final landscape plans.
3. That the Planning Director or designee approves the final site plan.
4. That the final plans meet all applicable City codes excluding the site plan modifications relating to landscape yard requirements, obstructions in required yards and front yard parking.
5. That the Planning Director is delegated the authority to approve the design of future structures and site plan approval including pedestrian circulation, to include a crosswalk from 600 East to the proposed building, subject to receiving input from the Central City community council and a positive recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Diamond asked if an analysis had been done on the internal circulation of the parking as it relates to the project. He felt that by opening complete circulation from west to east where cars will not have to go out on the main streets would be problematic. Ms. McDonough said that was one of the original subjects of discussion and the reason the Commission had denied the petition for internal circulation in the first place. Mr. Joyce said internal circulation was considered desirable to help reduce the conflict out on to the main streets. The Transportation Department had reviewed the project and had made no negative comments regarding internal circulation. Mr. Diamond reiterated that from a land use perspective it was very congested.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote:
Mr. Chambless, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Prescott, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Scott, Ms. Funk, Mr. Daniels, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
Section 21A.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses: The Planning Commission shall only approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional uses based upon written findings of fact with regard to each of the standards set forth below.
21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses.
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this title.
Finding: The proposed pad site modifies the boundaries of the Family Center development approved through conditional use 410-135. The pad site proposal modifies the original planned development therefore conditional use approval is required.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Finding: The proposed development and modification of the original planned development are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and is compatible with goals and objectives of applicable master plans.
Section 21A.26.040.I - Effect of Planned Development on Minimum Standards. Within the CS zoning text specific standards are established. The Planning Commission may modify the following site standards in the approval of a planned development.
1. 21A26.040.F Landscaped Yard Requirements:
Landscaped front yard of 15 feet.
Finding: The proposed front yard landscape setback matches the standard set with the approval of planned development case 410-135.
2. 21A.36.020.B Obstructions with required Yards.
Finding: The proposed grade change site modifications are consistent with the overall development character of the Fred Meyer development that was approved through planned development conditional use 410-135.
3. 21A.44.050.C Parking Restrictions Within Yards.
Finding: The proposed off-street parking location modifications are consistent with the overall development plan approved through planned development 410-135.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
Finding: The proposed development access and adjacent streets are suitable and approval of the pad lot will not degrade existing service levels of adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Finding: The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed for automobile circulation. The site plan meets City standards, however, enhancement of the pedestrian circulation system is desirable. The final site plan should be modified to improve pedestrian circulation and final approvals should be subject to Planning Director review and approval.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Finding: Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development, subject to City approval of building permit plans.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Finding: Appropriate buffering to protect adjacent land uses is provided and is consistent with existing development.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed development layout is consistent with the existing shopping center site and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Future structures will be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission to ensure compatibility.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development.
Finding: The proposed landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property.
Finding: There are no historical, architectural or environmental features to preserve on the site.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with the adjacent land uses.
Finding: This standard is not applicable.
K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Finding: The proposed conditional use, a pad lot for the existing shopping center, is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Finding: The proposed development will meet all other applicable codes and ordinances prior to the issuance of a building permit subject to zoning standards modified as part of this planned development approval.
21.54.150 Planned Developments
The proposal meets the following objectives of the Planned development purpose statement:
1. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations.
Finding: The proposed development provides a more desirable environment and one that is consistent with the existing shopping center than possible through strict application of the zoning ordinance.
2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities.
Finding: The proposed pad site will result in a better physical design layout for the shopping center and will provide the potential for a more aesthetic amenity to the 600 East streetscape by allowing a pad building to be placed adjacent to the existing loading dock area.
21A.54.15.E Other Planned Development Standards
1. Minimum Area: A planned development proposed for any parcel or tract of land under single ownership or control shall have a minimum net lot area for each zoning district as set forth in Table 21A.54.150 E 2.
Finding: The entire shopping center planned development meets the minimum lot area requirement.
2. Density Limitations: Residential planned developments shall not exceed the density limitation of the zoning district where the planned development is proposed.
Finding: The residential density limitations do not apply to the proposed development.
3. Consideration of Reduced Width Public Street Dedication.
Finding: The consideration of reduced street width does not apply to the proposed development.
The hearing ended at 6:36 p.m.
Petition No. 400-03-05 by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, requesting the Planning Commission declare as surplus property, approximately 620 acres of land located between 6300 and 7400 West, between 1300 and 2700 North and exchange it for a 116 acre parcel of land at approximately 2252 North, 3200 West. The Airport property is in Salt Lake City and is zoned Open Space (OS) / Lowland Conservancy (LC). The property located at 2252 North 3200 West is in unincorporated Salt Lake County.
The hearing began at 7:26 p.m. Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report. The Salt Lake Department of Airports is proposing to acquire a 116 acre parcel north of the airport to protect their airspace. This property will be exchanged for 620 acres of land located northwest of the airport. Mr. McCandless showed the Commission the areas of land in question on an enlarged aerial photograph. The 620 acres were purchased when the airport added a new runway and was required to purchase full parcels.
Section 10-9-305(2) and Section 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code require that the sale of City owned property be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. McCandless referred the Commissioners to map 15 of the City’s Open Space Plan, Bailey’s Lake, contained in the staff report which shows Open Space corridors extending through the Airport property. Declaring the property surplus without retaining pedestrian easements appears to be contrary to the intent of the Open Space Plan. There are essentially two corridors of open space through the Airport property, one along the Northpoint canal, and the other through the Bailey’s Lake area.
Staff had suggested to the Airport that as part of the transaction, the Airport retain an easement to accommodate the future trail corridors through the area. Both the Airport and Buyer are opposed to that idea for a number of reasons. The first concern is that the exact location of the trail corridors is not known. The second concern is that the Airport has indicated that since the property was purchased with Federal dollars, the proceeds from the sale can be used for airport purposes only.
The Airport is looking at implementing a conservation easement on the property to make sure that the property is used for agricultural purposes. Staff is recommending getting an easement now, rather than some time in the future. If the Planning Commission determines that a trail through the area is not needed, they will need to amend the open space plan.
Mr. Jonas asked if Bailey’s Lake actually existed. Mr. Wheelwright said it did exist. It is generally a low area that does not always have water in it. An elevated drainage canal runs through the middle of it. Occasionally the drainage canal floods and flows over the banks to fill the basin.
Ms. Funk asked if Mr. Pace had a suggestion on how to retain easements for future trails when they did not know specifically where the trails would be located. Mr. Pace said that subject to an agreement with the Buyer, it is not uncommon to reserve an easement for this purpose without defining where its specific location is. That often times will occur when there is an adjacent property and you want access. The easement may be defined to a certain location or may be moved from time to time. Ms. Funk asked if the owner could then determine where the corridor would be located. Mr. Pace said that would ultimately be negotiated at the time of sale. In theory the City would say they recommend a sale, but subject to the retention of a corridor for a trail, at a location to be agreed upon. The Buyer and Seller would put that language into a deed. Ms. Funk asked what would happen if the Buyer and Seller could not agree on the location of the corridor. Mr. Pace said it would not be left that vague to begin with. If the location was not designated at time of sale, there would be a default mechanism that said if the Buyer does not designate it, the Seller will. Mr. Pace said the Commission’s decision tonight would be a recommendation to the Mayor as to whether or not this property transaction should go forward. If the Commission wants to keep a trail corridor, they need to say that, and that the Mayor needs to decide where the trail should be at the time of sale.
Ms. Seelig asked when there would be a Northwest Quadrant master plan. Mr. Wheelwright said that was not funded as yet. Ms. Seelig said it was exceedingly hard to make decisions concerning these things when there is no master plan. Mr. Wheelwright said they lacked a land use master plan. The open space plan is an adopted plan that is specific to this issue. Mr. Zunguze added that he hoped when long range land use issues were discussed, the Commission will speak very unanimously to send a message to the City Council that the Commission wants a master plan prepared. The Planning Division cannot make the City Council make funding available. The Planning Commission can do that as an advisory body to the City Council.
Ms. Funk asked if the land lay within the Salt Lake County Shorelines plan that was presented tonight. Mr. Wheelwright said it does.
Mr. Jonas asked the petitioner to come forward and speak. Mr. Steve Domino, Planning Director for Salt Lake City Department of Airports, spoke next. He spoke to the issue of providing an easement. He had asked the City Attorney to provide a legal opinion on their ability to reserve property for an easement. A copy of the City Attorney’s opinion was given to the Planning Director at this meeting. Mr. Domino said that basically, because of diversion of revenue issues, there is a problem. The land was purchased from Federal grants, and assets owned and controlled by the Airport have to be used specifically for airport purposes. As such, the Airport could not accommodate an easement for a public use through the land that is not specifically associated with an Airport purpose.
Ms. Funk said the Airport will no longer own the property. Mr. Domino said that was fine. Once the property was sold, whatever arrangements the City chooses to impose on the property can certainly be done. The problem is that the Airport cannot impose any constraints on the property while the Airport owns it.
Mr. Jonas said the Commission was just making a recommendation tonight. How someone figures the easement issue out later will not be the Commission’s concern. The Commission has the open space plan to deal with, so they would try to do what they think on a land use basis is best. He expressed his appreciation to Mr. Domino for making them aware of the regulations.
Mr. Russell Pack, Director of Administration for the Airport, spoke next. He said there were two issues that needed to be clarified. The first issue of the property owners and proposed buyers is the undefined easement. Currently, the corridor that is described bifurcates the property in several ways. The buyers are concerned that the ultimate plan the City would impose will lessen the value of the property. The second issue about an undefined easement is that somewhere compensation has to be given for the value of that easement when the exchange does occur. Unfortunately, without some definition, the Airport does not know what the dollar value would be for the easement. The proposed buyers have indicated their willingness to work with the City in the future for a trail. If the trail is defined now, they do not know where it would tie in or end up. If a corridor is even loosely described at some point in this process, the Airport would have to have another appraisal that will then reflect the diminished value of the land and some means of compensation. Mr. Pack thanked the Commission for their understanding of the Airport’s position on the issue.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing up to the public and invited anyone from the community council to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then asked if anyone from the general public would like to speak.
Ms. Jennifer Gilmore, potential buyer of the Airport’s property, spoke next. She and her family are ranchers in the Northwest Quadrant. They wish to purchase the property to supplement their winter range. Their animals are rotated through pastures. She was concerned about an easement, wondering how the area would be regulated and policed. There is a problem already in the area with trespassing and littering. An easement would allow anyone to go in and do the same. From time to time the animals will be worked in an area where people using the easement might bring their dogs. Dogs can wreak havoc on their work with the cattle. Acquiring the land would be a tremendous asset for their operation, and would help to solidify their future. Whether or not fencing will be needed and who will maintain it will have to be worked out. The family is willing to do what they need to for the transaction to occur.
Mr. Daniels asked if Ms. Gilmore had consulted with Planning Staff or the applicants about her family’s concerns. Ms. Gilmore said she had attended some of the meetings held about the Shorelands Plan. She has expressed her concerns at those meetings. The Northwest Quadrant is very sensitive area from the wildlife perspective. That should be considered very carefully when considering where to place easements. They should be where there is the least impact on migrating and nesting birds.
Mr. Joe Erickson, part of the Gilmore family, spoke next. He said their business had been around for about 106 years. The City is growing out towards the lake and their business, along with the duck clubs, are the only ones stopping that growth. It is an extremely sensitive area with wildlife habitat. Their family is sensitive to that, and would try to keep it that way if the land purchase goes through. They have no interest in development; they just want to run their livestock. The area is unusual and unique. Most of the property in that area is private. As far as a trail, to access the area in the first place would require going through several different property owners before you would even get to their property.
Mr. Wheelwright said it was not uncommon for the City to acquire increments of corridors, easements, or trails over time according to a plan. It has been done for over 20 years in the Foothills. Saying that because you do not have easements in place to tie a trail into other pieces of private land is not a reason to dismiss what the master plan recommends. Also, until there is a comprehensive trail easement in place that connects the public land, there will not be any actual use of the trail. If the Commission follows the Staff recommendation, the City would be preserving a future right that would not be exercised until it was a part of a specific trail development proposal. Logically, that would occur if and when the other surrounding property in the Northwest Quadrant develops in an urban manner.
Ms. Funk asked if that could be 20 years down the road. Mr. Wheelwright said yes. Ms. Funk said the use of the property could change in 20 years. The owners could change.
Ms. Funk asked if the property was part of the uplands. Mr. Wheelwright said Bailey’s Lake would remain as habitat forever. The City is interested in trails that go along the edge of the habitat to provide circulation through the larger area. Ms. Funk asked if this is part of the area that might be developable later. Mr. Wheelwright said if it was south of Bailey’s Lake, yes. Ms. Funk asked if that would be part of the proposed property. Mr. Wheelwright said it would be abutting the property.
Mr. Chambless asked if 20 years from now, eminent domain was envisioned as a possibility to acquire some of the land. Mr. Wheelwright said that was a possibility. It would have to be authorized and funded. The City has used eminent domain to obtain part of the Bonneville Shoreline trail above the Capitol.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and rebut any comments from the public. Mr. Domino said he had not heard much discussion on the conservation easement. The Buyer has agreed to grant a conservation easement over the entire parcel, which would prohibit any future development on the property perpetually. At any time that the City chose to acquire an easement or trail, they can approach the Buyer. Mr. Domino also clarified that most of the property in the area is upland. Some of the Bailey’s Lake area is occasionally wet. Typically it is wet during the spring time. It is generally a saline meadow area, not a deep water area. Mr. Domino understood that the Buyers were very reluctant to continue with the transaction if there was a requirement of an easement at this time because of the many issues and uncertainties.
Mr. Pack said the Buyers had indicated their willingness to cooperate with the City in the future if and when a trail is prescribed. The Airport supports the master plan and the trail system at some point as it makes sense. If the recommendation goes forth to the City Council that a corridor be described for preserve without being able to define it, the Airport will not be able show its location for the Buyer’s satisfaction nor be able to determine compensation or the property’s decreased value.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Zunguze addressed the issue of condemnation. Cities do not often get into the condemnation process because it is messy and unadvisable. That is why it is important to engage in long range planning. What is important is whether the Commission wants to give up what has been indicated in the master plan. If they wish to retain the right to the easement, any future property owner would be put on notice that at some point when conditions merit, that right would apply.
Mr. Chambless asked if there was a long range master plan in place, could the City probably avoid any possibilities of eminent domain being invoked. Mr. Zunguze said there was an open space master plan at this point. What they did not have was the land use component.
Mr. Diamond asked if Item 3 in the staff recommendation could be changed to be not so one-sided. The word “imposed” concerned him. He wondered if there was a way to say it was a joint agreement between the City and the future land owner. Mr. Zunguze said yes.
Mr. Pace indicated that if the Commission was interested in reserving a corridor either now or for future use, the language could be adjusted. Mr. Pace then offered another option. If what the Commission wants is a corridor that will not be used for 20 or 30 years, they can structure an agreement with an option. The City could retain an option to purchase a corridor at some future date. Condemnation would be unnecessary then. Mr. Pace said again that this was ultimately a recommendation and the Mayor will make the final call.
Mr. Muir said it was good public policy for the Commission to go on record to recommend adopting the easement. He said he thought the Commission already knows where the easement needs to be. It should be along the edge of Bailey’s Lake and therefore it could be defined as such to make it part of the deal.
Referring to map 15 of the staff report, Mr. Jonas asked what the portion of the easement was coming from the south of Bailey’s Lake. Mr. Wheelwright said the map recognized there is a railroad underpass under I-80 at about 6200 West, and it shows an opportunity to get under the freeway with a trail. The trail is projected to go north to the vicinity of Bailey’s Lake.
Mr. Jonas said that would be the most difficult portion for defining a trail because coming from the south the trail would bifurcate the property. Ms. Funk said she did not wish to define the trail very clearly because things could be so different 20 years from now. She believed the Commission should make the recommendation to retain the right for an easement in the future. She was very reluctant to give up trail possibilities.
Mr. Pace said there is some substance to the legal issue that if Airport funds have been used for an asset and that asset is now going to be converted to general public use, that is a shift in the use of the asset. All that means is that there needs to be some cost accounting justification internally within the City. The real question is whether the City wants to sell the property or not. The City could sell some of it, all of it, or none of it. If the concept of an easement is uncomfortable, the City could just retain the property. Mr. Pace advised the Commission not to be too concerned about the accounting or legal issues. Their concern was about long term land use.
Mr. Jonas was interested in the conservation easement so that the land will remain open and that is a real plus.
Ms. Funk favored the trade because she could see the need for the Airport to have control of the Gilmore property.
Ms. Scott was reluctant to put in any verbiage that discusses having to buy an easement at a future date. She thought the easement could be retained now with no discussion of having to exchange monies in the future.
Mr. Daniels agreed. He felt there should be something in the agreement giving the City the right to retain the easement. He suggested that staff recommendation number 3 be changed to read, “The City retain the right to cooperatively institute pedestrian or trail easements through the property if needed in the future to implement the goals”, etc. He took out the word “impose”.
Mr. Pace asked if Mr. Daniels was talking about the location of the easement. Mr. Daniels said yes. Mr. Pace said the City is simply not going to sell the property unless it gets to keep an easement. What he understood Mr. Daniels to mean was that the City would work cooperatively with the Buyer to identify the location of the easement. Mr. Daniels said that was accurate.
Mr. Diamond hoped the City will deal cooperatively with any private property owner as it creates a trail system in the future. It needs to be a positive thing for the community. Mr. Pace said generally that was the case.
Mr. Jonas said once a plan like the open space plan is in place, any development plan would have to be looked at by the Commission.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to recommend to the Mayor in the case of Petition 400-03-05 a declaration of surplus property and the transfer of the Airport property for the Gilmore property based on the findings of facts in the staff report, including the recommendations in the staff report with Item Number 3 being altered to read, “The City retain the right to cooperatively determine the location of pedestrian or trail easements through the property in the future”, etc. Mr. Diamond seconded the motion.
Mr. Pace asked if Ms. Funk was suggesting that the easement is retained now. Ms. Funk said yes. Ms. Funk amended the language in Item 3 to say an easement is retained. Mr. Diamond accepted the modification to the language of Item 3.
Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved to recommend to the Mayor in the case of Petition 400-03-05 a declaration of surplus property and the transfer of the Airport property for the Gilmore property based on the findings of facts in the report, including the recommendations in the staff report with Item Number 3 being altered to read, “The City retain the easement and work cooperatively to determine the location of pedestrian or trail easements through the property in the future”, etc. Mr. Diamond seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir said he hoped Staff could define now where the easement should be and make that part of the deal, with the caveat that the City does not have to sell it. He believed the Commission should go on record about what they think is important for the community. A cooperative agreement from the Buyer’s perspective would be along the property line 20 years from now.
Mr. Wheelwright reminded the Planning Commission that there is a note in the open space master plan that says any specific trail corridor needs to be approved by the Planning Commission through a planning process. That was what was done with the Bonneville Shoreline trail. Staff could work on it and bring it back to the Planning Commission for endorsement. Ms. Funk asked if Staff could do that well at this time. Mr. Wheelwright said it could not be done in a few days; it would be more like a multi-month planning exercise to collect data and look at the property on the ground, bring that back to the Planning Commission and hold a public hearing to make a decision.
Ms. Scott said rather than rush the job, it would be more expedient to drop the language about working cooperatively and go back to the word “impose”. It goes without saying that there would be every attempt to be cooperative. Ultimately, the easement would be imposed wherever it was needed. Future conditions are too uncertain to decide where to place the easement at this time.
Mr. Jonas said the economics of the situation was that Airport wanted the Gilmore’s piece of land. The City was, therefore, not in such a good bargaining position and the deal needed to work for both sides. Pinning down the easement would be unadvisable.
Ms. Noda agreed with Mr. Jonas. She did not feel that the Commission could dictate where the easement should be at this point in time.
Ms. Seelig said she was more inclined to agree with Mr. Muir. She was not sure about even surplussing the property at all. There is an incomplete vision in the area. The trails are not planned out, which speaks to another process that has to occur. There is not a land use plan for the area.
Ms. Funk said she assumed that the City wants to make this trade. Therefore, the only thing the Planning Commission can do is make it the best trade possible. The Mayor will make the decision and she suspects the decision has already been somewhat made.
Mr. Wheelwright said the Commission had received a memo from the airport saying this 620 acres represents about $500,000 worth of value. The other $1.5 million is going to be paid by the Airport from proceeds from the sale of land in the Buena Vista area. The Commission could possibly consider not surplussing the land, which would not prohibit the Airport from proceeding to acquire the 116 acres totally with funds from the Buena Vista area. The Commission could also break it up and look at a rather isolated parcel to the northwest to be declared surplus, and the Airport could pay the difference with the other funds.
Ms. Seelig asked if that meant there were other ways to acquire the property the Airport needs other than by surplussing it. Mr. Wheelwright said yes. Mr. Jonas said that was not definite. Acquiring other property was important to the Gilmores before they would give up the property they are currently using.
Mr. Diamond asked if he could ask the Gilmores more questions. Mr. Jonas reopened the public hearing. Mr. Diamond asked them to show the Commission on the aerial photograph the other property that they own surrounding the land in question. Mr. Erickson showed the Commission the land they owned. The property exchange would allow their range to be contiguous. Mr. Diamond asked the Gilmores what their feeling was about where the trail should be located.
Ms. Gilmore said they do not have a lot of input. There are so many property owners, an the easement has no ending and no beginning. Mr. Rob Erickson spoke next. He said in the future a trail right down one of the canals would be the best. Their biggest concern was that as a land owner, they would like the same rights as any of the land owners in the area. If they take the property, they do not want to negotiate with the City at that time. They want rights already established. That diminishes their right to say where the trail would go. The property will change over the years, and the trail will have to be located where it makes sense at the time. Mr. Diamond asked if the Gilmores would be using all the property together. They said yes. They own property on both sides of the land and lease a lot of land in the area as well.
Ms. Gilmore asked the Commission to consider that the property they wish to acquire will have multiple restrictions on it that dictate the future value of the property. The 116 acres that the City will acquire has a radar restriction on part of it, but the rest is unencumbered. The development potential is impossible to calculate at this point. The family is giving up a piece of property that has extraordinary potential value for something that will have a perpetual restriction on it that will limit the value forever.
Ms. Arnold said the fact that his property is unbuildable forever helps her to understand the family’s concern of running an easement dead center down the middle of it. She agreed with Ms. Funk’s earlier comments about not putting in stone something that could happen 30 years from now. She felt that would be improper.
Mr. Jonas agreed, noting the changes in the Shorelands over the course of the years. There are too many unknowns, however the Commission had an obligation to preserve some kind of trail which should be cooperatively agreed upon.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing. Ms. Scott asked if the motion could be amended in recommendation Item 3 to “The City retain the easement right to impose pedestrian or trail easements”, etc. Ms. Funk and Mr. Diamond were not in agreement with that.
Ms. Funk asked if the Commission really wanted to sell this piece of property. She suggested surplussing some of the property.
Ms. Arnold said again that the City and the Airport wants that piece of land. She did not feel the Commission should try to rewrite it.
Mr. Daniels said the motion on the table as stated by Ms. Funk is fair and something most of them could live with. He felt the Mayor could live with it also.
Ms. Funk then restated the motion. Ms. Arnold asked if the words “cooperatively with the owner”, needed to be added. Ms. Funk and Mr. Diamond agreed.
Second Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved to recommend to the Mayor in the case of Petition 400-03-05 a declaration of surplus property and the transfer of the Airport property for the Gilmore property based on the findings of facts in the report, including the recommendations in the staff report with Item Number 3 being altered to read, “The City retain the easement and work cooperatively with the owner to determine the location of pedestrian or trail easements through the property in the future”, etc. Mr. Diamond seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote:
Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Scott, Ms. Funk, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Prescott, Ms. Seelig, and Ms. McDonough voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Recommendations:
1. The property north of 2200 North Street be annexed if the property is proposed for development or if city utility services are required in the future. The property also should be annexed if it can logically be included in some future larger area annexation effort (whichever comes first).
2. A conservation easement as described in the attached United States Department of the Interior letter dated March 3, 2003 be implemented.
3. The City retain the easement and work cooperatively with the owner to determine the location of pedestrian or trail easements through the property in the future to implement the goals and policies of the City's Open Space Plan or the City's Open Space Plan be amended to revise or eliminate the pedestrian corridors as shown on Map 15 Bailey's Lake.
4. All City departmental requirements be met and applicable or necessary easements be retained and recorded.
Findings of Fact:
A. Northpoint Small Area Plan: According to the Northpoint Small Area Plan, the purpose of the plan "is to eliminate potential land use conflicts with the Salt Lake International Airport while preserving and enhancing the existing agricultural lifestyle." The proposed property exchange is consistent with that goal as the purpose of the exchange is to protect airspace.
Finding: The proposed property exchange is consistent with the goals and purposes of the Northpoint Small Area Plan.
B. Open Space Plan: The Salt Lake City Open Space Plan, adopted in 1992, identifies open space and open space corridor opportunities throughout the City. The four main goals of the plan are to:
• Conserve the natural environment.
• Enhance open space amenities for all citizens.
• Connect the various parts of the City to natural environments.
• Educate the citizens on proper use of open space.
Finding: Declaring the property surplus without amending the adopted Open Space Plan or securing pedestrian easements is contrary to the Open Space Plan.
C. Annexation: The Airport does not intend to annex the property given there are no plans to improve the property at this time. Staff does not have any concerns with this. However, at such time as the property is developed or Salt Lake City utilities are required, this property should be annexed into the City.
Finding: Annexation is not necessary at this time, however, as a part of a larger area annexation effort, or at such time as the property is to be developed or Salt Lake City utilities are required, the property should be annexed into the City and zoned according to applicable master plan policies.
D. State & Local Codes. The proposed declaration of surplus property is consistent with Utah State Code, Section 10-9-305(2), Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58, S.L.C. Code, S.L.C. Code Section 21A.32.100 Open Space District (OS), and Section 21A.34.050 - Lowland Conservancy Overlay District (LC).
Finding: The proposed declaration of surplus property and conveyance are consistent with applicable State and Local Codes.
The hearing ended at 8:31 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Continued discussion of Petition No. 400-03-07, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Arla Funk) requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.11c. Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts.
The hearing began at 6:36 p.m. and was heard out of sequence with the agenda. Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright and Planner Ray McCandless reviewed the petition. Mr. McCandless said that after a number of discussions among Staff, they had come up with a new recommendation, which was included in a letter dated June 2, 2003 to the Commission this evening. He said they were attempting to create a process that allows the Planning Commission the discretion to count steep slopes towards meeting the zoning required lot minimums, provided that the lot meets certain criteria. Section 18.28.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance would be modified as follows:
c.1 Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process.
c.2 For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that:
a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street,
b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include all areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback from the undevelopable area, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,
c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street and,
d. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Mr. Wheelwright reviewed the three recommendations presented to the Commission at the prior meeting. The recommendation presented tonight is a modification of the second option presented in the original staff report, with a couple of additions. Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Wheelwright to go through the additions. Mr. Wheelwright said the changes to Option 2 is that it originally said it would take out the planned development review as the other option, so that a petitioner would either meet the requirements or have to go through a process to establish three criteria. The criterion is basically the same, except that Staff has added “D”, which is a determination of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood that the Planning Commission would make. Under the new proposal there would be three ways to deal with property: 1) It would meet the ordinance requirement in that none of the lot area would be counted steeper than 30% slope towards the zone required minimum lot size; 2) If there is 5 acres, the petitioner can proceed through plan development approval; or 3) the proposed new ordinance modification above.
Mr. Zunguze clarified that following the Commission’s vote at the prior meeting, Staff had the strong impression that the Commission did not want to change what was previously done in 2001. The challenge then was how to deal with those parcels that do not qualify to enter the review process using the 2001 parameters. The proposed ordinance is not in any way trying to address the errors that were committed with the last case that brought them to this point. The intention was to address the long term impact of land use decisions made with respect to the Foothill area, given the 2001 ordinance and what the City Attorney said are the potential liability issues for the City for parcels that do not meet that criteria.
Ms. Funk was troubled by the language in Item B saying, “The net buildable area shall not include all areas of 30% or greater slope”, and wondered if this ordinance would allow the Commission to say a petitioner could use 90% of 30% slope or better. There appeared to be no limitation of how much of a 30% grade the Commission could use. Mr. Wheelwright suggested then that he and Mr. McCandless explain how they would arrive at that determination. They showed the Commission illustrations that helped to explain how they came up with the 30% slope calculations. The first determination made is what portion of the property is steeper than 30%. None of the proposals allow any 30% slope to be developed. It is strictly a matter of whether it can be included in the lot size or not. The line between the developable and undevelopable is called in the ordinance the “development limit line”. That line is transferred onto the plat and onto the site plan.
In the subdivision process, the potential lot would be further defined by establishing the required yards, which are front, rear and side. The front is 20 feet, the sides in the FR-3 zone are 10 feet and the FR-1, FR-2 and FP zones are 20 feet. If there is a steep slope area, they would also delineate the elements of the transitional area. The transitional area under the 1994 ordinance is defined as the area between the protected steep slope area and where the house structure can be built. The house has to be set back from the transitional area a minimum of 10 feet. A 10 foot line would be on the plat and site plan. The overall requirement is that the house would be set back an average of 20 feet from the undevelopable line. The area minus the front and side yard setbacks, and minus the transitional area would have to meet a 1,500 square feet minimum. If it was not, the property would be determined not to contain a buildable area large enough to be a lot. It would not be allowed to be developed. If it did meet the minimum, it could proceed to the Planning Commission for development approval. If the Planning Commission felt that all the standards were met, it could approve the project.
Mr. Pace responded to Ms. Funk’s original question. He said if she was referring to the word “all”, it could be changed to the word “any”. It would still have the intended meaning. Ms. Funk asked for further clarification of the language stating that, “the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone”. Mr. Pace said the presumption of the ordinance c1 is that you cannot count steep slopes toward the minimum lot size. Ordinance c2 is the exception, where there is small lot that does not have 5 acres to go through the planned development process. C2 is creating an “escape clause” which says under certain circumstances the Commission can consider a steep slope area as part of the lot size, if it meets criteria a, b, c and d.
Mr. Jonas felt that changing the language from “all” to “any” would be very helpful. He had specifically asked Mr. Zunguze and staff to not address the previously discussed lot and whether or not it complies. This will not just apply to an individual lot, but could be applicable to other parcels in the future. He appreciated the illustrations said they had helped his understanding of the process.
Ms. Funk believed the ordinance needed to be rewritten for more clarity. Ms. McDonough asked if there was confusion between c2, saying that slopes may be counted to meet the lot area, and Item B, where it talks about not counting the 30% to the buildable area. Lot area and buildable area are two different things. Ms. Funk understood that, but thought the ordinance itself was confusing the way it was written, and that it could be made much simpler and clearer. She suggested the ordinance say that if a lot does not meet the minimum requirements for planned development, the slopes can count toward the lot area so that the Commission can consider it.
Mr. Muir thought that in every case the ordinance was saying that the Planning Commission is going to count slopes over 30% relevant to lot size. In terms of density that is in the mix. He asked why then the ordinance said the Planning Commission may count slopes and wondered why that language could not be stricken. Mr. Pace noted under paragraph c1 that the current ordinance says the slopes are not counted unless they have a large enough parcel to go through a planned development process. Mr. Wheelwright said that was a change effective in 2001.
Ms. Funk asked about the general easement over the 30% grade. She wanted to know why there was not a general ordinance written that that is true everywhere instead of on specific lots. Mr. Wheelwright said the zoning ordinance only provides the 30% slope development restriction in the Foothill zoning districts. Ms. Funk asked why there could not be a general Foothill 30% slope easement. Mr. Wheelwright said one reason would be that as they approve subdivisions, they basically vest each lot with the approval requirements that existed when it was approved. If there was a more general ordinance, they could be saying that if there was a steep slope in an area of a lot that was approved as a subdivision before it was regulated, the lot owner could not use it.
Mr. Muir said the Planning Commission would want to make the opportunity to build under the criteria in c2 very rare and a real exception. He asked why they should not then amend the minimum planned development size as was previously proposed to give greater opportunities to qualify under planned development and fewer opportunities to come before the Commission on these exceptional cases. Mr. Zunguze said they could do that, as noted earlier because staff had the impression from the Commission that when that proposal was put on the table the Commission was uncomfortable with changing the minimum standards of the 2001 ordinance. He felt the majority of the Commission had believed the original ordinance was well thought out and should be left as written. Mr. Zunguze said the Commission could reopen the issue and look at it again as part of this discussion, if they wished.
Mr. Muir said at the last discussion there was concern about adequate staging areas for construction. If the excessive slope areas are preservation zones, 1,500 feet is not enough level property to build a house. In his opinion, he thought twice that number would be needed – 1,500 feet for a staging area, and 1,500 feet for a building pad. He thought perhaps they should look at requiring 3,000 feet, 1,500 of which was the buildable footprint, or they come up with an alternative staging plan, such as an off-site staging area. Mr. Zunguze said that was one of the issues raised by concerned citizens in the past week. Mr. Wheelwright said ideally the lot owner would be excavating what needed to be excavated, and the only material kept on site would be the material necessary to backfill the foundation.
Mr. Diamond said Mr. Muir had a good point about the size of the buildable area. The 1,500 square foot footprint does not relate to the size of pad needed to construct something. If they say with 1,500 square foot minimum, then there should be a plan at the time a permit is issued that says how the owner will go about their excavating. It should be done properly, without disturbing everything on the property or surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Jonas said that should be added as an Item E requirement to the ordinance. The lands are sensitive, and the applicant should have to demonstrate that they can mitigate those issues. Mr. Diamond said if people wish to build on these kinds of sites, they need to understand it will be more expensive to build.
Mr. Diamond asked if any of the tables, such as Table 21A.54.150e2, presented at the last meeting were going to be amended. Mr. McCandless said no. Mr. Diamond asked why not. Mr. Wheelwright said that was because they received the general feeling from the Commission that they were unprepared to change the minimum project size requirements that have been part of the ordinance since 1995. Mr. Diamond said he was concerned with the acreage size and relaxing some of them. He felt that would increase the density in those areas. He would not be an advocate of that.
Mr. Jonas said Staff had done a good job of listening to what was said at the last meeting and the comments all around the table. He felt the proposed ordinance modification was a good compromise.
Mr. Zunguze said that there was also a question raised as to circumstances leading to the Planning Commission denying development approval of a project based on the concept that no areas over 30% slope can count toward the requested minimum lot area.
Mr. Zunguze said the difference between the proposed ordinance and the 2001 ordinance is that, the proposed ordinance says that if you do not meet the 2001 requirements, instead of being simply turned down, your proposed project may be approved by the Planning Commission, provided you meet the (a, b, c, d, and possibly e) requirements. The 2001 ordinance specifically discounted the inclusion of areas with areas over 30% slopes into the minimum lot area calculation. In the proposed ordinance areas of over 30% slopes can be included in determining the lot area, but are excluded from counting towards the buildable area.
Mr. Wheelwright said another option would be to change the 10 foot minimum setback requirement under item B to say “20 foot average setback”. Mr. Diamond asked if it was averaged does that mean some parts of the house could be 5 feet and another 15 feet. Mr. Wheelwright said no. The 1,500 square feet buildable project size would have to exclude the area between the no build and the 10 foot line. He was suggesting that it could also say you would have to exclude both the 10 foot and the 20 foot average setback. That would make it more restrictive, and is a better reflection of how much house could actually be built on the lot.
Mr. Diamond asked if the words “undevelopable area” could be changed to “development limit line.” Mr. Pace said the concern there was that the development limit line is not actually established until the subdivision is approved. Mr. Wheelwright said before this would be brought to the Commission, Staff would be able to recommend where the development limit is located. Mr. Pace said the way to address it would be to identify the line as the “proposed development limit line”. Mr. Diamond said Staff should delineate that line with the applicant or developer before it comes before the Commission. Mr. Wheelwright said part of the changes made in 2001 was an attempt to eliminate some wording that caused disagreement between developers and the City. Ultimately, the line lies where the Planning Commission determines it should be.
Ms. McDonough asked again about the wording “the required 20 foot average setback”. The word “minimum” meant to her that it sets a line that is parallel to the proposed development line. The word “average” could be interpreted as being able to building right on the development line so that the 10 foot setback hard line setback is no longer there. The word “average” is problematic for her. Mr. Wheelwright said the 10 foot line is on the plat and they would not allow any portion of the building to be closer to the nondevelopable areas than 10 feet. In addition, the actual building has to average 20 feet of setback. Both the10 foot minimum line and the 20 foot average lines would be delineated on the plat. Ms. McDonough said the text should acknowledge both separately.
Mr. Jonas asked if everyone was comfortable with the addition of another requirement, and asked if anyone had attempted to wordsmith it. Ms. McDonough said she would make Item D now Item E because that would be the appropriate final statement to the sequence of subparagraphs.
Mr. Pace suggested the following language for the new Item D: “The applicant must demonstrate the ability to manage the staging for construction in a manner that will not impact steep slope areas.” Mr. Muir asked if the words, “as determined by the Planning Director”, could be added. Mr. Zunguze said that if that was added into the ordinance it would give him more teeth to demand it, as opposed to making it an administrative element.
Ms. McDonough said the language should reflect not just slope impact, but overall neighborhood access issues, adjacent property ownership impact, etc. Those kinds of staging impacts should be considered as well. Mr. Pace said they were trying to protect the undevelopable and hopefully undisturbed hillside. If someone got a permit from the City to construct and pile their materials in the street that would presumably be ok. Mr. Wheelwright said the current permitting process does not necessarily tell you where the excavator would be putting the excavated material. Ms. McDonough said they were asking for a staging plan. Mr. Wheelwright said there would be a plan approved by the Planning Director before it came before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Chambless asked if the property owner could take the case to the Board of Adjustments and argue for a variance because of a hardship. Mr. Wheelwright said no. There are limited, specific matters that the Board of Adjustment is empowered to consider on new lots.
Mr. Pace suggested the following modified language for the new Item D: “The applicant must present a construction plan acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas.” Mr. Wheelwright said the words “adjacent properties” could also be added. Mr. Pace said almost any neighbor could come in and say it was impacting their property. What you want to say is that you cannot pile the excavated material on adjacent properties.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to adopt the language in Petition 400-03-07 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission as contained in the staff report and the June 2, 2003 memorandum from Staff to the Planning Commission, with the adjustments that have been made to that language at this meeting, and the inclusion of another requirement regarding construction management. Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Mr. Prescott seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms. Arnold voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Amendment to Section 18.28.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance as Modified by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2003
c.1 Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process.
c.2 For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that:
a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street,
b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,
c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street,
d. The applicant must present a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope area and,
e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
The hearing ended at 7:26 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.