SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Craig Mariger, Judi Short, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Jackie Gasparik, Bill Allayaud and Everett Joyce.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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
Mr. Steed moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 18, 2000 subject to the discussed correction being made. Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows and Mr. Mariger were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-466 by NEXTEL Communications and AT&T Wireless Corporation requesting a conditional use to install a wireless telecommunications monopole antenna at 810 North 2200 West. The proposed monopole will be 75 feet high and will accommodate two sets of wireless telecommunications antennas for cellular telephones. Also proposed are two equipment buildings at the base of the monopole. The property is located in a Business Park "BP" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Mariger arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. McCandless relating to the case.
Mr. Snelgrove spoke concerning whether a new pole is needed due to the fact that some recent cellular installations have been placed on existing wooden utility poles. If there is not an existing utility pole that can accommodate this kind of infrastructure, Mr. Snelgrove asked if it would be possible to mount the antennas and the equipment on the proposed monopole in a similar fashion to what is being done on existing utility poles to lessen the visual impact.
Mr. McCandless responded by stating that it is his understanding that the flush mounted antennas being installed on utility poles do not have the range that the other antennas have. He then stated that there are some existing utility poles in the area. If the proposed antennas were mounted on the poles, the equipment buildings would need to be placed in two separate locations rather than in one location.
Mr. Tom Dennison, representing AT&T Wireless, and Mr. Trevor Fink, representing NEXTEL Communications, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Fink responded to Mr. Snelgrove's earlier request about placing the antennas on an existing utility pole. He stated that using an existing utility pole was not a viable option at this site for several reasons, one of which is the range needed that would not be met if an existing utility pole were used.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-466:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-466 to install a wireless telecommunications monopole antenna (which will be 75 feet high and will accommodate two sets of wireless telecommunications antennas for cellular telephones) and two equipment buildings at the base of the monopole subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 The lease area be enclosed with a black vinyl coated chain link fence.
2 The driveway from 2200 West to the facility be hard surfaced.
3 No personnel platform be used and the antenna bracing structure be approved by the Planning Director.
4 Painting the monopole and antennas a flat medium gray color.
5 The antenna and equipment building receive approval from all applicable City, State and Federal departments.
1 If a beacon is required by the FAA, the light be directed up and away from the City and surrounding properties.
2 The exterior of the equipment buildings should be decorative masonry as approved by the Planning Director.
3 The monopole only accommodate two sets of antennas and no microwave dishes be used.
4 Landscaping be provided on the east side of the lease area including an irrigation system and trees as discussed in the staff report.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-464 by HBB Development Incorporated requesting a conditional use for a four-lot Residential Planned Development subdivision, which will be known as the Bailey Planned Development Subdivision, located at approximately 1936 South 1700 East in a Single-Family Residential "R-1/7,000" zoning district.
Ms. Barrows arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Gasparik relating to the case.
Mr. Larry Bailey, 1788 Redondo Avenue, and Mrs. Hazel Bailey, 1936 South 1700 East, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Bailey relating to the case.
Ms. Arnold asked if all four homes will have the same look. Ms. Gasparik responded by stating that Mr. Bailey has chosen the style of homes that will be built, however, he wants to give the home owner the choice of paint colors and the type of block or brick face. The home owners will need to stay within the written covenants when making their decisions.
Ms. Barrows asked if Mr. Bailey would consider including a gate for the private drive in the CC&R's. Mr. Bailey responded by stating that if the Planning Commission recommends that there be a gate for the private drive and that it be included in the CC&R's, he will do so.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Sheila O'Driscoll, Sugar House Community Council Trustee, was present and stated that the community council voted to support this proposed project. Ms. O'Driscoll then stated that she encouraged that the project be approved because the Bailey's have lived in this neighborhood for 60 years and they plan to live on the property once it is developed. In talking with some of the neighbors, they are pleased that the Bailey's will be living on the property and that the proposed development is single family homes.
Mr. Kevin Bond, representing Mr. Ron Hopkins and his father Mr. John Hopkins, the abutting neighbors to the south of the proposed development were present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Bond stated that the Hopkins' have some concerns regarding if there will be appropriate buffering between the proposed development and their home because there is only eight feet from the property line to Mr. Ron Hopkins' bedroom window. Mr. Bond proposes that a solid fence be installed so that headlights are not shining into the window. A solid fence would also provide for both a safety and sound buffer. Mr. Bond then stated that he has some concerns about drainage for the property. Mr. Bond recommends that there be no gate placed on the private drive because he feels it cause parking and turn around problems. The Hopkins' do not believe that there is an adequate location available anywhere on the property for a dumpster. The only possible location for a dumpster would be near the Hopkins' home and putting one there would be detrimental to their property. Mr. Bond then addressed another concern relating to snow removal and if the snow were to be pushed against the barrier between the development and the Hopkins'. If the snow were pushed against the barrier, it would eventually cause damage to that barrier. The Hopkins' also have a traffic concern in relation to where the mailboxes will be placed.
Mr. Mariger asked Mr. Bond what type of fencing material he proposes. Mr. Bond responded by stating that his first choice would be a pre-fabricated ornamental concrete fence that would provide for sound and light barriers. A second choice would be a vinyl fence along with a berm. Mr. Bond then stated that the least desirable fencing would be a chain link because it will not provide sound or light barriers.
Mr. Jonas asked if the Hopkins' would be willing to share the cost of the fencing. Mr. John Hopkins responded by stating that he feels that the Bailey's should provide the fencing for their neighbors because it is their development.
Ms. Zela Jensen, 1939 Imperial Street, stated that she is unhappy because Mr. Bailey did not approach her to discuss his proposal. She then stated that she is opposed to the development because she does not feel safe about the fact that the driveway will end right at her backyard.
Mr. Wilde noted that there is approximately 20 feet from the end of the driveway to the property line.
Ms. Gasparik stated that the Bailey's are proposing to put bushes, hedges and trees along that property line. Ms. Gasparik then noted that the Police Department's CPTED prefers the bushes, hedges and trees because they feel that if people can see in between yards, then it makes it easier for the police to see possible problems from their car.
Mr. Smith then asked Ms. Gasparik to take a few minutes to address the proposal to Ms. Jensen and explain what will take place at her property line.
Ms. Vicky Hall, 1910 South 1700 East, stated that she is concerned about maintenance and safety issues. She then asked if the development would meet code for access to fire plugs. Mr. Smith responded by stating that one of the conditions of approval for the development is that all City codes and standards are met.
Ms. Alice Hummel, 1930 South 1700 East, stated that she is concerned about her fence that abuts the development on the north. She wants to make sure that the fence stays intact and will not be harmed during construction.
Mr. Mike Hodson, 1943 South 1700 East, stated that he is supportive of the Bailey's developing the proposed property. Mr. Hodson then stated that he is concerned about the fact that Ms. Jensen was not contacted by Mr. Bailey and he feels that it would have been common courtesy to do so.
Mr. Smith stated that the City has tried very hard to create a process that allows people to be informed. As part of the process, it is not required of the petitioner to visit the abutting neighbors to inform them of the proposed plans for the area. If the petitioner decides to do so, it is a courtesy. Mr. Smith then stated that the fact that Ms. Jensen is present at the hearing, indicates that she has been notified through part of the City process. Another way that neighbors are informed is through the community councils.
Mr. Hodson then spoke concerning the proposed development and asked what guarantees there are that the development, if approved, will start and finish the way it should be done.
Mr. Wilde responded by stating that as the project goes through the process, all of the public way and common area improvements (i.e. driveway, curb and gutter, sidewalks, fences and building material requirements) all become part of the approval process. If conditions are imposed on the project there is a building permit process and a certificate of occupancy process that provide assurance that projects are developed as presented.
Mr. Hodson then stated that he is concerned about having a chain link fence surrounding this area aesthetically.
Ms. Hall spoke again and asked if the utility lines will be buried. Mr. Wilde responded by stating that he is unable to answer that question specifically for this case. However, generally, the utilities that run from the property line in for a new development will be buried.
Ms. O'Driscoll spoke again and stated that the Bailey's proposal has been going on for over two years and she has made a real concerted effort to make sure that all of the property owners were notified. She then stated that she has tried to represent this neighborhood to the community council as to what goes on in the community.
Ms. Jensen spoke again now that she has a greater understanding of what will take place at her rear property line. She stated that if the Bailey's make sure that the landscaping is dense at her property line, so that she can maintain her privacy, she will be supportive of the project.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows stated that she is concerned with the roadway and the impact it has on the existing homes. She wonders if the rear yard setbacks should be considered more highly than the side yard setbacks because of the impact it makes to abutting property owner's rear yards.
Mr. Jonas stated that he feels that the proposed development is a good fit for the property and it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood as long as the concerns about the headlights coming into the neighbors' windows are addressed.
Motion for Case No. 410-464:
Mr. Snelgrove moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-464 for the four lot Bailey Planned Development subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report and as added by the Planning Commission (underlined portions):
1 Delegate final development approval authority to the Planning Director.
2 Delegate final landscape plan approval authority to the Planning Director. Staff is recommending that the landscaping plan be upgraded to provide more bushes and trees along the fence line if chain link fencing is installed.
3 The applicant is required to finalize all building, construction and landscaping plan details with the Planning Director prior to receiving building permits.
4 An easement shall be provided to Public Utilities for any infrastructure that will be on private property (and shown on the final plat).
5. "No Parking" signs must be installed because of the 20-foot private drive. The development's CC&R's must state that no parking will be allowed at anytime on the private street. Twenty-four hour access must be provided to the City's Fire, Police and Public Utilities Departments. Twenty-four hour access must also be provided to other departments/divisions to provide inspections, maintenance and other services as needed.
6. The project be approved subject to meeting applicable City standards and complying with the various departmental/division conditions and requirements.
7. The fence along the Hummel property (1930 South 1700 East) to the north shall not be disturbed during the construction of the development.
8. The utility lines shall be buried from the property line into the development.
9. The development shall have no dumpster on the property and there shall be no gate across the private drive.
10. To help mitigate the impact of the private drive to the adjacent property owners, an opaque, solid material fence shall be installed on the south and the west of the development. The fence shall go from 3-feet to 6-feet and be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. The Planning Director will also require financial security for the fence in a form that will be acceptable to the City Attorney.
11. The appearance of the houses shall be consistent with what was shown at the meeting.
12. The rear yard setback shall be decreased from 25-feet to 20-feet.
13. The CC&R's shall contain a provision that the exterior of the homes be either brick, stone or stucco materials.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Mr. Steed voted "Nay". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
BRIEFING – Continued discussion of Petition No. 400-98-80 concerning amendments to the Community Business "CB" and Neighborhood Commercial "CN" zones and possible rezoning of selected properties. The Planning Commission will not take action in reference to this petition on June 1st. NOTE: The aspects of this project relating to nonconforming commercial properties will be discussed at a future meeting.
Mr. Bill Allayaud gave a short slide presentation showing various neighborhood type commercial uses to give the Planning Commission an idea of some of the issues of the "CN" zone. After the slide presentation, Mr. Allayaud distributed a handout entitled "Proposed Amendments to the CN/CB Zone Districts and Legal Conforming Uses", a copy of which is filed with the minutes. A discussion followed relating to the amendments included on the handout.
First issue:
Amendment #1: Section 21A.26.020 A. Purpose Statement. The CN NB neighborhood commercial business district is intended to provide for small scale commercial uses that can be located within residential neighborhoods that facilitate a pedestrian-friendly environment and that do not have without having significant adverse impact upon residential uses.
The Planning Commissioners did not have any comments on Amendment #1.
Second issue:
Amendment #2: Section 21A.26.020 D. Maximum District Size. The total area of a contiguously mapped CN district shall not exceed ninety thousand square feet, excluding all land in public rights-of-way.
Restrictions on Larger Buildings.
1. Any building having a 5,000 gross square foot floor area or more shall be allowed only as a conditional use.
2. A building may be placed on contiguous parcels which when combined exceed sixteen thousand five hundred square feet only as a Planned Development.
3. Buildings constructed pursuant to this section shall have a public entrance at least every 30 linear feet and shall have its widest dimension oriented towards the most major street, unless excepted through the conditional use process.
Mr. Allayaud stated that the above amendment is proposing that there be a threshold of 5,000 square feet for the "CN" zone. The Vest Pocket Business Coalition feel that making this amendment will lead to more conditional uses in the "CN" and proposed "SNB" zone districts. The Vest Pocket Business Coalition claims that the additional conditional use load would be a burden upon the Planning Commission, staff and the business and property owners who have to pay the fees and take the time to obtain a conditional use. Mr. Allayaud then stated that in response to the Vest Pocket Business Coalition he reviewed all of the Planning Commission agendas from January 1996 through May 2000 and counted all of the conditional uses. Out of a total of 153 conditional uses, only four of the cases were for the "CB" zone and there were no applications for the "CN" zone. Therefore, most staff and Planning Commission time was spent on conditional uses unlike the ones that relate to the "CN" zone changes.
Using a diagram, Mr. Allayaud demonstrated several uses that could be placed on a particular site without requiring a conditional use application.
Mr. Mariger stated that Mr. Allayaud's demonstration showed him that with a 5,000 square foot threshold, there would not be much to regulate.
Mr. Wilde responded to Mr. Mariger's comment by stating that the 5,000 square foot threshold does not regulate many existing developments. However, it would provide an opportunity to regulate larger developments and consolidation of parcels.
Mr. Mariger feels that by not regulating many of the existing developments through a conditional use process, the character of the neighborhood could be lost.
Mr. Steed noted that there is more to a development than having a 5,000 square foot threshold. There is also aspects such as setbacks, window requirements, etc. Mr. Steed then stated that if the threshold were cut back to 3,000 square feet, he would be concerned about what would be regulated through the conditional use process.
After hearing other Planning Commissioners comments on the proposed ordinance amendments, Mr. Allayaud noted that he is getting a sense from the Planning Commissioners that a 5,000 square foot threshold is perhaps too big.
Mr. Wilde suggested that the Planning Commission not make a decision at this time regarding whether the threshold should be 5,000 square feet. He feels that the Planning Commission should work through the other issues and then come back to what the threshold should be at a later date.
OTHER BUSINESS
July Meeting Schedule
Mr. Wilde proposed that there be only one meeting in July due to the upcoming holidays. He then proposed that the meeting be held on July 13th. Mr. Wilde continued by stating that if there is a need for a second meeting in July, he would like to have it on July 20th. The Planning Commissioners concurred with Mr. Wilde's meeting schedule for July.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.