SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
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, Mary McDonald, Judi Short, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Bill Allayaud, Robert Glessner, Jackie Gasparik, Ray McCandless and Margaret Pahl.
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.
Mr. Smith welcomed Stephen Goldsmith as the new Director for the Planning Division. Mr. Smith also welcomed Mary McDonald as a new member of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Goldsmith acknowledged the enormous work that Mr. Wilde has been doing since Mr. Wright's departure a few months ago. Mr. Goldsmith then stated that he would like to meet individually with each Planning Commissioner sometime within the next few weeks to discuss their goals and views for Salt Lake City.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Funk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, June 1, 2000 subject to the discussed corrections being made. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
BRIEFING – Continued discussion of Petition No. 400-98-80 concerning amendments to the Community Business "CB" and Neighborhood Commercial "CN" zones, a proposed "SNB" zoning district and possible rezoning of selected properties. The Planning Commission will not take action in reference to this petition on June 15th. NOTE: The aspects of this project relating to nonconforming commercial properties will be discussed at a future meeting.
Mr. Bill Allayaud lead the discussion regarding the "Proposed Amendments to the CN/CB Zone Districts and Legal Conforming Uses", a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Allayaud then stated that the Planning Commission ended their previous discussion on Amendment #2, which reads as follows:
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 addressed the 5,000 gross square foot floor area issue (Item 1 above) and stated that he understood that most of the Planning Commissioners felt that 5,000 square feet was too high. Mr. Allayaud then suggested that a decision not be made as to what the square footage should be at this time. Mr. Allayaud continued by addressing Items 2 and 3.
Mr. Jonas spoke concerning combining parcels and wondered if any combined parcels of any size should be reviewed because the character of what existed would be changing.
Mr. Wilde stated that the 16,500 square foot figure was established with the 1995 Zoning Ordinance Rewrite because it was a very common corner parcel size.
Mr. Mariger asked if anyone would combine parcels to get up to 16,500 square feet and not build a building of 5,000 square feet or more. Mr. Allayaud responded by stating that he does not believe that anyone would build a building under 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Mariger then stated that he was one of the Planning Commissioners who felt that having a 5,000 gross square foot floor area was too high. Therefore, if the 5,000 gross square foot figure were to be reduced, would there be a purpose for the combined parcel restriction.
Mr. Wilde responded to Mr. Mariger's concern and stated that he will have staff review the restrictions for larger buildings.
Mr. Allayaud continued by addressing the next discussion item which is as follows:
Amendment #3: Section 21A.26.020 E. Minimum Yard Requirements.
1. Front or Corner Side Yard. A five fifteen foot minimum and fifteen-foot maximum front or corner side yard shall be required, with the following exceptions:
a. If the proposed building is a corner lot, the front and corner setback may be decreased but shall be no less than the setback of the buildings on the adjacent lots.
b. If the proposed building is an interior lot, the front and corner setback may be decreased but shall be no less than the average setback (stringline) established by the existing buildings on the adjacent lots.
c. No parking is allowed within the front or corner side yard setback area.
Mr. Allayaud then stated that the main purpose for Amendment #3 was to allow people to go a little closer to the street by still allowing some setback for landscaping.
Mr. Mariger asked the reasoning for allowing a 15-foot maximum. Mr. Allayaud responded by stating that 15-feet seemed to be what looked best based on the existing businesses.
Mr. Smith feels that the ordinance should leave some latitude for allowing more than a 15-foot setback for specific uses such as outdoor dining. Mr. Wilde responded by stating that the ordinance could maintain some flexibility on a case by case basis.
The following was the next item of discussion:
Amendment #4: Section 21A.26.020 H. Minimum First Floor Glass. The first floor elevation facing a street of all buildings within the NB Neighborhood Business zone shall not be less than forty percent nonreflective glass surfaces.
Ms Arnold stated that she feels that 40% is too high because some businesses (i.e. bookstores) depend a lot upon walls for shelving.
Mr. Wilde stated that staff could look into some flexibility such as allowing display windows instead of forcing see through glass.
Mr. Allayaud then presented the next amendment:
Amendment #5: Section 21A.26.020 I. Maximum Height of Accessory Structures. The maximum height of accessory structures in the NB Neighborhood Business zone shall be 25 feet unless the structure abuts a residential zone district in which case the maximum height shall be 25 feet with a 7-foot landscape buffer or 17 feet if the landscape buffer is not provided.
There being no discussion on Amendment #5, Mr. Allayaud continued on to the next amendment as stated below:
Amendment #6: Section 21A.26.020 J. Hours of Operation. Businesses in the NB zone shall be open no earlier to the general public than 7:00 a.m. and no later than 11:00 p.m. unless permitted by the Zoning Administrator as a routine and uncontested matter pursuant to Section 21A.14.060.
Mr. Smith stated that having a business stay open until 11:00 p.m. is troublesome because he feels that most restaurants are open later than 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Mariger then stated that he does not feel that it is fair that businesses within neighborhoods stay open until 11:00 p.m.
Ms. Barrows then addressed the issue of delivery trucks. She stated that if a business, such as a grocery store, opens at 7:00 a.m., chances are that delivery trucks will be arriving prior to 7:00 a.m.
The discussion ended at this time. Mr. Wilde then stated that another briefing concerning the amendments to the Community Business "CB" and Neighborhood Commercial "CN" zones will be scheduled. At that time, staff will address the concerns that have been discussed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Smith then acknowledged the fact that Mr. Allayaud has resigned from his position with the City to take a job in California. Mr. Smith then commended Mr. Allayaud on all of his hard work.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-468 by Mr. Moises Garcia requesting a conditional use for an automobile dealership located at 877 South Main Street in a Downtown Support "D-2" zoning district.
Mr. Robert Glessner 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. Glessner stated that staff is recommending adding an additional condition of approval to the existing seven listed in the staff report. The recommended condition is as follows:
The property owner and tenant are subject to the requirements for business license approval subject to requirements, review and approval by the Police Department.
The above mentioned condition is being added in response to a letter received from the Police Department regarding CPTED review.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Glessner relating to the case.
Mr. Jonas asked for some clarification on the site plan as to where the drive approaches will be located. Using a posted site plan, Mr. Glessner identified the drive approaches.
Mr. Moises Garcia, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Garcia relating to the case.
Mr. Daniels then asked who will be responsible for meeting the conditions of approval, the business owner or property owner.
Mr. Glessner stated that the conditional use runs with the land, so, essentially the property owner is responsible. However, Mr. Garcia has an agreement with the property owner to make the improvements necessary.
Ms. Barrows spoke concerning signage for the proposed business. Ms. Barrows then asked if the Planning Commission has purview to require a certain type of sign to identify the property. Ms. Barrows feels that it will be a benefit to the community if there were a sign identifying the business.
Mr. Jonas then asked the property owner to identify which signs/billboards will be used for advertising – the taller billboards or the shorter signs.
Mr. Larry Maithe, the property owner, responded by stating that he owns the lower signs which Reagan pays a monthly fee to maintain.
Ms. Arnold asked about the time frame to have the conditions met. Mr. Glessner responded by stating that a petitioner has a year to comply with the conditions of a conditional use. Ms. Arnold then asked if a business license will be withheld until all conditions are met.
Mr. Wilde responded by stating that he recommends that the Planning Commission create a time frame and financial insurance if necessary.
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. 410-468:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-468 for an automobile dealership located at 877 South Main Street subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report (underlined portions added by the Planning Commission):
1. Landscaping in the City right-of-way shall be installed and regularly maintained in compliance with the attached site plan.
2. A six-foot fence or wall shall be placed along the north and east property lines. A four-foot non-chain link fence shall be constructed along the west and south property lines. Driveways shall have a gated entry, not chain link.
3. The driveways on Main Street and 900 South shall be realigned and improved to meet City standards.
4. Sidewalks shall be repaired and improved as required by the City's Engineering and Transportation Divisions.
5. Minor automobile repair as defined in Chapter 21A.60 shall not be permitted unless future building additions are constructed and all repairs within an enclosed building. All oil and hazardous materials shall be disposed of properly. "Automobile detailing" for improving the appearance of a vehicle, which includes car washing, polishing and waxing may occur. Automobile painting is not permitted.
6. Three parking stalls for clients shall be striped and marked for visitors or clients.
7. The property owner and tenant shall comply with the approved site plan. Changes to building elevations, landscape plans and final site plan are subject to Planning Director approval.
8. All parking stalls shall be striped according to the site plan.
9. The proposed project be subject to approval from all City departments including Police, Engineering and Transportation.
10. Signage should be made to conform with the "D-2" zone.
11. All improvements be completed within six months of approval.
12. Financial security for all improvements in such form as the City Attorney sees fit.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels voted "Nay". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-24 by Mr. Bruce Newman of Neighborhood Housing Services requesting approval for a zoning amendment for the property located at approximately 642 West 400 North. The request is to change the zoning from the existing Special Development Pattern Residential District "SR-1" to "SR-3" to include this property in a Neighborhood Housing Services residential subdivision. Also,
Case No. 410-463 by Mr. Bruce Newman of Neighborhood Housing Services requesting a conditional use for a reduced width public street for a proposed 19-lot residential development located at 433 North 600 West and 642 West 400 North. The Planning Commission is also being asked to give preliminary subdivision approval for the 19-lot residential development consisting of 9 single family dwellings and 10 townhouses that would be served by a reduced width public street.
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. Ms. Gasparik then asked Mr. Kevin Young, Transportation Planning Engineer for the City, to address parking concerns.
Mr. Young stated that infill housing is very challenging due to the small areas. He then stated that from a transportation standpoint, any option can cause potential parking problems in the future. Mr. Young then stated that infill housing has worked in other areas because the neighbors were willing to work together.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Gasparik relating to the case.
Mr. David Conine, Deputy Director for Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS), was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Conine then presented some slides to the Planning Commission showing the site for the proposed residential planned development.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Conine relating to the case.
Ms. McDonald asked if there would be lighting on the sidewalk in front of the townhomes. Mr. Conine responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Daniels stated that he feels that NHS should consider if the proposed number of homes on the site will provide a decent community for the people who will be living there. Mr. Daniels then asked NHS to consider taking away two units which would allow more space for general all-around livability.
Mr. Conine responded by stating that if two units were eliminated and turned into a parking lot, he feels that there could still be a parking problem if people decide that there is a more convenient place to park rather than the parking lot. Mr. Conine then addressed the financial aspect of the project in that the proposed number of units is what would need to be built to help NHS not go in the hole.
Mr. Daniels then asked NHS to consider the livability more than the parking because he feels that if the wrong kind of property is placed in the wrong community it is predestined to be a ghetto. Mr. Conine then stated that it is the intent of NHS to take the necessary precautions to avoid creating any kind of a ghetto. Mr. Conine then stated that NHS has a goal to blend the affordable housing as much as possible within the proposed development.
Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that there is a way to reconfigure the existing property to solve the parking issue. Mr. Conine responded by stating that if the project went to a lower density then the cost of the housing would go up which would then threaten the affordable housing issue.
Mr. Daniels asked about the cost of the affordable housing. Mr. Conine stated that NHS hopes to provide a product within $85,000 – $90,000 range.
Mr. Smith stated that the proposed layout for the development is quite fascinating. However, he is concerned about some type of buffering on the east side of the sidewalk. Mr. Conine stated that his understanding is that there is an intent to put a low fence on the side of the sidewalk.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that it is obvious that NHS has a commitment to provide affordable housing in this area. He then asked if there are vacancies in any of the other projects. Mr. Conine responded by stating that the only vacancies that he is aware of is that the Renden Court project has not sold out.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Melinda Meier, 1057 2nd Avenue #10, proposed that the community, especially children, participate in a community mural on the wall where the street dead ends. Ms. Meier feels that a mural will bring the community together and will help prevent graffiti in the area because the children have had an opportunity to display their visual arts.
Mr. Smith asked staff if Ms. Meier's proposal would be part of the Planning Commission's action. Mr. Wilde stated that it would not be part of the Planning Commission's action, however, if it is the desire of the Planning Commission to include a mural, UDOT would need to give their approval.
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.
Mr. Steed stated that he feels that if off-set parking is not provided somewhere within the project, there will be a lot of parking problems. Mr. Steed then stated that he is in favor of the reduced width public street.
Ms. Barrows stated that she agrees with Mr. Steed. She then stated that she feels that the project can be reconfigured to provide a parking area and still come close to the desired density.
Mr. Smith stated that the project, as it has been designed, could be absolutely incredible and he feels that it is a spectacular infill project. He also feels that a 20-foot garage is plenty deep. He thinks that the proposed project is an opportunity for a very unique street. Mr. Smith then stated that he would like to see all of the proposed units kept.
Mr. Mariger stated that he is not in favor of the project because he does not feel that it is wise to have no parking and a narrow street.
Ms. Funk stated that she too is not in favor of the project. She then suggested that the project be tabled and ask NHS to consider the comments that have been made and then come back to the Planning Commission with a new design that will include an area for parking.
Mr. Smith stated that he does not want to see more parking provided because he feels that the amount of parking provided per unit will be adequate. Mr. Smith does not want to see the project built around the automobile.
Mr. Steed stated that with there being no services close by for the community, people have to be dependent on the automobile. Therefore, parking needs to be provided for the community.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-24 and Case No. 410-463:
Mr. Steed moved to table Petition No. 400-00-24 and Case No. 410-463 and have Neighborhood Housing Services reconfigure the project which will allow for more parking. Ms. Funk seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Conine to respond to the motion that has been presented. Mr. Conine then stated that he would like the opportunity to fit the density and the automobiles into the project and at the same time preserve the character of the community which is more pedestrian oriented and less automobile oriented. He would, however, like to get approval for the zoning change at this time.
Amended Motion for Petition No. 400-00-24 and Case No. 410-463:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-00-24 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation for the rezoning of the property located at approximately 642 West 400 North from "SR-1" to "SR-3". Mr. Steed further moved to table Case No. 410-463 to have Neighborhood Housing Services reconfigure the project to allow for more parking and then have it return to the Planning Commission for action. Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-26 by Mr. Alan Prince of Prince Development Company requesting to rezone the property located at approximately 750 West 1300 South from Single-Family Residential "R-1/7,000" to "R-1/5,000" zoning district. Also,
Case No. 410-470 by Mr. Alan Prince of Prince Development Company requesting a conditional use for a Planned Development Subdivision located at approximately 750 West 1300 South in a Single-Family Residential "R-1/5,000" zoning district.
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.
Ms. Barrows asked if the proposed 24-foot wide private street would meet the reduced width public street requirements. Ms. Gasparik responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Alan Prince, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Daniels stated that one of his big concerns is that affordable housing is often times not affordable by his definition. He then asked about the costs of the properties. Mr. Prince responded by stating that the properties will sell from $135,000 to $155,000. Mr. Daniels then asked about the square footage of the homes. Mr. Prince responded by stating that the homes will range from 1,200 to 1,400 square feet, exclusive of the garages.
Ms. Barrows asked if Mr. Prince considered having a reduced width public street instead of a private street. Mr. Prince stated that he did consider having a reduced width public street, however, he concluded to have a private street which would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Prince then stated that his decision was based primarily on staff's recommendation.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the reason why a reduced width public street was not considered initially was because Mr. Prince's original proposal could not accommodate a 20-foot dedication. Mr. Prince has since changed his proposal which may or may not be possible to consider having a reduced width public street.
Mr. Prince stated that if his current proposal would accommodate having a reduced width public street he would prefer to have the public street rather than a private street.
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.
Mr. Barrows stated that she likes the project, however, she would prefer to see the project have the public street.
Mr. Mariger stated that he thought that in order for someone to have a reduced width public street they had to show some special standards of hardship.
Mr. Jonas stated that he feels that a motion should be made that would give Mr. Prince the option to explore the options of having a reduced width public street.
Mr. Barrows then stated that she would not be in favor of the project if it had a private street because she feels that there is no reason for the project to have a private street.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-26:
Mr. Jonas moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-00-26 with a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning of the subject property from Residential "R-1/7,000" to "R-1/5,000". Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for Case No. 410-470:
Mr. Jonas moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-470 for a planned development including use of a private street, a reduction in the required front yard setback from 20' to 18', a reduction in the required rear yard setback from 20' to 15' and reducing the 50' lot width requirement on lots 5, 7 and 13, as indicated on the site plan, subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 Grant final plat approval authority to the Planning Director.
2 Grant final landscaping plan approval authority to the Planning Director.
3 Approve the project subject to compliance with applicable City standards and specific departmental/division requirements.
4 Grant final approval authority for the architecture and building materials to the Planning Director.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Nay". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-470 for a planned development including use of a private street, a reduction in the required front yard setback from 20' to 18', a reduction in the required rear yard setback from 20' to 15' and reducing the 50' lot width requirement on lots 5, 7 and 13, as indicated on the site plan, subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with one addition as noted:
1 Grant final plat approval authority to the Planning Director.
2 Grant final landscaping plan approval authority to the Planning Director.
3 Approve the project subject to compliance with applicable City standards and specific departmental/division requirements.
4 Grant final approval authority for the architecture and building materials to the Planning Director.
5 That the street be studied further and input given from the various City departments as to whether it could be accepted as a public street or if it should remain a private street and brought back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Funk and Mr. Jonas excused themselves from the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-23 by Salt Lake Community Development Corporation of Utah requesting approval to rezone the property located at approximately 1512 South 900 West from a Single-Family Residential "R-1/7,000" to a "R-1/5,000" zoning district. Preliminary subdivision and a residential planned development approval consisting of 9 lots is also being requested.
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.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. McCandless relating to the petition.
Mr. Mark Lundgren, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2000
12
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Lundgren relating to the petition.
Ms. McDonald noted that the staff report mentioned a survey that was sent to all of the neighbors. She then asked to see a copy of the survey. Mr. Lundgren sent a copy of the survey around the table to let the Planning Commissioners review it.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Marlene Little, 1533 South 900 West, stated that she did not receive a copy of the survey. She then stated that she is not in favor of tiny lots because she feels that it does not give the home owner enough space to personalize their property (i.e. plant a garden). Ms. Little also recommended that there be a fence along the south property line to prevent vehicle access.
Mr. David Kendall, 1492 South 900 West, stated that he is delighted and excited for the proposed subdivision. Mr. Kendall then recommended, as an abutting property owner, that a privacy fence be constructed along the north property line.
Mr. Mike Moore, 1580 South 900 West, stated that he is in favor of the proposed subdivision. He then stated that he hopes that the proposed homes will fit in with the character and style of the neighborhood.
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.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-23:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-00-23 with a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property from a Residential "R-1/7,000" to a "R-1/5,000" zoning district. Ms. Barrows further moved to approve the reduced street and front yard setback width as shown on the accompanying plan and approve the preliminary subdivision plat subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with one addition as noted:
1 Development of the property according to the conceptual site plan as submitted.
2 Compliance to all departmental requirements and conditions.
3 Planning Director approval of the final site plan, landscaping plans and building architecture. Planning Director should also consider if there is a need for a fencing plan.
4 CPTED review of the site and landscaping plans.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Nick and Susi Kontgis of Kontgis Estates are requesting preliminary subdivision approval for 2.4 acres consisting of one building lot and one open space parcel located at 1938 South Lakeline Drive in a Foothill Residential "FR-2" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl 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. Ms. Pahl then stated that the Planning Commission held an "issues only" hearing concerning the Kontgis Estates Subdivision on April 6, 2000. The two issues which were of interest to the Planning Commission and the public in attendance were public access across the open space parcel and the retaining wall.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Pahl relating to the case.
Ms. Susi Kontgis, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting. Also present was Mr. Dave Richards, architect for Ms. Kontgis.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Kontgis and Mr. Richards relating to the case.
Mr. Mariger asked what type of fencing is intended to put around the buildable area. Mr. Richards responded that an ornamental iron fence is being considered at this time.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Richards to describe where the proposed driveway will be located. Mr. Richards used a site plan to identify the location of the driveway to the Planning Commissioners.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Tanta Lisa Clayton, 2230 S. Belaire Drive, stated that she was the Chair of Arcadia Heights Benchmark Neighborhood Council. She then stated that she is present to reiterate the support of Arcadia Heights Benchmark Neighborhood Council for the proposed development of the 2.4 acre Kontgis Estates Subdivision. The Council believes that the plan is in conformance with the Small Area Master Plan adopted in 1998. The Council would also like the current traditional use of informal neighborhood access to be maintained in perpetuity on the 1 acre of land being donated for open space.
Mr. Ervin Holmes, 5289 S. Highland Drive, stated that he is purchasing Lot 1 in the Carrigan View Subdivision, which is the Lot located immediately south of the driveway coming off of Lakeline. Mr. Holmes then stated that he is in favor of the proposed subdivision, however, he spoke of a few concerns. The first is with regard to the development of this subdivision as a flag lot with a private drive. He is concerned that the Turville Project will be approved soon which will mean that a private drive for Ms. Kontgis will be unnecessarily placed. Mr. Holmes then asked that the Kontgis Estates be approved with access for the construction coming across Lakeline. Then, when it becomes necessary to put in the drive, the private drive be constructed only if the access is not available through the Turville Project. Mr. Holmes then recommended that the City retain a landscaping easement for the benefit of the adjacent parcel so that he has the option to put soil, boulders and/or landscaping between the roadway and his property.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, urged the Planning Commission to take a systematic look at the conditions under which the City should contemplate land leases and land exchanges; when donations should be accepted and when they should not be accepted. What the City is considering accepting with the 1 acre parcel of land is view shed. It has no additional recreational potential once it comes into public ownership beyond what has been allowed for years. Ms. Cromer then stated that the donated parcel is not a gift to her as a recreational user and a taxpayer because she does not receive the benefits.
Mr. Bruce Alder, 1835 Lakeline Drive, stated that he is a member of the Arcadia Heights Benchmark Neighborhood Council. He then stated that he is very supportive of the 1 acre land donation. Mr. Alder then recommended that there be no fence on the open space portion.
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.
Mr. Wheelwright briefly spoke about the City's land donation policy at this time.
Mr. Mariger stated that he does not feel that there should be a developed trail across the 1 acre parcel that is to be donated, particularly when the petitioner's interest is that her property be protected to the extent possible from trespassers. However, the residents who live in the neighborhood feel like they have historic access into the canyon. If the residents are prohibited in the future because the petitioner does not want any public access, there will be a lot of negative sentiment in the neighborhood. Mr. Mariger then asked if the petitioner would agree to allowing historic use by the public and prohibiting development efforts by the City from ever trying to develop a recreational use for the property.
Ms. Kontgis responded by stating that she is not willing to respond to Mr. Mariger's question until she has reviewed it with her attorney.
Ms. Barrows thanked Ms. Kontgis for continuing to work so hard with the City, realizing that she has been up against uncooperative property owners. Ms. Barrows then stated that she would like to see a pedestrian easement maintained across the property that will be donated to the City for open space.
Motion for Kontgis Estates Subdivision:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant preliminary subdivision approval for the Kontgis Estates Subdivision and delegate final approval to the Planning Director subject to the following conditions as added by the Planning Commission:
1 That the agreement that the City negotiates with the petitioner for the donation of the open space parcel permit historic access to the open space but prohibit the City from making any development efforts to encourage additional public use than has historically been made of the parcel.
2 That the City negotiate with the adjoining property owner to the south, Mr. Ervin Holmes, to do some landscaping along the 20-foot driveway access on Lot A to protect the view of his property of the retaining wall.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The City has received letters of intent for the reuse proposals of existing Salt Lake City Library. The administration would like to have two volunteers from the Planning Commission to participate on the subcommittee to consider and make recommendations regarding the letters of intent.
Ms. Arnold and Ms. McDonald volunteered to participate on the subcommittee.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.