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, Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Babs De Lay, John Diamond, and Craig Galli were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Joel Paterson; and Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, June 9, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the June 9, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Seelig abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Four Commissioners voted in favor, and two Commissioners abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
This item was heard at 5:45 p.m.
Chair Muir noted that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair have not recently met with the City Council Chair and Vice Chair. He stated that it is frustrating that the City Council has rescheduled the meeting several times.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 29th.
Commissioner Daniels suggested that the City Council Chair and Vice Chair assign alternates to attend those meetings if they are not able.
Chair Muir stated that the current challenge for the City Council has been the budget, which is now behind them. Chair Muir said that he expects that the City Council will be more available in the near future.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:46 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the information that was included in the Planning Commission packets regarding the North Salt Lake Boundary Adjustment Request. He indicated that the North Salt Lake City Mayor and his Staff have been cooperative and available to explain their proposal with the City and various Community Councils. Mr. Zunguze noted that the Salt Lake City Mayor and Deputy Mayor are leading fairly intensive discussions with respect to this matter. The hope is that the two municipalities will find a middle ground and reduce the potential impacts of the proposal. Mr. Zunguze stated that the discussions involve monetary issues and there are a number of organizations that are included. Mr. Zunguze stated he anticipates at some point that the matter will return to the Planning Commission for some action. He stated that he will provide them with updates on the issue as they arise. He indicated that the Planning Commission will be given fair notice and enough time to deal with the issue.
Commissioner Scott indicated a great interest in the proposed 80 acres. She also noted that when the Planning Commission reviewed the issue they imposed a timeline. Commissioner Scott asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to respectfully request an update from the Mayor’s Office as well as a time frame as to when the Commission may see the issue again.
Mr. Zunguze inquired in what form the Commission would like that response.
Chair Muir said that he feels that the current assumption among the Commission is that a deal is being negotiated, and that both Administrations would come to the Commission in support of the resolution, in which case the issue would be easy for the Commission to deal with. If the Administrations end up at odds with each other, Chair Muir felt that the Planning Commission’s commitment was to proceed proactively in a more deliberative process with the Mayor of North Salt Lake City.
Mr. Zunguze felt that that is correct and he restated that the matter is being negotiated. He said that he did not have a sense of a timeline to give the Commission.
Commissioner Scott stated that her concern is if negotiations break down at some point then the Commission will need time to react. She noted that some of the Commissioners have not taken a field trip up to the proposed site. She thought that it would take a few weeks to orchestrate a fieldtrip up there. Commissioner Scott suggested that the Commission ask the Mayor to keep them abreast of what is happening to allow time to respond if the proposal comes back before the Commission and when the Planning Commission might expect that to happen.
Mr. Zunguze replied that with respect to visiting the site, Staff will organize a fieldtrip any time the Commission requests. It does not have to wait for directive from the Mayor. Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission to be mindful that the Mayor may not have a timeline to give the Commission. He stated that he is not aware of a timeline on either side of the negotiations. Mr. Zunguze stated that he has indicated that the Planning Commission has a fervent interest in the matter and the Mayor is aware of that.
Commissioner Chambless stated that the proposed area is a sight that the Commission should see before making any decisions.
Commissioner Daniels said that he is pleased that Mr. Zunguze has brought back updates from time to time and he did not want to push the matter or rush a situation that may already be under control.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Zunguze to verbally convey the opinions expressed this evening to the Mayor.
Commissioner Seelig stated that she would prefer that a site visit be arranged sooner rather than later. She wanted to avoid getting into a position where that site visit may not occur.
Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff will organize a site visit.
Mr. Zunguze referred to a petition which proposed modifications to the fence height regulations in the zoning ordinance and was reviewed by the Planning Commission in October 2002. The petition has since been forwarded to the City Council for review. City Council has brought up several questions regarding the proposed amendments to the fence regulations. Planning Staff, in responding to the questions has deviated from the direction that the Planning Commission had provided in forwarding the petition to City Council. Mr. Zunguze stated that rather than reopening the entire matter for discussion, Staff would like to present the modifications to the Commission to find if they are comfortable with those changes.
Joel Paterson addressed the Commission regarding additional clarifications of the proposed amendments to the fence height regulations. He stated that this is in response to a legislative action taken by City Council Member Buhler. Mr. Paterson presented the modifications as noted below.
21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges:
D. Height Restrictions: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected in any front yard to a height in excess of four feet (4') between the front property line and the front façade of the principal structure, except that a six foot (6’) fence, wall or hedge on the property line may extend along the entire length of the interior side yard to the front yard setback line. However, no such solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is within thirty feet (30') of the intersection of front property lines on any corner lot. Within this sight triangle, see-through fences that are at least 80% open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4’). The Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team, may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front façade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet (6'). The Zoning Administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. Where there is a difference in the grade of the properties on either side of a fence, wall or hedge, the height of the fence, wall or hedge shall be measured from the average grade of the adjoining properties; provided, that in such instance a minimum four foot (4') high fence, wall or hedge shall be allowed.
Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission during the Zoning Ordinance Fine-tuning process (10/17/02)
Amendments proposed in response to Council member Dave Buhler’s requested legislative action (Petition 400-04-26)
Mr. Paterson referred to the issue of possibly requiring a no-fee permit for all fences within the City or Staff could provide an extensive public education process regarding the fence regulations. He stated that currently one is not required to obtain a building permit for a fence unless it is located within the Historic District. Mr. Paterson said that the fence standards are difficult to enforce if the public is not required to obtain a building permit and if they are not aware of the standards that are required. Mr. Paterson clarified that Staff plans to ask the City Council if they would prefer that a no-fee permit be required for all fences within the City or if they would prefer that Staff provide an extensive public education process regarding the fence regulations.
Commissioner Scott asked for clarification regarding where a six foot fence may be constructed. She asked if a six foot fence would not be allowed forward of the front facade of a house.
Mr. Paterson replied that currently the ordinance is unclear about the maximum height of fences located within the buildable area in front of the primary structures. Currently fences that are located behind the front setback but in front of a house may be up to six feet high. The proposed language would limit such a fence to four feet in height.
Commissioner Chambless asked how a porch is interpreted with the current proposal with regard to the setback line.
Mr. Paterson replied that if the porch is covered then the front posts which hold up the roof would be considered the front wall. If the porch is on grade and uncovered, then the front wall would be the house.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the diagram noting that the side yard fence zone overlaps the front yard setback area.
Mr. Paterson stated that he will add a sentence to clarify that along the property line one could build a six foot high fence up to the front setback line.
Chair Muir noted the difficulty in measuring the grade change in a fence and asked how the grade changes will be interpreted without specific language to that effect.
Mr. Paterson replied that the zoning ordinance currently requires measuring the height of a fence from the average elevation of the established grade on either side of the fence. The proposed amendment eliminates the average grade provision. As a result fence height would be measured from the actual grade where the fence is located.
Commissioner McDonough felt that a public education effort would be the better alternative as opposed to the no-fee permit. She added that with that education effort, neighborhood self policing should be encouraged.
Chair Muir asked Commissioner McDonough if she is suggesting that the public education effort proceed and then the issue would come back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Commissioner McDonough said that she did not feel that a public hearing is necessary, that publishing material and distributing it accordingly would suffice.
Mr. Zunguze stated that education materials could be included in the water bills sent to the public. Staff would also mail the information to fence contractors. Mr. Zunguze noted that the current item before the Commission is part of a number of items that are pending at City Council. Staff wanted to come before the Commission with the clarifications and then proceed with the City Council to conclude the business before them.
Motion
Commissioner McDonough made a motion regarding the proposed amendments to the fence height regulations 21A.40.120 be approved as proposed in response to Councilmember Dave Buhler’s request with the addition of language which clarifies fence height in side yards, and a recommendation that this be publicized through a public education effort and not require a no-fee permit to construct a fence.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Zunguze noted that the Planning Commission retreat is scheduled for Wednesday, June 30, 2004.
Chair Muir stated that he received a letter from Mr. Peter Hoodes in reference to the Planning Commission’s decision on May 26, 2004 on the Westminster lot consolidation issue. Mr. Hoodes indicted in the letter that he felt that the Staff findings on page 7 of the staff report were in error. The finding 7 indicated that “the Creek Corridor has shifted to the north rather significantly. In effect, this shift has made Westminster College’s property physically smaller.” Mr. Hoodes argues that this is false and the creek has in fact shifted south. Chair Muir stated that he felt that it was made clear to Mr. Hoodes and Westminster that the location and the determination of the location of that property line was not germane to the Planning Commission’s decision on May 26, 2004. Chair Muir directed Staff to respond to Mr. Hoodes’ letter in confirmation of the Planning Commission’s original decision.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he did share the same information with Mr. Hoodes that the disputed property area was not part of the Planning Commission’s decision. Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff will write a letter on behalf of the Planning Commission indicating that.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
This item was heard at 6:18 p.m.
a. Home Depot USA and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Home Depot USA is requesting that Public Utilities grant a standard utility permit to allow excess storm water to enter the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal on an emergency over flow basis. This request is being considered as part of the proposed site development plans for the new Home Depot retail store which is being constructed at 3304 South Highland Drive, in Un incorporated Salt Lake County.
Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve item A noted on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Discussion Item: Euclid Small Area Plan. The Planning Commission will identify and discuss issues to be addressed through the planning process. The Euclid Neighborhood is located between North Temple to I-80 from I-15 and the Jordan River.
This item was heard at 6:19 p.m.
Cheri Coffey addressed the Commission saying that the Euclid Small Area Plan is being developed at this time because the City was awarded a grant to study the feasibility of Daylighting City Creek from 500 West to the Jordan River. As part of that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that a master plan of the neighborhood be done. Ms. Coffey noted that there is a steering committee in place to help address the issues associated with the Master Plan. Ms. Coffey asked the Planning Commission to give input regarding the information that they received for the proposal.
Chair Muir referred to the issue of uses that are not compatible with residential zoning. He said that he felt there is a need to be clear about how the varying residential densities are construed. For instance are the different densities or land uses inherently incompatible. If the agenda is to move the Euclid Neighborhood to a transit oriented development with enhanced densities, and if the higher densities mixed with lower densities are defined as incompatible, the agenda is then compromised.
Ms. Coffey referred to the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood as an example of a similar situation. The neighborhood was never zoned for residential development. Low density residential development was built before the City had zoning, which resulted in a lot of mixed land uses in that area. Ms. Coffey stated that when the Capitol Hill Master Plan was developed, Staff created a new zone which allows the different types of uses and addresses conflict mitigation through buffering or design. The new zone also encourages higher density residential.
Chair Muir felt that it would be helpful to provide a definition of incompatible land uses. He referred to the Sugar House Area which is similar in that there have been arguments that there are incompatibilities between higher density apartments and single family residents.
Commissioner Scott referred to the comments provided by the residents of the area for the Daylighting of City Creek. She encouraged the residents of the area to demand enforcement, saying that if they feel that they have reclaimed their neighborhood from transients and criminal activity they may have a different outlook on Daylighting the Creek and enhancing the neighborhood.
Ms. Coffey stated that some of the comments regarding the Daylighting of the Creek included property owners of businesses and how that will impact them. Ms. Coffey stated that a fear that some of the business owners have is that if the Daylighting of the Creek proceeds, it may lead to their businesses being redeveloped to another use.
Commissioner Noda stated that she would like to see more green space encouraged which would make the area more community and family oriented.
Commissioner Seelig stated that she agreed with other Commissioners who have mentioned the importance of recognizing water in the community. She referred to the specificity of green space and recreational activities. She wondered how more green space would interface with potential trails or if the EPA grant precludes that kind of use. Commissioner Seelig referred to the law enforcement comments and asked how the enforcement would be tailored to the open space of the Creek.
Chair Muir noted the large amount of asphalt and industry in the area and said that perhaps the Commission should recommend as part of the petition that the Daylighting should ultimately be expanded to include some park nodes. He suggested that as a long-term objective this could be a focus for the community.
Commissioner Scott felt that the Creek access nodes for the Creek should be mapped correctly in the Master Plan.
Ms. Coffey stated that the EPA grant is to return a sort of urban fishery. She said that the EPA is looking to return a natural environment to the area and is concerned with the amount of potential activity in the natural setting around the Creek, but at the same time it is in an urban setting. Ms. Coffey said perhaps through negotiations with the EPA the Creek can be restored to the surface and it could be a connection into the Downtown Area. She said that the people of the community need to be able to enjoy the Creek. Ms. Coffey stated that there is a consultant who was appointed by the EPA to assist Staff in working through the issues.
Commissioner Seelig noted that if positive ways to utilize the Creek are not provided then negative activity will be present. Commissioner Seelig referred to the architectural style of the area and asked if the Master Plan could encourage different standards of interesting design. She referred to the excessive amount of concrete strip mall type structures in the area and felt that interesting structural design should be encouraged.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the front yard setback requirements and the pattern of residences that have been on the street. She felt that should be addressed in the Master Plan to comply with the existing pattern as opposed to the greater setback that is in the current ordinance.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the issue of open space saying that a petition was created to distinguish the various types of open space and is currently being processed by Staff. He noted that will be helpful as this Master Plan proceeds.
Commissioner Chambless asked how long the process to Daylight the Creek will take.
Ms. Coffey replied that it could be raised within three years but it could be much longer dependant upon several complicated variables most notably the realignment of Grant’s Tower and the rail lines.
Commissioner Chambless said that the lighting in the public right-of-way seems to be lacking. He stated that the lighting is an essential issue to address when considering crime control.
Ms. Coffey agreed and stated that the lighting is an issue that will be addressed in the Master Plan.
Commissioner Scott agreed and noted that the area has a high percentage of the population over 65 years or older. She added that the curbs and gutters should also be addressed.
Commissioner McDonough felt that there is an obvious disconnect of this area from the City and within itself due to the railroad lines. She felt that rectifying that obstacle should be the main priority. Commissioner McDonough felt that the Daylighting of the Creek may help to mend some of the current disconnect. She referred to Chair Muir’s comment regarding the different types of housing and their compatibility. She asked if Staff could look at that issue in depth in terms of possibilities of how positive variations in housing can be looked at in the sub-zones of this Master Plan area. She specifically requested that Staff outline different alternatives of the most courageous steps for the future.
Ms. Coffey replied that is an idea that was discussed by Staff and she agreed that it would be helpful.
Chair Muir referred to the east west connectivity of this community saying that when light rail is constructed it may turn the fundamental orientation of this fragmented community from north to south instead of east to west. He noted that it is such a distance to Downtown and people will fundamentally gravitate to the light rail line if a stop could be added between 800 West and 1000 West. He wondered if it makes sense from a planning perspective to encourage the connectivity running north and south, then why is there a street closure between 800 West and 900 West, and would the City want to discourage the extension of that street north up to North Temple as a long term plan. He felt that the streets should be available for access to create a catalyst for development.
Commissioner Scott agreed with Chair Muir and referred to Commissioner McDonough’s comment in respect to the rail lines. She added that the lines will continue to chop up the neighborhood.
Ms. Coffey noted that the rail lines are a huge barrier and perhaps there is another solution such as trenching the lines that would still allow surface circulation.
Chair Muir suggested that the areas be treated as two different communities. North of the South Temple line could be developed as transit oriented development while south of it could be something different.
Commissioner Seelig agreed saying that perhaps looking at the area as two different communities is the best alternative.
Commissioner McDonough asked what the possibility is for connecting the neighborhood at 100 South under “I-15”. She said that with the scenario just mentioned it is an important detail.
Chair Muir noted that the south fragment would be very dependant on portals going east-west through the City. Chair Muir stated that he did not believe there is an underpass at 100 South.
Ms. Coffey agreed saying that 100 South is a barrier.
Mr. Wilde referred to the issues of the public improvements such as the green space or trails and such. He said that Questar has done a good job with their properties in this neighborhood. He said that as a strategy approach Staff may want to contact Questar and ask if they would be willing to participate or provide funding toward enhancing a public amenity in this neighborhood, which may be a logical investment for them in the community.
Ms. Coffey noted that Questar and Utah Power and Light have members on the steering committee for the Master Plan.
Commissioner Scott said that this project could be a partnership of many private entities because it is such a unique project for the City.
Commissioner Seelig thanked those in the audience who are part of the steering committee for their participation.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m.