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, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; and Planners Janice Lew, Joel Paterson, and Ray McCandless.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:58 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, June 11, 2003
At the beginning of the meeting Mr. Jonas discussed an issue relating to the minutes and about a memorandum from Donna and James DiSario and Dennis and Diane Nielsen to Mayor Anderson and Councilman Jergensen. The memorandum was in regard to the Planning Commission’s treatment of the agenda item dealing with the Foothill site development ordinance. The DiSarios and Nielsens have asked the Mayor and Councilman Jergensen to request that the Planning Commission reopen the issue again and rehear it. Mr. Jonas was strongly opposed to that idea. He said the Commission was seeing too many appeals to almost any decision. Rehearing a petition is a seven week process, which Mr. Jonas believed was unfair to other applicants who have gone through the process. Mr. Jonas said the minutes were clear in both meetings held concerning the Foothill site development ordinance. All sides of the issue were heard. Based on the number of people that spoke at the meeting, it was fair to limit their remarks to three minutes. It is clear from the minutes at the second hearing that the issue was given full consideration. The proposal was not a new proposal, but was simply taking some of the input that was heard at the previous meeting and turning that into another option that the Commission approved. If every staff report has to be inclusive as to every possible option, then absolutely every hearing will have to be reheard. There are numerous times the Commission has come up with suggestions to modify the proposals and motions before them. Mr. Jonas said this was a City Council issue now, and they could deal with it differently if they saw fit.
Ms. Funk asked for comments from some of the other Planning Commission members regarding the idea of rehearing the petition. Ms. Arnold said she felt that proper notice had not been given. The issues were about all of Foothill, and not just a certain group of people. She reminded the Commission that she voted against the ordinance.
Ms. Scott concurred with Mr. Jonas, saying that she felt that when the Commission hears from the audience they ask that many different and informed opinions be tendered. Each of the speakers had adequate time to speak and to make their points. She believed the Commission had given a fair hearing and consideration to the comments that were made. As far as modifying the option, she believed she voted in the affirmative for that in good conscience. Ms. Scott stated further that the Commission members were keenly aware at the time they voted on the amendment that they were not voting on a particular issue or property use on North Bonneville, but were changing an amendment. The Commissioners were unaware at the time of the vote how the amended ordinance would impact that particular project on North Bonneville.
Mr. Jonas said the public had an opportunity between the first and second meeting to provide written comments. Mr. Deisley, an attorney representing the Foothill residents, had submitted a 15 page letter.
Ms. Seelig felt that everyone involved in the meetings had plenty of opportunity to provide input in many ways – either written or verbally. She was fine with the process, but felt that perhaps there should have been more notice given.
Mr. Chambless concurred with Ms. Seelig. He felt it was important that to avoid any allegations of violations of procedural due process with regard to time, that those who speak at a meeting during any of the hearings are given the same amount of time to speak.
Mr. Jonas said it had never been the policy of the Planning Commission to put strict time constraints on all agenda items. It has been the common practice to only restrict in those items where there is an obviously large contingent of people who want to speak. However, if the Commissioners felt strongly about it, he suggested they could restrict everyone to three minutes. In the past it has always been a judgment call by the Chairman of the Commission.
Mr. Daniels stated for the record that it was his understanding that the time limitations are to protect not just the Planning Commission, but the citizens, staff, and anyone else in attendance from having to stay at a meeting until the wee hours of the morning. Prior to a petition, the announcement is made that each person will get a certain amount of time, and everyone will be treated fairly. There was a misconception during the Foothills ordinance process that everybody could get up and speak as long as they wished. That has never been the case. The times that people have been able to do so have been regarding light agenda items where it would not take the hearing way overtime.
Ms. Funk suggested that the Commission vote on whether to reopen the Foothills site ordinance petition to satisfy Councilman Jergensen and the public. She expressed some great concern that the Commission was seeing so many appeals. She felt the Commission should look at what is happening in how they are communicating with the people. She did not feel it was good for the public to view the Commission as a body that has made the decision beforehand. It is always important to hear from people.
Mr. Jonas asked for a vote regarding whether or not to reopen the Foothills site ordinance hearing. Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Funk, and Mr. Daniels voted against reopening the hearing. Ms. Arnold and Mr. Chambless voted for reopening the hearing. The hearing will not be reopened.
Mr. Jonas said he knew Mr. Zunguze had heard from the City Council regarding this matter. Mr. Jonas has agreed to make some calls to represent the position of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Funk requested the following corrections:
Page 7, fourth paragraph, third sentence shall be corrected to read, “A petition has been in front of the Commission a couple of times”, etc.
Page 8, first paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “At this point in time, they have had a lease in place with Fred Meyer”, etc.
Page 19, last paragraph, the first two sentences shall be corrected and combined to read, “Mr. Jonas was interested in the conservation easement so that the land will remain open, and that is a real plus.”
Page 20, sixth paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Jonas said once a plan like the open space plan is in place, any development”, etc.
Ms. Scott requested the following corrections:
Page 5, Number 11, the reference to Gillmor shall be correctly spelled “Gilmor”. All references to Gilmor throughout the minutes shall be corrected accordingly.
Page 17, third paragraph, nineth sentence shall be correct to read, “Dogs can wreak havoc”, etc.
Page 21, last paragraph, first sentence, Ms. Scott asked that the reference to “640 acres” be checked. She believed it should be 620 acres.
Mr. Jonas requested the following corrections:
Page 2, second paragraph, the third sentence of the ordinance shall be corrected 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 3, the Petition Initiated by the Planning Commission needs to include the information about the property and shall read as follows: “Ms. Funk initiated a petition to correct an error that was made during the 1995 zoning rewrite, as requested by Mr. Zunguze. The petition is initiated in regard to the property located at 624 South 1100 East, which was inadvertently reclassified from Residential R-2 to Institutional.”
Page 17, third paragraph, tenth sentence shall be corrected to read, “Acquiring the land would be a tremendous asset for their operation,” etc.
Page 17, first paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Pack thanked the Commission”, etc.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve the minutes for June 11, 2003, as corrected. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This agenda item began at 8:49 p.m. and was taken out of sequence with the agenda order. At this time, Mr. Daniels thanked Joanna Going on behalf of the Planning Commission for her service in taking the minutes over the past few months.
Mr. Zunguze said there were a number of things they had discussed at the retreat with respect to how the Planning Division and Commission function and what there was to look forward to from that day on. One of the things Mr. Zunguze had committed to doing was to work with Staff and refine the initiatives that were talked about at the April 30, 2003 meeting. He has done that, and Mr. Zunguze wished to get some direction from the Planning Commission on how to get some of the initiatives implemented.
One of the issues discussed at the retreat was the need to discuss long range planning issues in detail between Staff and Planning Commission. At present there is not an opportunity to do so because of the volume of work that comes before the Planning Commission during regular meetings. Mr. Zunguze gave the example that Ms. Seelig has repeatedly asked as to when a master plan would be completed for the Northwest Quadrant. Mr. Zunguze said there was a lack of vision that needed to be addressed to put all long range issues into a priority setting. A concerted effort is needed to find a way to discuss long range issues. Mr. Zunguze proposed, therefore, that a subcommittee be set up that would be dedicated to discussing long range issues, periodically, with Staff on a consistent basis, such as once every two months. The subcommittee would then come back to the Planning Commission to get concurrence on issues discussed with Staff and also direction from the Commission.
Mr. Zunguze said if the Commission was not comfortable with a subcommittee, then perhaps a separate meeting could be arranged where the full Commission can be present to discuss long range issues. The Commission could come down to City Hall once every two months during a lunch hour, or some other appropriate time. He asked the Planning Commission for their input on these suggestions.
Mr. Jonas said that made a lot of sense and he noted that in the last Planning Commission/City Council – Chair and Vice Chair meeting Mr. Zunguze had brought up the issue of funding for a master plan in the Northwest Quadrant. There was concurrence from both Carlton Christensen and Jill Remington that they would support that. Mr. Zunguze was given the charge of making that a priority in terms of a funding issue with the City Council and also potentially with the major property owners in the Northwest Quadrant who have also offered to pay a portion of the costs.
Ms. Funk said there should be an official motion in this meeting that the Planning Commission is requesting funding from the City Council and working with the property owners to develop the Northwest Quadrant master plan.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved that the Planning Commission request funding from the City Council and work with the property owners to develop the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. Ms. Seelig seconded the motion.
Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Daniels, and Mr. Jonas voted “Aye”. The motion carried.
Mr. Daniels asked if the motion was to get the funding from the City Council or to get funding partially from the City Council and partially from businesses in the Northwest Quadrant. Ms. Funk said it was both. Mr. Daniels suggested that the Commission ask the City Council to fund the entire project. Ms. Funk said some of the land owners in the Northwest Quadrant had actually offered funds and it had never been pursued. Mr. Daniels agreed, but said he would not want the full Council body to think that half of the money is coming from the Northwest Quadrant when that had not been approved as yet.
Mr. Zunguze reminded the Commission that the key element he was trying to get the Commission to commit to was discussion of Long Range Issues. He felt this was critical. Ms. Seelig was more in favor of dedicating one full meeting periodically to address the long range issues. She felt the Commissioners all had the commitment and desire, but not necessarily the time to devote to a subcommittee. She was also unsure about having some of the discussions in a subcommittee forum as opposed to out in the open. However, her priority is to get them done, and she will work in a subcommittee if that was what the other Commissioners wanted.
Mr. Jonas was concerned that two new people were starting on the Commission at the next meeting, and four of the Commissioners were absent at this meeting. He felt those six people should also be involved in making the decision about a long range issues subcommittee or extra meetings. He favored regularly scheduled meetings of the entire Planning Commission membership to discuss long range issues.
Ms. Seelig asked if it would be helpful to commit to having one meeting periodically dedicated to long range issues. Mr. Wheelwright said they had tried over the years to do that. At one time there was an unofficial policy that the first meeting of the month was for current planning and the second meeting of the month was for master planning or long range issues. It is very difficult, however, to do that when there are so many petitions from applicants. Mr. Wheelwright suggested that a solution to the problem would be to commit periodically to a third meeting in the month dedicated solely to long range planning issues. Ms. Seelig thought that was a good idea and suggested that it be made an official policy.
Mr. Zunguze wanted the long range issues meeting to clearly have agenda items that are discussed fully and that action be taken on them, so that the items could be built upon and continue to move forward. He wants a systematic, dedicated effort.
Ms. Arnold agreed that the meeting would have to be dedicated only to long range planning issues. It would help the Commissioners to have a time that they can have open conversation on the issues. The more communication available, the better the Commissioners understand their job. She liked the idea of a third meeting.
Mr. Daniels said he liked the idea of a third meeting as well, and wanted to take a look at calendar dates to make it so. He thought the meetings should be at a minimum of once every two months. Mr. Jonas again expressed concern that six people were not at this meeting to voice their opinions. Ms. Seelig said she meant no disrespect to the people who were not in attendance, but that something needed to be decided and committed to tonight.
Mr. Jonas said Mr. Zunguze would have to put an agenda together and Mr. Jonas’ hope was that the first agenda item would be how to get many of the other items off of their plate so they can focus on the long range issues. That was a discussion point in the Frank Grey meeting – how to get many of the items to become administrative instead of items that take the Commission’s time. Mr. Jonas felt Staff needed time to set up an outline and summer was not a good time to start that. He noted that there was only going to be one meeting in July.
Ms. Seelig said a second meeting in July would be a perfect opportunity to take the first shot at discussing the issues. Mr. Jonas said if there was a second meeting in July, it would not be for long range planning issues, but for the regular items.
Mr. Zunguze suggested that if there is a commitment to have a third meeting, let Staff know and they will look at the calendar and come back with proposals for dates. Mr. Wilde said the third meeting would often times not be for hearings. If it helps the Commission’s schedule, the third meeting could even be a working lunch instead of evening. There are options as to how to work the third session in. Mr. Jonas said again that he thought the six absent people should be here to decide that. Summer is an awful time to start the process because so many people are gone.
Motion
Ms. Seelig moved that the Planning Commission commit to having a third meeting every month, when needed, and that Staff will come back by the next regularly planned Planning Commission meeting with options for when and where those meetings could be held. Ms. Arnold seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas said he was unwilling to commit to a third meeting every month. Ms. Seelig said she meant a third meeting every month “when needed”. Ms. Scott supported the motion, but suggested that in the month of July the third meeting take the place of the second meeting. Mr. Zunguze asked the Commissioners not to be hung up on July. He just wanted a commitment from the Commission to have a third meeting. He will then sit down with Staff and come up with options about when, where and what time to start.
Ms. Scott was unsure how much could be accomplished effectively in one hour. A retreat-type setting allowing 2-3 undisturbed hours would be better. She suggested again an evening in July. Mr. Jonas said he personally did not want to commit to any more things in July and August than what is already scheduled. Ms. Arnold said that people have needs, and their needs do not stop in the summer. Mr. Zunguze said again, that he was not asking for specific meetings in specific months. He just wanted the commitment for a third meeting.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote:
Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Daniels, and Mr. Jonas voted “Aye”. The motion carried.
Mr. Zunguze said they will agenda the items in such a manner that they will take the issues bit by bit. He wants to be able to create a path towards the future.
Mr. Zunguze said that beginning this year Staff would like to begin preparations for annual reports of the Planning Commission’s work over the course of the year and present it to the City Council. The reports will highlight what the Commission has done over the year and will give the opportunity to suggest the issues the Commission would like the City Council to look at, such as, certain master plans, ordinance changes, etc.
Mr. Daniels thought that was wonderful. Mr. Jonas said they were all in favor of that. Ms. Seelig thought it was a really good idea.
Mr. Zunguze then discussed training needs for the Commissioners. A new budget begins July 1, 2003 and there will be opportunities for training needs for Staff, as well as the Commissioners. He will be coming to the Commissioners with suggestions for training opportunities. He asked the Commissioners to express to him as time goes on what areas of expertise the Commissioners would like to have brought to them, and some areas of deficiencies which they felt may need to be strengthened. Mr. Daniels said there was good planning expertise in Utah, as well as out of state. Ms. Arnold wished Mr. Zunguze good luck in getting the funds for training. Ms. Funk said there was a good periodical mailed to the Commissioners that had very helpful articles in it. That could be a possible source of review in one of the meetings to help generate discussion.
Mr. Jonas said Council Member Mr. Carlton Christensen and Alison Weyher CED Director have committed to funding for training. Ms. Seelig said it would be helpful for her to be able to see possibilities instead of responding to things. Examples of other ideas are very helpful.
Mr. Zunguze then discussed interaction with and capacity building for Community Councils. There is a commitment from the Mayor’s office to make certain capacity building opportunities available, at the direction of the Planning Commission and Staff, on issues that impact them. There can be opportunities for local training. Mr. Zunguze mentioned a manual he had from Atlanta that discussed how to communicate with neighborhood groups. Mr. Zunguze will be working with Mr. Dave Nimkin’s office (Community Affairs) and put together some materials on how the Planning Division operates and clear the hurdles they currently have with Community Councils with respect to understanding terms, timelines, etc. Mr. Zunguze would like participatory efforts from the Planning Commission’s end if dialogue between the Commission and Community Councils is to improve. He would like the Commissioners to make themselves available to such efforts, and asked for a commitment to that end. He asked the Commission to discuss whether they would like to fully participate in getting that dialogue between the Community Councils, Staff and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jonas said yes, so long as part of that process is modifying the ordinance. Mr. Zunguze said that was correct. It would include everything from making sure there was project scheduling understanding between the Community Councils and Staff, to ordinance changes.
Mr. Zunguze asked if Ms. Scott had anything to share since she had just come from a Community Council perspective. Ms. Scott said from the Community Council and general population perspective, a third meeting to discuss long range issues would make the Planning Commission even more inaccessible. Knowing the protocol and being very accessible is very essential. Ms. Arnold said the third meetings would be public notice and the public could be there if they were interested.
Mr. Zunguze said the Chairs of the Community Councils have either weekly or monthly breakfast meetings, and that may be an opportunity to have a representative of the Planning Commission attend to share common concerns. There is not a clear understanding across the board of everyone’s respective roles in the development process. Ms. Seelig asked if this would include community participation at large and not just framed within the context of Community Councils. Mr. Zunguze said it would primarily be with the Community Councils because there is an ordinance that requires the Planning Division to work with them specifically. There is an avenue to reach out to the community through the mailing process.
Mr. Zunguze said the current ordinance requires that developers appear before the Community Councils prior to the proposed projects are being accepted by the Planning Division for processing. The Planning Division struggles with Community Councils to schedule developers and several months can pass before that occurs.
Ms. Arnold did not understand that. Ms. Scott said each Community Council has their own set of by-laws, their own procedures and their own quorums. Ms. Arnold said they should still somehow have to fall into other people’s rules as well. Mr. Wheelwright said the current ordinance only specifies the City’s obligations to the organization, and there is nothing about the organization’s obligations to the City. He said that needed to change. Mr. Jonas again said he would only be a part of the process of working with Community Councils if the ordinance was changed.
Mr. Wheelwright said one of the unspecified areas is the issue of changes to ordinance text. There is not an application for it. It does not say it has to go to the Community Councils. That determination of adequacy of Community Council involvement changes with each action. Frequently it will be kicked back to the Council level, with someone saying the Planning Division’s effort to contact all the Community Councils was inadequate.
Ms. Seelig asked about participation at large because there had been instances in staff reports where the votes of Community Councils are included as far as how many people are there. She felt that was helpful information because while some Community Councils may be very well attended and represented, it is not necessarily true of others.
Ms. Seelig asked about notification procedures. Mr. Wheelwright said they notify all the Chairs of every agenda. Ms. Arnold said it was up to the Councils to spread the word. Mr. Daniels said there was one time they discovered the information stopped at the Council Chair, and did not even go to the executive committee. Ms. Arnold felt it was important to know the attendance count of Community Council meetings.
Mr. Daniels felt it was important to follow through and work with Mr. Dave Nimkin to make sure there are reciprocal responsibilities going on between the Planning Division and Community Councils.
Ms. Arnold asked about other Community Councils in the County and State. Mr. Wilde said many municipalities have a very structured Community Council process with timeframes where there are responsibilities for all participants. Ms. Arnold said there had been comments made about how long it takes to get a project going in Salt Lake.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to have the Planning Director take the initiative to do a revamping of the ordinance so that all the Community Councils operate under the same conditions and that obligations for their performance to the City are included.
Ms. Funk said a good opportunity to do this would be with the Mayor’s meeting with the Community Council Chairs.
Mr. Zunguze said there was also the Chair, Vice Chair meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council. At the next meeting he would like to take the opportunity to share the Commission’s motion. Mr. Jonas said they should go one step further and draft a letter to the Mayor and the City Council saying that the Commission believes this to be a priority, that it had floundered under Mr. Dave Nimkin, and they would like it to be under the Planning Staff. Mr. Jonas would be happy to sign the letter.
Ms. Funk and Ms. Seelig liked the idea of a letter. Ms. Seelig asked if regular updates from the Mayor about where the issue is going should be included in the letter. Mr. Zunguze said he would give the Commission updates.
Mr. Jonas said his meetings with the City Council had indicated they were all for revamping the ordinance.
Mr. Daniels said there should be at least one attempt to say something of a cooperative nature to Mr. Dave Nimkin. He could be invited to the next Planning Commission/Council meeting. Ms. Arnold said Mr. Daniels was putting things off and asked if he knew how bureaucratic that sounded. Mr. Daniels disagreed. Ms. Arnold mentioned the library. Mr. Zunguze said they did not want to take the “in-your-face” approach, but to be quietly persistent about it. Mr. Daniels said to invite Mr. Nimkin to the meeting would allow Mr. Nimkin to be there and see that both the Planning Commission and the Council feel very strongly about the issues. Mr. Daniels was also in favor of writing a letter to the Mayor.
Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved to have the Planning Director take the initiative to do a revamping of the ordinance so that all the Community Councils operate under the same conditions and that obligations for their performance to the City are included. The Planning Commission also moves to have the Planning Director write a letter to the Mayor and City Council saying that the Planning Commission believes this to be a priority and feels that the revamped ordinance should be administered under Planning Staff. The Planning Commission Chairman will sign the letter once approved.
Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. The motion carried.
Mr. Zunguze then said the Planning Division would like to start a Division newsletter. Mr. Wilde will be the editor of the newsletter. The newsletter would be helpful to the public and businesses in dealing with the City. It will highlight what the Planning Division and Commission do and help explain the development process.
Motion
Ms. Arnold moved that the Planning Division start writing a newsletter. Mr. Chambless seconded the motion.
Ms. Scott asked who would be targeted with the newsletter. Mr. Zunguze said Community Councils, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Alliance, etc.
Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. The motion carried.
Mr. Wilde then said there were unresolved issues extending from a March 8, 2002 meeting. He referred the Commission to a document outlining Staff responses to each of the issues. If there was a disagreement with the direction Staff is suggesting, Mr. Wilde wanted to discuss that. Otherwise, Staff could formulate the responses as applicable into policies and procedures. There was no disagreement from the Commission at this time. Mr. Jonas wanted to see all policies and procedures with the changes bolded for the benefit of those Commission members who had not seen them yet. Mr. Wilde said he would do that.
Ms. Funk said she still wanted the Planning Commission Chairman to be able to vote on a regular basis. Ms. Arnold said no. Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Zunguze why he thought the Planning Chair in some communities is not allowed to vote. Mr. Zunguze said for the purposes of making sure that he/she takes care of running the meeting and keep things going. There is nothing wrong with the Chair voting, it is just a choice made. Mr. Wheelwright said that for Salt Lake City’s ordinance it was a carryover from the past. It is the way it has always been. Ms. Funk said everyone on the City Council votes and the Planning Commission should be the same. Ms. Funk asked for that item to be put on the agenda to consider. Mr. Zunguze said that in his experience it was just style, and that there was no Planning reason why the Chair could not vote.
Mr. Daniels felt that just because it has been a rule forever, it does not have to stay that way. He agreed with Ms. Funk. Mr. Chambless said there was something to be said for the Chair not voting unless there was a tie because of the focus on conducting a fair hearing. Mr. Daniels said that was the responsibility of the Chair anyway, whether he/she votes or not.
Ms. Arnold said something that needed to be discussed down the line was exactly what everybody’s job is. Mr. Chambless’ concern about a Chair voting routinely is that the Chair could take on the role of being an advocate as well as a facilitator of a fair public hearing. Ms. Arnold said the Chair would have more of an opportunity to guide how the vote goes. Mr. Daniels disagreed. He believed the Chair could chair a meeting and cast a vote according to his/her opinion. The Chair has only one vote.
Ms. Seelig said if this was to be an agenda item it would be helpful to have documentation of philosophical backing for either or any of the options and perhaps what other people have done.
Mr. Jonas then recognized the good performances over the years of Ms. Funk and Ms. Arnold, whose terms on the Planning Commission expired after this meeting. They were given flowers and plaques expressing appreciation for their diligent service to the Planning Commission and Citizens of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Zunguze then announced that a previously canceled Planning Commission meeting on July 16, 2003 had been rescheduled. Mr. Jonas asked why. Mr. Scott Turville was the only one on the agenda. The Commission was of the strong view that Mr. Turville’s project was not ready for review by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wilde then talked about Armand Johansen, saying that the Commission had approved his plan development for a three-business project on 2100 South and McClelland. There was a strong recommendation (not a requirement) for him to pursue vacation of an alley. Mr. Johansen has run into difficulties with vacating the alley at this time, but is still committing to do so in the longer term. Mr. Wilde asked if the Commission was ok with Staff proceeding with plan development without the alley. Mr. Daniels asked if Staff felt that Mr. Johansen had gone through the process in earnest. Mr. Wilde said yes. Mr. Wilde said they would proceed to work with Mr. Johansen and do the best they could.
Mr. Zunguze said there was a mixed use project on 1400 South and West Temple. Negotiations between the property owner and the developers are slowing down, and the option period has lapsed. Negotiations are still taking place, however, the applicant has an opportunity to look at other developers. The conditions for the rezone are attached to that specific project, and Staff believes the new zoning is still needed because the City is encouraging transportation oriented developments. Staff suggests that as the Planning Commission’s recommendation is transmitted to City Council, the Planning Commission should remove the linkage of this recommendation to the specific project and allow any other viable project, to be considered provided it is brought before the Planning Commission for review. The zoning recommendation should go forward with that understanding. The Commission agreed that that made sense.
Mr. Zunguze said that since Ms. Funk was leaving the planned development subcommittee, he wanted a replacement and also to set a date for the next meeting. Mr. Jonas asked if that could be done at the next meeting when all of the Commissioners were present. Mr. Wheelwright said there was a meeting tomorrow, June 26, 2003, and another one that needed to be reviewed, so as soon as it could be set up it would be helpful. Ms. Funk said she would attend the meeting tomorrow. It was agreed by all that they would wait until the July 9, 2003 meeting to replace Ms. Funk and set another date.
This agenda item ended at 9:50 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
Consideration of the Consent Agenda began at 6:17 p.m.
A. Justin Jensen and others/property owners and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Property owners of seven single family homes abutting on the North and West sides of the existing Salt Lake City Water Reservoir Site known as “Park Reservoir,“ are requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue revocable permits to allow the home owners to use approximately 30 feet by the width of the seven individual home lots, as part of their private yard space and to preserve existing trees and landscaping. The requested land is part of the Reservoir site property, and the proposed use of the property has been determined by the Public Utilities Department to not conflict with the maintenance of, or the use of the reservoir facilities. The properties are located at 3430, 3440, 3450, 3460, 3470, and 3480, East 3020 South Street and at 3087 South 3380 East Street, in unincorporated Salt Lake County. (Staff – Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178)
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve the matters on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Consent Agenda business was concluded at 6:18 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-638, by Qwest Wireless, requesting Conditional Use approval to install a wireless telecommunications antenna disguised as a flagpole and the associated electrical equipment at 2205 East 2100 South. The property is located in a Community Business (CB) zoning district.
This hearing began at 6:19 p.m.
Planner Janice Lew presented the petition as written in the staff report, and referred to an aerial photograph of the property in question. Qwest Wireless is requesting approval to install a wireless communications antenna disguised as a flagpole, at 2205 East and 2100 South. The facility will be located within the landscaped area on the west side of the property. The proposed flagpole would be 60 feet in height and 14 inches in diameter and would have a 12’ x 18’ flag. The antennas would be installed at the top of the pole within a plastic cover so they would not visible. The electrical equipment would be enclosed within a screening structure located to the south of the flagpole. Additional landscaping is also proposed.
Staff has expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts associated with a tall pole and a large flag, and suggested the applicant consider integrating the location of the facility within the existing structures on the site, and to reduce the size of the flagpole. The applicant has revised the site plan since its original submittal and is willing to reduce the size of the flag. However, they believe that a shorter pole would not be sufficient to provide adequate service for their clientele in the area.
The City’s administrative hearing officer elected to forward this petition for review by the Planning Commission, based on the above-mentioned concerns. The City does have an administrative review process for low impact wireless telecommunications facilities, and staff elected not to take it through that process because of their concerns.
Staff has received a letter in opposition from the residential property owner to the north of the property. The Commission has received a copy of that letter. The applicant has been made aware of the underground storage tanks mentioned in the letter. However, the site of the underground tanks would not preclude further development of the property. If environmental issues do arise, they will have to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
Based on the comments, analysis and findings of fact outlined in the staff report, Staff is recommending approval of a modified request for a conditional use, subject to the conditions included in the staff report. They are as follows:
1. Reducing the height of the pole to 40 feet and painting the flagpole a neutral color as approved by the Planning Director.
2. Using an appropriate flag in size and material as approved by the Planning Director.
3. No beacons shall be used.
4. No microwave dishes or other antennas shall be allowed on the pole.
5. All utilities and cables are placed underground.
6. The final landscape plan including specific details for effectively screening the equipment shall be approved by the Planning Director.
7. All antenna cabling and electrical wiring shall be located inside the 14” diameter pole and shall not be visible.
8. The proposed development shall meet all other applicable city codes and ordinances prior to issuance of a building permit.
9. Removal of the flagpole and electrical equipment, if no longer needed.
Ms. Seelig asked how Staff had come up with the 40’ flagpole condition. Ms. Lew said Staff had looked at the general height of structures in the area. Height requirement in the area is 30 feet. The building to the east is a two story structure and some of the utility structures are around 35 feet.
Mr. Chambless asked if there were other similar structures in the Sugar House area. Ms. Lew said there was one at the Sugar House Park. There is a flagpole that serves as a telecommunications facility that is 60 feet in height and 14 inches in diameter. Mr. Chambless asked if there were any similar structures in a residential or business area. Mr. Wheelwright said he was unaware of any in the area. He said there were one or two flagpole cell towers on the west side of the City. Ms. Lew said there were some utility poles that have been changed out to cell poles that are located closer to residential structures. If the poles are utilized, that is a permitted use process. If the poles are changed out, they are allowed to go 10 feet higher than the exiting pole height.
Mr. Chambless asked if the flagpole would be the same height as the mature trees in the general area. Ms. Lew did not know for sure.
Mr. Jonas asked about the height of utility poles located across the street from the property. Ms. Lew said about 30 or 35 feet.
Ms. Scott asked what the size of the flag would be on a 40 foot pole. Ms. Lew said there had been no discussion about that as yet. However, she said that for a 40’ pole, an 8’ x 12’ flag was recommended.
Ms. Arnold said the Sugar House Park pole was drowned in the size of Sugar House Park. The proposed flagpole would be around little buildings. She said it already looked like the devil with the storage structure. She felt that there could be a better location for the flagpole. She suggested the Albertsons parking lot. Ms. Lew said that could be discussed with the applicant. Ms. Arnold said the flagpole next to the two little buildings looked offensive to her.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and speak. Mr. Shawn Graff, representing Qwest Wireless, spoke next. Qwest had an existing rooftop site on Dilworth Elementary. Salt Lake City School District is tearing that school down and has chosen not to allow any telecommunications providers on their property. A replacement location was necessary. Qwest was trying to get closer to the 2100 South and 2100 East intersection. Qwest had approached property owners that would provide more buffering to residential units, but they were not interested. Qwest considered 2300 East, but the engineers felt it was too far east for their network.
A 60 foot pole is the minimum height needed for Qwest Wireless, particularly in a neighborhood where there are mature trees. The proposed property also has an apartment project to the east. On a 40’ pole, the signals would bounce off that project. Qwest operates at 800 MHz, so the radio waves are small. Mature trees have a tendency to impede the signal.
Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Graff if Qwest had contacted the Beehive Credit Union for placement on their existing property. Mr. Graff said no. The approval process and negotiating a lease would have taken quite a bit more time. The School District had not given Qwest much notice.
Ms. Funk asked if Qwest had considered a compromise of a 50’ flagpole. Mr. Graff said he would need to ask their engineers. If that would not work, they would look for another location. Ms. Funk asked if the box could be located in a different location, like behind the building and east of the ventilation storage unit. Mr. Graff said they had originally looked at the southeast corner of the property, but there is a problem with moving it too far away from the pole - the farther away the box, the more the loss of signal. The bottom of the flagpole is the maximum distance away from the antennas on top of the pole allowed by the engineers. Ms. Funk asked if it would work if there were a regular antenna in the rear of the building with the box. Mr. Graff said they had talked with Staff about putting it right next to the building. That was unacceptable to the property owner.
Ms. Scott said if it was only a 40’ pole, if the diameter had to remain at 14 inches. Mr. Graff said yes. 14 inches is the smallest Qwest could go. They do have a 12 inch flagpole in Sandy, but it only has one antenna. The proposed pole will have three antennas.
Ms. Scott asked why 2300 East was too far away to locate the pole. Mr. Graff said Qwest had sites every four or five blocks, which makes a very tight radius. Ms. Scott asked if distance could be compensated by increased height. Mr. Graff said Qwest needed to shoot signals to the north, south and east. There is only a specific set of sites a cell phone will jump to when driving down the freeway. A pole on 2300 East would take them too far east of the neighborhoods they wish to cover, which means they would have to have an antenna shooting to the west. They try to avoid that, and want to shoot only to the east. The valley rises as it goes east, which makes for a problem of signals shooting across the valley instead of from site to site.
Ms. Arnold asked if Qwest could look at 2000 East. There are quite a few commercial buildings there with big parking lots. Mr. Graff said 2000 East would be a better option. Qwest had looked at the Blue Plate Diner there and at the Wall Paper Warehouse across the street. A City ordinance prohibits Qwest from taking up a parking space. Ms. Arnold said retail only needed 3 stalls/1,000 square feet. Those parking lots had more parking than was required.
Mr. Wilde said Qwest could not occupy required parking stalls, but if there are excess parking stalls, they could be used.
Mr. Chambless asked if the pole would be a dark brown color. Mr. Graff said they would paint it whatever color the Commission asked. Mr. Chambless asked how many feet it could be to an existing structure. Mr. Graff said that was generally up to the City. It depends on the soil structure. They do not like to get too close to the foundation of a structure. There was one on 600 North and Redwood that was 10 feet away from the building. Mr. Chambless said the soil in the proposed area was very rocky and asked if that was a consideration. Mr. Graff said they had run into that before and had broken some auger bits on it, but it could be done. Mr. Chambless asked if the pole would serve just domestic calls or international as well. Mr. Graff said it would do anything a home phone could do, i.e. local, long distance and international.
Ms. Seelig asked how high Qwest’s tower was at Dilworth Elementary. Mr. Graff said he was unsure. It was a rooftop pole and was quite a bit more open. The concern about the height on the proposed pole is the apartment project and getting over that roof.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Graff had worked on the pole on 1500 East. Mr. Graff said no, not specifically. Mr. Jonas asked how tall that pole was. Mr. Graff said he believed it was bigger at about 50 feet. Mr. Jonas asked if Qwest had looked at the church across the street from Dilworth Elementary. Mr. Graff said the LDS Church does not allow any carriers on any of their properties used for worship.
Mr. Jonas thanked Mr. Graff and opened the hearing to the public. No one from the Community Council was forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then invited the general public to speak.
Mr. Max Eliason, 4349 Lynne Lane, Salt Lake City, Utah 84127, spoke next. Mr. Eliason is an attorney who owns a fourplex directly north of the proposed property. He expressed concern about the impact of a 60’ tower. He was opposed to the height and location, saying it would be an ugly and unwanted focal point. He did not believe that a 60’ tower could be disguised as a flagpole. He was also opposed to the flagpole because of the noise the flag would make blowing in the wind and the impact to the neighbors because of the illumination of the flagpole by flood lights. He thought people would want to move out of the area because of that. He felt it would create a negative economic impact for the area and make it difficult for him to raise his rents. He believed there were other locations in the area better suited for what Qwest wants to build.
Mr. Dean Anderson, 2135 South 2200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84109, spoke next. He asked Mr. Graff if there was a timeline for the structure or if it was a permanent fixture. Mr. Graff said it would be a long term lease. Mr. Anderson then asked about the coverage area for the signal. Mr. Graff was unsure, but said on average he thought it was five to six blocks. Mr. Anderson confirmed with Mr. Graff that it was a U.S. flag on the pole. Mr. Anderson then asked about the size of a flag on Foothill Boulevard at about 2400 South. Mr. Wilde said the height of that pole was 120’ and so the flag was much bigger. Mr. Graff reiterated that the flag they intended to fly would be 12’ x 18’. Mr. Anderson then referred to the aerial map and asked about the viability of certain alternative locations. None of the areas were viable for Qwest. Ms. Lew said residential zoning had much more restrictive standards and flagpoles might not be an option in those areas. Mr. Anderson said he was opposed to the proposal.
Mr. William Chatwin, 2105 South Oneida Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84109, spoke next. He has lived in the area for 15 years. He had studied the staff report and found that the flagpole as proposed was in violation of several of the standards in the staff report. The flagpole was too high at 60’. Mr. Chatwin considered the proposed site nonviable. He said the flagpole would violate standards A, B, F and K in the staff report as well. He felt that Qwest had not sufficiently researched other locations for the flagpole and presented his own ideas about where they could relocate it. He was opposed to the proposal.
Mr. Jonas then closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Ms. Seelig asked Ms. Lew to discuss the illumination of the flagpole. Ms. Lew said she understood that was connected with flag protocol. Ms. Seelig asked if the illumination would need to occur whenever it was dark. Ms. Lew said yes.
Ms. Arnold said she did not understand why the Commission did not have access to a flagpole file to refer to whenever they dealt with flagpole issues. She felt the Commission had spent an incredible amount of time discussing flag sizes over and over again.
Ms. Funk did not find the proposal acceptable. She was troubled by the height and the location of the big box. Ms. Arnold agreed.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved that the Planning Commission deny Petition No. 410-638 by Qwest Wireless based on the findings in the staff report that the 60’ flagpole is too high, and the testimony that has been given at this hearing relevant to the impact on the neighborhood; the Planning Commission is requesting Qwest to look further for another site that will suit their needs. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas asked if Ms. Funk did not like the staff recommendation of a 40’ flagpole. Ms. Funk said she did not like the placement of the box. Ms. Seelig was not in favor of the 40’ compromise, because of the location of the box and the negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood with the light and noise.
Mr. Daniels asked if the motion could be amended to include conditional use standards B, H and K. Ms. Funk agreed.
Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved that the Planning Commission deny Petition No. 410-638 by Qwest Wireless based on the findings in the staff report that Conditional Use Standards B, H and K would be violated by the proposed flagpole structure, and the testimony that has been given at this hearing relevant to the impact on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission is requesting Qwest to look further for another site that will suit their needs. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion.
Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
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 development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in the Zoning Ordinance.
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 use 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. However, staff finds that a 60 foot flagpole is incompatible with the height and mass of the surrounding structures.
Commission Finding: The Commission concurs with the staff finding that a 60 foot flagpole is incompatible with the height and mass of the surrounding structures.
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: 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.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Finding: The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
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 and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Finding: Appropriate buffering will be provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts provided that the pole is shorter, the flag smaller and the electrical equipment adequately screened.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Finding: The architecture and building materials of the proposal will be consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood provided the equipment cabinet is properly screened and the pole is painted as discussed above.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Finding: Screening controls, such as an architecturally compatible enclosure and/or landscaping are an appropriate way to minimize visibility of electrical equipment. Landscaping will be appropriate for the scale of the development.
Commission Finding: The landscaping is not appropriate for the scale of the development.
I. The proposed development preserves historical architectural and environmental features of the property.
Finding: The proposed development preserves architectural and environmental features of the property.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Finding: Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is 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.
Commission Finding: The Commission concurs with the staff finding that a 60 foot flagpole is incompatible with the height and mass of the surrounding structures.
L. Finding: The proposed conditional use is 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. However, staff finds that a 60 foot flagpole is incompatible with the height and mass of the surrounding structures.
M. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Finding: The proposed development shall meet all other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of a building permit.
21A.40.090(7) Additional Conditional Use Requirements.
A. Compatibility of the proposed structure with the height and mass of existing buildings and utility structures.
Finding: A 60 foot flagpole is incompatible with the height and mass of the surrounding buildings and utility structures. A 40 foot pole would be more visually compatible with the height of surrounding structures.
B. Whether co-location of the antenna on other existing structures in the same vicinity such as other towers, buildings, water towers, utility poles etc. is possible without significantly impacting antenna transmission or reception.
Finding: According to the applicant, co-location of the antenna on other existing structures in the same vicinity such as other towers, buildings, water towers, utility poles etc. is not possible.
C. The location of the antenna in relation to existing vegetation, topography and buildings to obtain the best visual screening.
Finding: While some visual impacts are anticipated from developing the site for telecommunications purposes, the location of the antenna in relation to existing vegetation, topography and buildings is appropriate.
D. Whether the spacing between monopoles and lattice towers creates detrimental impacts to adjoining properties.
Finding: Spacing between monopoles and lattice towers will not change nor create detrimental impacts to adjoining properties.
This hearing ended at 7:16 p.m.
Petition No. 400-03-08, a zoning text amendment by Jeff Jonas, Planning Commission Chair, requesting to amend Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by adding standards to regulate the use and placement of street banners within the public way.
This hearing began at 7:22 p.m. Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. The current Salt Lake City zoning ordinance under Chapter 46 that regulates signs has a provision that specifically prohibits the placement of signs within a public right-of-way or on public streets, unless otherwise authorized by a public agency. Since the early 1990’s the Downtown Alliance has been administering a street banner program on Main Street, State Street and several streets within the Downtown improvement district. This has been allowed under an agreement between the City and the Downtown Alliance.
Prior to the Olympics, SLOC asked the City to allow street banner signs on various streets throughout the City, in an attempt to help with the Olympic movement. The Mayor initiated an executive order that included rather narrow standards to allow street banner signs that were Olympic related on various streets.
Since that was a very successful effort, following the Olympics many organizations have come to the City requesting that they be allowed to place banners along certain streets. The University of Utah has done it along 400 South. To accommodate those requests, additional executive orders have been issued by the Mayor. As different executive orders were issued, the standards changed to accommodate certain requests that were deemed to be acceptable by the City. The program has become very successful, and the standards have become too narrow to accommodate many of the organizations wanting to place banners. The City has received a number of complaints.
In May 2003, the Mayor issued another executive order that broadened the scope of the banner program to allow local non-profit 50l(c)(3) organizations, governmentally owned libraries, and educational institutions to post banner signs on certain streets. Since the City has been operating under those executive orders, the Administration has asked that to avoid that process the City incorporate the standards in the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the standards.
Mr. Paterson presented the Commission with following issues to consider (as listed in the staff report) in adopting the standards:
1. Free speech/public forum. Allowing street banners does pose a risk of creating a public forum and may be considered a constitutionally protected form of free speech. However, the intent of the proposed ordinance is to allow signage within certain time, place and manner restrictions to create a limited forum. The proposed standards do place some limits on the content of the banner signs. They would be for the express purpose of promoting community identity, events and organizations. The City could also be challenged on the equal protection clause of the Constitution because of limiting who may participate in the program.
2. Administration of the banner program. Does the City want to create a uniform street banner policy to be administered city-wide or create separate districts with different standards, e.g., in the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) where the Downtown Alliance currently administers the street banner program. Other groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Sugar House Business area, and the Westside Alliance have expressed interest, or may be willing, to administer the program in other areas of the City.
3. Who can hang banners? The executive order limits participation in the banner program to local non-profit 50l(c)(3) organizations, and governmentally owned libraries and educational institutions. The banners may only promote and encourage community identity, community organizations and community activities and events. The list of eligible participants and purposes for the banners are purposefully designed with a narrow scope to limit exposure to free speech issues. The Planning Commission may wish to widen the scope of permitted participants to ensure that all community councils and other governmental entities could participate in the banner program. However, allowing additional participants may create additional exposure to constitutional challenges.
4. Where should street banners be located? The current executive order allows street banners to be place on any existing utility poles within the locations identified on the “Light Pole Banner Program Map.” This map is maintained by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division and is included in Attachment 1. This map highlights the streets where street banners have been deemed appropriate. This map is amended periodically when applications for new banners are reviewed by the City and determined to be acceptable. To avoid the need to process an ordinance amendment each time the map is updated, the ordinance will reference the map but not incorporate it.
The Planning Commission may wish to include standards for amending the map. Staff recommends that the streets eligible for future street banners be major arterials, collectors or gateway streets identified in community master plans. Private streets such as the portion of Rio Grande Street (455 West) located north of 200 South, Gallivan Avenue (260 South) and Weechquootee Place (15 East) may also be appropriate locations for street banners.
5. Size and height of street banners. The current executive order limits street banners to a maximum size of 96” X 30” and requires the top of the banner be a minimum of 18 feet above the ground (22 feet if the banner hangs over the traffic way). Assuming that a banner is the maximum size, the bottom of the banner would be a minimum of 10 feet above the ground (14 feet if overhanging the traffic way). In some locations, organizations have chosen to hang smaller banners and the minimum bracket height requirements have made it difficult to read the banners. This was the case in Poplar Grove where smaller banners were installed and because of the minimum height standard for the top of the banner, the banners were too high to be effective.
Many of the existing banner brackets do not appear to meet the minimum height standard. Unless there is a compelling safety reason to raise existing non-conforming brackets, the existing brackets will remain in there present location. All new banner signs will be required to meet the ordinance requirements.
The Downtown Alliance standards are slightly different than what is proposed above. Mr. Paterson noted correspondence received from the Downtown Alliance asking the Planning Commission to consider some larger banners they use at the north end of Main Street on their masthead poles. Near the ZCMI Center within the sidewalk the Downtown Alliance has some larger signs that are 143” by 36”, on double poles so that there are two banners side by side.
6. Does the City require consent of owner before issuing a permit? There are conflicts between the proposed street banner standards and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) standards (see attachment 3). The UDOT banner guidelines are more restrictive than the City’s standards in respect to message content and the allowable participants. The State allows only city, county or other governmental agencies to place banners on State roads. The banners may include the name and dates of an event and related information. UDOT does not permit private, non-governmental/non-profit organization advertising (including logos) or political messages. UDOT intentionally created very narrow standards in an attempt to avoid legal challenges based on free speech and the establishment clause.
• Along certain segments of State roads, the Federal government also has jurisdiction. This occurs on SR-186 (400/500 South, Foothill Boulevard), SR-71 (700 East), SR-266 (500 and 600 South streets between I-15 and State Street, and SR-270 (West Temple from 400 South to I-15).
• The proposed City street banner regulations would allow non-profit organizations to advertise events and the banners could include the sponsors’ logo. The City’s proposed standards would require a street banner applicant to obtain a permit from UDOT prior to allowing banners to be installed along a State-owned road.
• Street banners have been or are currently hanging on State-owned roads such as State Street, 700 East and 400 South. All of these are State roads and seem to be important components of the City’s street banner program. Other State roads that that are gateways to the City, such as North Temple, Redwood Road, Foothill Boulevard, 1300 East, may be appropriate locations for street banners.
7. Appeals of administrative decisions regarding banner requests. City Staff administratively approve street banner requests. If these provisions were incorporated in the zoning ordinance, the Board of Adjustment would hear any appeals submitted by aggrieved parties.
8. Fees. The current executive order requires an application fee of $50.00 while the Downtown Alliance charges a fee of $25.00. Should the fee be consistent throughout the City? Mr. Paterson believed that standardizing the fees would be the best way to go.
The executive order was mailed out to all Community Council Chairs within the City, with the request to gather comments from their respective Councils. The City also offered the possibility of holding a public open house if there was a demonstrated need for that. The City has received no comments from the Community Councils or requests for an open house.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission give them feedback on the important issues, and if the Commission sees fit, to recommend that Staff forward an ordinance to the City Council for their consideration.
Mr. Jonas expressed confusion, saying he did not recall seeing a case like this where the Commission was asked to recommend approval of a petition to amend a zoning ordinance when they had no idea what the ordinance was being amended to. Mr. Jonas said this was like an issues only petition, in which case it would be more appropriate to appoint a subcommittee to come back with specific recommendations. He did not wish to spend a lot of time trying to write an ordinance in a public hearing.
Mr. Paterson said Administration was recommending that the City incorporate the standards in the executive order.
Ms. Funk said the issue of obtaining permission from private road owners should be resolved before looking at the ordinance. She was also concerned about Mr. Paterson making recommendations that were different than those written in the staff report. The Mayor had put forth what he believed is acceptable. She wanted to know if staff was either recommending or not recommending what the Mayor thinks is acceptable.
Mr. Paterson reiterated that the executive order does require the approval of UDOT or other owners of streets where the banners may be proposed. UDOT has a different standard, which raises issues. Ms. Funk said the Commission needed to know what UDOT wants and tailor the ordinance to meet that as well.
Ms. Funk asked if the map in the staff report listed all of California and Indiana Avenues. Ms. Funk also asked if 600 North discontinued at about 800 West. Mr. Paterson said California Avenue was listed between just east of 900 West and Redwood Road. 600 North is also between 900 West and Redwood Road. Indiana is included between I-215 and Redwood Road. Mr. Paterson said that could possibly be extended farther east to I-15.
Ms. Funk said it seemed to her that there were streets lacking on the west side of the City. However, she felt there was not enough information to act on the petition.
Mr. Jonas said he did not understand that the Mayor’s executive order was intended to be the basis for the new ordinance. He wanted to see how the new language would fit into the existing ordinance.
Ms. Seelig asked what the criteria were for deeming a street banner appropriate. Mr. Paterson said it was based on earlier executive orders issued by the Mayor. The original one was written prior to the Olympics to allow signage during the Olympics. Ms. Seelig said if the purpose was to encourage and promote community identity, organizations and activities, she was concerned about the lack of streets on the west side as well. She felt she needed more information as well, particularly concerning community groups could be included within the prescribed parameters.
Mr. Daniels commented that if they were going to deal primarily with non-profit groups, he would rather have a refundable deposit instead of a uniform fee. A refundable deposit would make the person hanging the banner responsible for taking it back down. Mr. Daniels felt one of the things that puts a blight on the community, both the east and west side, is people being allowed to put up any kind of signage without having to be responsible for taking it down. He still sees signage from people running for office five years ago on the west side of the city.
Mr. Daniels was unsure what the criteria is for what signage would be approved or disapproved, but said there were some communities that disallow sponsorship or co-sponsorship from beer and cigarette companies. Mr. Paterson said the standards do regulate that and would not allow any commercial signage to appear on the street banners. It would just be the logo of the sponsoring non-profit organization or community event.
Mr. Jonas asked if the Downtown Alliance would still be administering the program should the Commission approve an ordinance amendment. Mr. Paterson said Staff would recommend that the Downtown Alliance do continue to regulate the program. He recommended that the Commission incorporate the Downtown Alliances standards for the Downtown Business Improvement District into an ordinance. Mr. Jonas asked for confirmation that for the rest of the City the program would be administered by the City Transportation Division. Mr. Paterson said that was how it was currently being administrated.
Mr. Jonas said the Transportation Division would need to set guidelines in terms of where the banners would be. He also said the Downtown Alliance administered it downtown because it was a promotional tool. The last thing the Transportation Division is worried about is promotion. He felt a more analogous organization, such as Community Economic Development, to administer the program throughout the rest of the city. Mr. Paterson said the executive order includes standards for review to make sure that the banners do not block historic buildings and would have to fit in with the character of the neighborhood in terms of building heights. Whichever City department or division that ends up administering the program would not have to be written in the ordinance.
Mr. Chambless was concerned about First Amendment rights and asked if the City Attorney’s office had looked at the executive order standards. Mr. Zunguze said all the executive orders were drafted out of the City Attorney’s office. This has been a complicated issue for the City. It was initially supposed to be a narrowly defined program, but because of the great success of the program, there is demand from groups that are typically beyond promotional elements associated with economic development. The issue is how best does the City handle these demands. The Commission should be concerned about the overall role of land use in the banner program such as size and location. The administration of this ordinance will be in the Department of Community and Economic Development, primarily through the Transportation Office. No particular street will be excluded unless there are specific health and safety issues that are associated with travel along those roads and the location of banners.
Mr. Zunguze said that because of the complexity of the issues that have been raised, a subcommittee would be the best way to go. They could work with the City Attorney’s office.
Mr. Chambless agreed that a subcommittee is necessary. He mentioned a banner at the University of Utah that said “Beat BYU”. He wondered if that might raise a First Amendment question in terms of content. Also, if that banner were left up for several years and became weathered, at what point would that constitute blight.
Ms. Seelig agreed that the program has added vibrancy and life to the Downtown area and would like to see it expanded. She felt it was important to do it right. She asked if other cities had been looked at who had benefited from longer term experience with street banners and the potential pitfalls. Mr. Paterson said he had received ordinances from various cities around the country and that he could provide a list of those cities to the Commission with a summary of their ordinances as a part of the subcommittee process. Ms. Seelig said that would be helpful in visualizing the possibilities. She was supportive of a subcommittee.
Mr. Jonas then opened the meeting to the public and asked if anyone from the Community Council wished to speak. None were forthcoming. He then asked if anyone from the general public wished to speak.
Mr. Arthur Holman, 285 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101, spoke next. He manages the residences by the Marriott Hotel on the corner of 300 West and 300 South. He asked what the current ordinance is for or against banners on private buildings. Mr. Wilde said banners that take the form of temporary advertising are not permitted. The proposed ordinance would also not permit that type of banner. Mr. Holman has been opposed in the past to commercial advertising. He said the 30 day period allowed for banners could be extended another 30 days for a total of 60 days, and felt that was too long. He wondered what type of event could justify banners being up for 60 days. Mr. Daniels gave the example of the Greek Festival. Mr. Daniels agreed that 60 days was too long and that there were probably people in Mr. Holman’s neighborhood who put up illegal signs.
Ms. Tracy Von Horten, a representative from the Downtown Alliance, spoke next. She addressed the 30 day period standard. She said to actually hang the banners was quite time consuming, and it made more sense administratively to put banners up when they were taking one set down. She said most people who wished to hang banners wanted them in proximity to their event. Most non-profit groups were financially restricted and could not afford very large banners, and that should be taken into consideration. The Commission may want a smaller banner restriction to allow the non-profit groups to afford to produce the banners. To underwrite the costs of a banner, many non-profit groups need underwriters or sponsors. Those sponsors would require a logo displayed on their banners. The Downtown Alliance limits their logo sizes to 20 percent of the overall size of the banner.
Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Von Horten if she would be willing to serve on a subcommittee. Ms. Von Horten said absolutely.
Mr. Paterson said Maria Garcia, Director of Neighborhood Housing Services, wished to say that they believe that North Temple, 900 West and Redwood Road are appropriate locations for banners and would like to see those streets added to the program map. She expressed concerns about UDOT standards because North Temple is a State road. UDOT standards would not allow logos on the banners. She is working with the Northwest Alliance and Utah Power & Light to get banners put up on North Temple. Ms. Garcia believes a consistent fee throughout the City of $25 would be appropriate.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to appoint and accept volunteers for a subcommittee to study the issue further and bring it back to the Commission with recommendations. Mr. Chambless seconded the motion.
Mr. Daniels said concerned parties outside of the Planning Commission should be invited to sit on the subcommittee, such as representatives from the Downtown Alliance, the Transportation Division and UDOT.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote. Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Subcommittee Volunteers
Ms. Kathy Scott, Mr. Tim Chambless, and Ms. Jennifer Seelig volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Mr. Daniels suggested that Mr. Prescott Muir be invited to be on the subcommittee as well, since he already works with the Downtown Alliance. Mr. Jonas agreed.
This hearing ended at 8:05 p.m.
Petition No. 410-528, by Mr. Nathan Anderson requesting Planned Development and preliminary subdivision approval of a proposed 6-unit (3 building) twin-home development located at 3027 S. 1100 E. in a Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1) zoning district.
This hearing began at 8:06 p.m. Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report and referred to both aerial photographs and site plans for the proposed development. The flag shaped property has .66 acres. This property was annexed into the City in 2002. The zoning is SR-1 to reflect what is across the street. There is a private driveway along the south side of the property that serves as access to a single family dwelling. There is a fence along this private driveway. There is a mix of different housing types in the area. The property in the County is zoned R-2, which is somewhat consistent with the City’s SR-1 zoning.
The applicant is proposing to construct 3 twin homes and to have each of the units on its own separate lot. There is an alpha parcel for the flag section of the property. The flag section is 35’ wide, of which 20’ would be made into a driveway extending to Elgin Avenue. The applicant will maintain a 15’ wide landscaping buffer along the adjoining residential property. Each of the units will have 2 car attached garages. The entryways to the homes will be on the sides of the buildings. The lots will each have a 43’ rear yard area. Mr. McCandless showed the Commission an elevation drawing of the units and said the applicant would be using a variety of materials on the buildings. Synthetic stone and stucco would be used, which are not out of character with existing structures in the area.
The applicant is asking for planned development approval and preliminary subdivision approval. The Planning Commission can waive certain zoning requirements through the planned development process where appropriate. The Commission would be required to waive the interior sideyards for each of the units. The required setback is 10 feet, but the applicant is looking at roughly 6.5 feet from each of the interior property lines. There is about 13 feet between each of the units. Also, in the SR-1 zone there is a minimum of 50’ wide lot frontage on the street. On this property there is only 35 feet. The Commission would need to grant a waiver on this as well. None of the lots front directly onto a public street.
Through the subdivision plat, there will be 6 lots and an alpha parcel. As part of that, Staff is recommending a maintenance agreement be required for the alpha lot so that it is taken care of in perpetuity, and also that a cross access agreement be required for the shared driveway.
The Community Council voted 8 in favor and 7 opposed to the project. One view was that the development is not consistent with the master plan. The other was that it was a reasonable development and would be a major improvement to the neighborhood. Most of the opposition centered around making the development pedestrian friendly. The applicant is not opposed to defining pedestrian walkway along the landscaping buffer of the alpha section to make it safe for people to walk.
Staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the following recommendations listed in the staff report:
1. Recordation of a final plat including necessary cross access easements and maintenance agreement for lot 7.
2. Meeting all City departmental requirements.
3. Implementation of all site improvements as shown on the proposed site plan.
4. The Sugar House Future Land Use Map be updated in the future to include this property.
Staff sent out notices as required by the zoning ordinance and received no phone calls. They did receive a hand written note from Mr. David McDaniel saying, “It will be impossible for me to attend this meeting. However, I vote against any further developments in this area.”
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. McCandless to clarify on the zoning map that the property in question was the only piece that was annexed in 2002. Mr. McCandless said yes, this was a single parcel annexation. Mr. Wheelwright mentioned that the balance of the property on both sides of Elgin to the east of 1100 East is part of the large Mount Aire annexation that the Commission recommended be forwarded to the City Council. The recommendation was for a mixture of zoning, but more of the R-2 and SR-1 zoning to make it compatible with the existing zoning. Mr. Jonas recalled that they had recommended R-2 zoning.
Mr. Jonas asked about Recommendation Number 3. He noted that Mr. McCandless had made reference to the concern of Sugar House for a pedestrian way. He asked if that would be part of Staff’s recommendation. Mr. McCandless said yes.
Ms. Seelig asked to see again where the pedestrian access would be. Mr. McCandless said he believed it would be on the west side of the driveway.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and speak. Mr. Nathan Anderson spoke next. He said the best and most appropriate location of the pedestrian access would be a 4’ sidewalk along the landscaped buffer. The other side of the driveway will be up against a 20’ retaining wall running the full length of the driveway. He did not want to see people between cars and the retaining wall.
Ms. Scott asked if the front doors were to be located on the side of the building. Mr. McCandless said yes. Mr. McCandless said at the area where the doors were located, the buildings would be set back and would meet the 10’ setback requirement at that spot.
Mr. Anderson said he had read and agreed with the staff report. The only correction he had was with the collection of storm water having to be retained on the site. He had spoken with Salt Lake Public Utilities and found that there is a storm drain he could connect to just west of the property. Mr. Jonas said approval would be subject to the other City Departments and Mr. Anderson could work it out with them.
Ms. Funk asked how garbage would be collected. Mr. Anderson said he proposed individual cans that would have to be taken out to the street. All of the units will be separate and everyone would be responsible for their own garbage, sewer, water, etc. He has tried to eliminate a Homeowners Association and any fee related to that. There will be an agreement to keep the façade, vegetation and site, and there will be money set aside to care for the roadway.
Mr. Chambless asked if the garbage cans would be uniform large cans with flip up lids similar to others in the City. Mr. Anderson said yes.
Ms. Arnold asked if the project was not a planned unit development. Mr. Anderson said it is a planned unit development, but that he was trying to eliminate the Homeowners Association. Ms. Arnold asked if each of the properties would have their own water connection and be separately metered. Mr. Anderson said yes.
Ms. Funk asked if Mr. Anderson could build five units to allow for the 10’ sideyard setback requirement. Mr. Anderson said he had tried to remain consistent with the structures to the east and west. He felt it would not look appropriate to cut one of the buildings in half, and that would not be his first choice.
He had talked with his architect, and without changing the footprint of the site plan he would rather put the front doors on the actual front of the buildings and move the walkway to the front door right against the dwelling. The roofline would be extended with pillars gracing the entrance to the home to keep rain and snow out. There would then be a well lit entrance to the unit.
Ms. Funk liked his idea of moving the doorways to the front of the units.
Ms. Arnold asked where the guest parking would be. Mr. Anderson said it would be along the entrance to the street. He had provided a two car garage, and the driveways were deep enough to park two additional cars. Ms. Arnold said the 20’ width of driveway would have cars parked along it and she did not like that idea. Ms. Arnold said inside the project the street would not accommodate more than four cars.
Ms. Scott asked who would own the alpha lot. Mr. Anderson said each one of the unit owners would have 1/6 ownership of the alpha lot.
Mr. Wilde said there was a provision in the ordinance called “Front Façade Controls” which the City did not address in the staff report. The provision states that to maintain architectural harmony and primary orientation along the street, all buildings shall be required to include an entrance door and such other features as windows, balconies, porches and other architectural features in the front façade of the building, totaling not less than 10 percent of the front façade elevation area, excluding any area use for roof structures. Mr. Wilde said this had been used historically, particularly on public streets, to make sure that there was not a blank wall on the street façade.
Mr. Jonas opened the meeting to the public and asked if anyone from the Community Council wished to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the general public wished to speak.
Mr. Daniel Kunz, 1167 East Brickyard Road, #806, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84106, spoke next. He and his wife reside in the Brickyard Condominiums and look directly on the proposed property. He asked if the mature trees located along the private driveway (under County jurisdiction) to the south of the property would be maintained. Mr. Anderson said his property line went right through those trees and they would not be removed. He also said the cedar fencing along the driveway would be matched on his property.
Mr. Jonas then closed the meeting to the public and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Ms. Arnold asked if both areas to Elgin would remain open. Mr. McCandless said yes. Ms. Arnold then said the alpha lot does not provide parking.
Mr. Jonas said it was good that there was room in front of the garages to park two additional cars. Parking on the one side of Elgin would not be a long walk into the units. Mr. Jonas said he felt the project would be an improvement over what is there now. He was ok with the idea of six units instead of five because there was so much open space in the rear of the units.
Ms. Seelig asked about the front façade. She wondered if the ordinance provision mentioned by Mr. Wilde needed to be referenced as a condition for approval. Mr. Wilde said if the Planning Commission was willing to waive that requirement it needed to be reflected in the motion.
Mr. Jonas said three things needed to be waived: 1) the 50’ setback requirement on a public street; 2) the front façade provision; and 3) the 10’ sideyard setback requirement.
Ms. Arnold reiterated that the parking thing really bothered her. She said the Fire Department was concerned about posting no parking signage on the roadway easement. No parking signs would be posted on both sides of the street. This was critical for emergency vehicle access. Ms. Arnold said the signs could be posted but would be impossible to enforce. She would personally prefer the applicant to shorten his backyard to provide more parking. Too many people use their garages for “stuff” and park in their driveways.
Mr. Jonas said he felt people would be able to figure out the parking situation. Mr. Daniels said Ms. Arnold had made a good point. The applicant had said there could be four cars parked on the road. Mr. Jonas said the applicant would have to follow the Fire Department’s recommendation that there would be no parking on the roadway easement. Mr. Anderson has provided enough parking with the deep driveways.
Ms. Seelig asked if the easement was on the private road. Mr. McCandless said the no parking would apply to the entire interior road.
Ms. Funk said she would like to see incorporated in the motion that the applicant does have to put the doors to the front of the units. Mr. Jonas said the neighbor to the alpha lot had landscaped quite a bit and Mr. Jonas would like to keep some of the mature vegetation, even if it meant a meandering pedestrian walkway.
Ms. Seelig if the doors being placed in the front would waive the front façade requirement. Mr. Jonas said if the front façade was 22’ wide and a door was 2.5 to 3 feet wide, the applicant would meet the 10 percent requirement. Therefore, there would be nothing to waive.
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved that based on the comments, analysis and findings in the staff report, the Planning Commission approve conditional use, planned development and preliminary subdivision approval, including waiving the zoning requirements discussed in this report, subject to conditions 1-4 as written the staff report, and adding the following conditions:
5. Final landscape, sideyards and setback approval by the Planning Director or his representative.
6. A 4 foot walkway shall be constructed along the east roadway.
7. Entry doors shall face north.
Ms. Seelig asked if Mr. Daniels would amend his motion to define pedestrian access throughout the site, with the final approval granted to the Planning Director. Mr. Daniels accepted this amendment. Ms. Seelig then seconded the motion.
Amended Motion
Mr. Daniels moved that based on the comments, analysis and findings in the staff report, the Planning Commission approve conditional use, planned development and preliminary subdivision approval, including waiving the zoning requirements discussed in this report, subject to conditions 1-4 as written the staff report, and adding the following conditions:
5. Final landscape, sideyards and setback approval by the Planning Director or his representative.
6. A 4 foot walkway shall be constructed along the east roadway. Pedestrian access shall be defined throughout the site, with final approval granted to the Planning Director.
7. Entry doors shall face north.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote:
Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk and Ms. Arnold voted “Nay”. There being a tie, Mr. Jonas, as Chair, cast an “Aye” vote. The motion carried.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Recordation of a final plat including necessary cross access easements and maintenance agreement for lot 7.
2. Meeting all City departmental requirements.
3. Implementation of all site improvements as shown on the proposed site plan.
4. The Sugar House Future Land Use Map be updated in the future to include this property.
5. Final landscape, sideyards and setback approval by the Planning Director or his representative.
6. A 4 foot walkway shall be constructed along the east roadway. Pedestrian access shall be defined throughout the site, with final approval granted to the Planning Director.
7. Entry doors shall face north.
Findings of Fact:
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 development requires conditional use approval by the Planning Commission.
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.
Discussion: The land use designation, zoning and zoning densities were established by the Planning Commission and City Council when the property was annexed into the City.
Land Use: The land use is determined by the zoning that was approved during the annexation process. In this case, the property was zoned SR-1 which allows twin home development.
Building Density: This area is characterized by a mix of residential uses with varying densities. As mentioned in the staff report to the Planning Commission, to the north are single-family homes, to the east are several two-family dwellings, similar to what is being proposed, to the south is a condominium and to the west are duplexes. The density of the proposed development is not out of character with housing densities on adjoining property.
Sugar House Master Plan land use map identifies the area immediately north of the Brickyard Condominiums as Low-Density Residential, which according to the master plan prescribes a density between (5-10) dwelling units per acre. The proposed development is 9.1 units per acre, which is consistent with what is called out in the Master Plan on the adjacent property.
Sugar House Master Plan Policies for Planned Developments:
Policies:
• Ensure the site and building design of residential planned developments are compatible and integrated with the surrounding neighborhood.
The exterior materials used on adjoining buildings vary from brick to vinyl siding, one to two stories in height. The proposed exterior materials are varied. The building exterior will be a combination of stucco, board and batten siding and cultured stone. The roof lines and window placement are varied, adding interest to the buildings. The materials are not out of character with other buildings in the area.
Finding: The site and building design are compatible with and integrated with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Discourage the development of "gated communities";
Finding: The proposed development is not proposed to be a gated community.
• Review all proposed residential planned developments using the following guidelines:
○ Support new projects of a similar scale that incorporate the desirable architectural design features common throughout the neighborhood.
Scale and architectural design is discussed above.
Finding: The proposed development is of a similar scale and incorporates the desirable architectural design features common throughout the neighborhood.
○ Maintain an appropriate setback around the perimeter of the development;
Discussion: Appropriate setback is maintained around the perimeter of the development. The homes to the north are buffered by their rear yard (approximately 15-20 feet), an existing 6' high cedar fence, a 4' wide landscaped area and a 38' wide driveway.
Finding: Appropriate setback is provided around the perimeter of the development.
○ Position houses so that front doors and front yards face the street;
Discussion: This policy is an effort to make planned developments more compatible with existing neighborhoods by orienting dwellings towards existing streets where possible. In this case however, these are interior lots, where the homes cannot front directly onto a street due to the limited street frontage.
Finding: As this is an interior lot with limited street frontage, this policy does not apply.
○ Require front yards to be left open wherever possible - when front yard fences are provided, they should be low and open;
Finding: This policy does not apply as this is an interior lot.
○ Design houses so that the garage doors do not predominate the front façade -- detached garages are preferred with access from an alley wherever possible;
Discussion: Detached garages are not recommended as the amount of useable rear yard space would be reduced or eliminated. These are interior lots which are screened from Elgin Avenue and 1100 East by the existing homes. The front door could be moved to the front or east side of the buildings but it would reduce the proposed 2 car garages to a 1 car garage. Given that the fronts of the buildings are screened from the street by existing homes, the proposed buildings as designed are appropriate.
Finding: The building design as proposed are appropriate for the area. Detached garages are not recommended.
○ Design streets to be multi-purpose public spaces -- comfortable for the pedestrian and bicyclist - not just roads for cars;
Finding: Given the limited lot area, integration of public space (for use by the general public) is not recommended. The driveway is only 20 feet wide, which is too narrow for general public use. Pedestrian and bicycle use should be kept to the existing sidewalks and streets and not through this development since the distance from the east to west drive approaches, whether through the development or on public streets is the same.
To address the community council's concerns regarding making developments more pedestrian friendly, different paving material or texturing be used along one edge of the driveway to define a walkway for the development. The applicant has indicated this is not a problem.
○ Provide at least two access points wherever possible in order to connect the street system to the larger street network to maintain an integrated network of streets; and
Finding: Two access points are provided.
○ Incorporate a pedestrian orientation into the site design of each project with sidewalks, park-strips and street trees as well as trail-ways wherever possible.
Discussion: There are existing sidewalks and parkstrips in Elgin Avenue and 1100 East. There also will be a defined walkway from the homes to Elgin Avenue.
Finding: The proposed development meets this policy.
Finding For Standard B: Given the above findings, the proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
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: Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the 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.
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 and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Finding: No significant impacts from light, noise or visual impacts are anticipated.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Finding: Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures in the area as discussed above.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the 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: The proposed development preserves the architectural and environmental features of the property.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Finding: The hours of operation are similar to those of adjoining uses.
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 is 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.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Finding: The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State and Federal codes and ordinances prior to issuance of a building permit.
Planned Development Review
As the property does not have adequate frontage on a dedicated public street and does not meet minimum yard requirements, Planned Development approval by the Planning Commission is required.
According to Section 21A.54.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, a planned development is a distinct category of conditional use. As such, it is intended to encourage the efficient use of land and resources, promoting greater efficiency in public and utility services and encouraging innovation in the planning and building of all types of development. Given the proposed site layout, the proposed development makes efficient use of utility services and land resources.
The proposed Planned Development requires that several zoning requirements be waived by the Planning Commission.
Twin Home Development
Required Proposed
Min. Lot Area: 4,000 sq. ft. / d.u. Lot 1 4798.5 sq. ft.
Lot 2 4078.7
Lot 3 4078.7
Lot 4 4078.7
Lot 5 4087.7
Lot 6 4532.5
Minimum Lot Width: 25 ft. / d.u. Lot 1 35.0 ft.
Lot 2 29.75
Lot 3 29.75
Lot 4 29.75
Lot 5 29.75
Lot 6 33.08
Front Yard: 20% of lot depth 42.1 ft.
or 25 feet
Interior Side: 0 and 10 Lot 1 0 / 12
Lot 2 0 / 6.75 Waiver required
Lot 3 0 / 6.75 Waiver required
Lot 4 0 / 6.75 Waiver required
Lot 5 0 / 6.75 Waiver required
Lot 6 0 / 10.06
Rear Yard: 25% of lot area 43.0 feet (all lots)
or 15 feet
Lot Frontage on a
Public Street: Waiver required for all lots.
Based on the submitted site plan, in order for the Planning Commission to approve this development, a waiver of the lot frontage on a public street requirement and the interior side yard setback requirements for lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be required.
According to Section 21A.54.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, no such change, alteration, modification or waiver shall be approved unless the Planning Commission shall find that the proposed planned development:
1. Will achieve the purposes for which a planned development may be approved pursuant to subsection A of this Section; and
Discussion: According to Section 21A.54.150.A of the Zoning Ordinance, the City seeks to achieve the following specific objectives: (The bolded objectives apply to this proposal)
1. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations;
2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities;
3. Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships;
4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features, and the prevention of soil erosion;
5. Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City;
6. Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment;
7. Inclusion of special development amenities; and
8. Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation.
These items have been addressed in the conditional use section above.
Finding: The proposed facility will achieve the purposes for which a planned development may be approved.
2. Will not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of this Title and of any plans adopted by the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Discussion: This is discussed in the Conditional Use section above.
Finding: The proposed facility will not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of this Title and of any plans adopted by the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Subdivision Review (Salt Lake City Code, Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance)
Although the lots do not have frontage on a dedicated public street, they all meet the minimum lot area and width requirements of the SR-1 zone for a twin home development. The waiver of the street frontage is addressed in the planned development section of the staff report to the Planning Commission. As mentioned above, there will be 7 lots total, one for each of the units and an alpha parcel (Lot 7), which will be owned in common (see site plan). Lot 7 includes the east access off of Elgin Avenue. The perpetual maintenance of Lot 7 will need to be addressed, cross access easements will need to be provided and a final subdivision plat will need to be recorded. These items can be reviewed and approved administratively.
This hearing ended at 8:47 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.