SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Vice-Chairperson Max Smith, Andrea Barrows, Gilbert Iker, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Gregory DeMille, Arla Funk and Diana Kirk were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Director Brent Wilde, Margaret Pahl, Craig Hinckley, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Doug Dansie and Emil Pierson.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Barrows moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 20, 1999. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Iker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk and Ms. Kirk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-40 by Michael Long, requesting preliminary subdivision approval to amend Lot 404 of the Capitol Park Planned Development, Phase 4 Subdivision to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pahl stated that Mr. Michael Long, the petitioner, is requesting to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet to increase the buildable area by 600 square feet and allow him to build the house that he has designed. The 35-foot setback was partially designed to protect a large Elm tree and a large Austrian Pine along the frontage. The applicant has contracted a tree surgeon to determine whether the trees would be harmed by the reduction in setback. The tree surgeon has written a letter indicating that the trees will not be harmed, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Barrows asked Ms. Pahl if she know what the buildable area was on the original plat. Ms. Pahl stated that she does not have an answer but she could look it up.
Mr. Michael Long and Ms. Vickie Long, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Long then stated that they are requesting to reduce the front yard setback because the unique shape of the lot would compromise the neighborhood if we were to build a smaller size home to accommodate the buildable area.
Ms. Barrows then asked Mr. Long if he knew what the buildable area was on the original plat. Mr. Long did not know. Ms. Barrows then stated that it concerns her when someone buys a lot and then designs a home that does not fit the lot. In this particular case, the lot was designed to protect two trees. Ms. Barrows feels that the house should be built within the buildable area. Mr. Long then stated that he and his architect tried to design a home that would fit their needs within the buildable area, however, they were unable to design a home that would fit their needs and that would not compromise the neighborhood.
Ms. Long then stated that she and Mr. Long love trees and they will do everything they can to protect the two trees. Ms. Long also stated that they are intending to plant several new trees around the perimeter of the house.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger stated that he understands that the 35-foot setback was placed to preserve two trees. He is concerned that reducing the setback to 25 feet is pushing the limits for the protection of the trees. Therefore, he asked if a recommendation could be made that if one, or both, of the trees were to die, as a result of allowing the setback reduction, that a compensation payment be made to the City. Mr. Wilde stated that adding a condition to the motion to replace any dead trees would be the easiest. Mr. Wilde then stated that since it would be impossible to replace the existing trees, the condition could state that if a tree were to die that it be replaced with 3 large caliper trees.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-40:
Mr. Smith moved to grant preliminary subdivision approval to the proposed plat amendment, subject to:
1. Compliance with departmental requirements
2. That if one, or both, of the trees (the Elm tree and/or the Austrian Pine tree) were to die within a five year period that three 4-inch caliper trees, approved by the City Forester, be planted for each tree that dies. An agreement between the City and Mr. & Ms. Long will be prepared to ensure that this condition is satisfied. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Iker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows voted "Nay". Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk and Ms. Kirk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-28 by Salt Lake City Public Services Department requesting Salt Lake City to consider declaring Tanner Park as surplus property to facilitate a proposed transfer of the ownership and maintenance responsibilities to Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation.
Ms. Short noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-11, by Susi L. Kontgis, McKay M. Loveland, and Gwen P. Loveland. Recommendation to the City Council for an appropriate zoning designation for 2.4 acres of property located at 1938 South Lakeline Drive if the property is annexed to the City. The East Bench Master Plan recommends a Foothill Residential "FR-2" zoning.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Susi Kontgis, the petitioner, was unable to be present for this portion of the meeting.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gary Reimer, an abutting property owner, stated that he is not opposed to the annexation. He then stated that he feels that the zoning and building requirements should be consistent with the Small Area Master Plan. He then asked that any height restrictions be based on the original soil topography and not present day topography. Since the proposed lot is a flag lot and the setbacks are not clear at this time, when the setbacks are being established he asks that the petitioners take into account the interests of the existing neighbors and properties that have already been developed in accordance with the rules.
Ms. Short stated that a letter had been received from the Arcadia Heights-Benchmark Neighborhood Council which states that "the majority of the combined H-Rock and Arcadia Heights-Benchmark Neighborhood Council voted in favor of Petition No. 400-99-11", a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
The Planning Commissioners discussed issues related to the original soil topography and recordation of the subdivision plat. Mr. Smith stated that he feels that the Planning Commission should not be addressing subdivision issues at this time because the issue before them is what the zoning should be on the property if it is annexed. Mr. Wheelwright then stated that if the Planning Commission would like to give Staff direction then Staff could use that when the final plat is approved.
Mr. Hinckley was unaware that a plat would need to be recorded and asked Mr. Wheelwright why it was necessary. Mr. Wheelwright stated that a final plat would need to be done in order to establish the buildable area. Mr. Wheelwright then stated that since the proposed property is a foothill lot, the subdivision plat approval will be brought back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hinckley then stated that the Planning Commission is specifically being asked to determine is a recommendation on what the zoning should be if the property is annexed. If there is some additional development review required, Staff will follow the procedures that have been established.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-11:
Mr. Smith moved to recommend to the City Council that the Kontgis/Loveland property be zoned Foothill Residential "FR-2/21,780" upon its annexation to the City (Petition No. 400-99-11). Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Iker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk and Ms. Kirk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith then stipulated that it is the wish of the Planning Commission that serious review be given to the above mentioned issues and that Staff deal with those issues in whatever is the most effective manner. Mr. Smith then stated that he feels that it does not need to come back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wilde stated that Staff, understanding the Planning Commission's expectation, will follow the appropriate process to address the issues. Staff will address the issue of height through the definition of established grade in the Zoning Ordinance and if it is required to come back to the Planning Commission, it will.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Petition No. 410-329, by H. Roger Boyer, representing Gateway Associates, requesting approval for a planned development for the construction of a mixed-use development on approximately 30 acres located between North Temple and 200 South from 400 West to 500 West in a Gateway mixed-used "G-MU" zoning district.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the project. He stated that the Gateway Associated, Ltd., have decided to bring the project for final approval in smaller pieces. The project has been broken into different sections (A. B, C and D). buildings A1, A2 and B1 (the commercial buildings) are between 400 West and Rio Grande from 200 South to the Union Pacific Depot. Buildings C1 and C2 are the residential components of the project along 500 West and Building D is the hotel fronting on 500 West at the north end of the project. The Union Pacific Depot (F), and associated building on the north end of the project (B2), will come before the Planning Commission at a later date. At this time, Buildings A1, A2 and B1 are before the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Dansie then stated that tonight there will be a briefing on the Gateway project by Mr. Doug Thimm, a representative from the Boyer Company. Following tonight's briefing, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on June 17, 1999 to consider granting final design approval for the overall site plan and approval of architectural details of Buildings A1, A2 and B1. Final approval of the site plan on June 17th will allow the developer to begin site development activities such as excavation and utility improvements.
Mr. Doug Thimm used a model and presentation boards to review the project with the Planning Commission. The following items were addressed and discussed by Mr. Thimm, the Planning Commissioners, and Staff:
• Architectural detail/materials
• Public amenities, public art and an expression of City Creek
• Lighting
• Signage
• Parking structures/surface lots
• Service access
• Housing
• Transportation (Mr. Kevin Young, from Salt Lake City Transportation, was present for this portion of the discussion.)
Mr. Wilde stated that prior to the public hearing, which is scheduled for the June 17, 1999 meeting, Staff could summarize what was specifically approved when the Planning Commission gave the planned development approval on November 19, 1998. Then, Staff could put the conditions of approval in perspective of how they comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.