March 10, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

In Room 326 of the City & County Building

451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah

Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Prescott Muir, Vice-Chair, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Peggy McDonough was excused.

Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Principal Planner Ray McCandless, Principal Planner Greg Mikolash, Principal Planner Wayne Mills; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; City Attorney Edwin Rutan and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

Approval of minutes from Wednesday, February 25, 2004

The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the February 25, 2004 ratified minutes.

Chair Muir referred to page 12, condition 3 of the minutes and said that he recollected that the intent of the Commission was to strike that condition. Commissioner Scott stated that there was discussion regarding striking condition 3 but the Commission did not include that in the motion.

Chair Muir said that in order to incorporate that modification properly into the minutes he would entertain a motion that it was the intent of the Planning Commission to strike condition 3.

Commissioner Daniels made a motion to strike condition 3 of Petition No. 400-03-35 that being the intent of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.

Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.

Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR

This item was heard at 6:26 p.m.

Initiated Petitions

Mr. Zunguze requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition regarding the review of Section 21A.42.070.E of the City’s Zoning Ordinance which referrers to movies and film area locations. He said that Staff needs to tweak the review requirements of that section as it relates to the Planning Division.

Chair Muir so moved.

Mr. Zunguze said that he spoke to Commissioner Jonas regarding his continued interest to serve on the Planning Commission. Mr. Zunguze reported that Commissioner Jonas indicated that at this time it is highly unlikely that he will continue because of his current work schedule. Mr. Zunguze stated he has requested a written indication to that effect from Commissioner Jonas. He added that this will be an item for the Commission’s consideration at the next meeting.

CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:

This item was heard at 5:49 p.m.

a. Utah Power and Salt Lake City & County Landfill Board – request by Utah Power to make minor adjustments to a previously granted easement (2003) necessary to realign a portion of an existing electric power transmission line easement which went through the City/County sanitary landfill site, located at 1300 South (California Avenue) and 5800 to 6400 West. The minor adjustments slightly change barring and distance dimensions from the 2003 relocation easement locations. (The prior easement was not reviewed by the Planning Commission.) The property is located within the Salt Lake City limits and is zoned Manufacturing “M-1” and Open Space “OS”.

b. Utah State Prison and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – request by the Utah State Prison for the Public Utilities Department to grant a standard utility permit to cross the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal R.O.W. property to provide a new sanitary sewer for the prison. The proposed utility permit location is in Draper City at approximately 13800 South and 200 West on the west side of the I-15 Freeway.

c. The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy City – The Metropolitan Water District is removing and replacing the Little Cottonwood Creek intake structure which is located on Salt Lake City owned property at approximately 9800 South Wasatch Boulevard. This permit will include the intake structure, power and communication cables and a construction permit through this property. As part of this proposal, the existing Cottonwood Improvement permit/easement for a sewer line will need to be relocated to accommodate the new water structure. A new permit will need to be issued for a portion of the sewer line.

Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the three items noted on the consent agenda.

Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.

Chair Muir stated that the City Attorneys have directed the Planning Commission to convene to an Executive Session in order to consult with them regarding issues in accordance with the Utah Code 78.24.8.

Commissioner Daniels asked Chair Muir if the Chair and Vice Chair had information to report. Chair Muir replied that there was nothing to report. Commissioner Chambless added that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair will be meeting with the City Council Chair and Vice Chair on March 31, 2004.

Commissioner Noda made a motion to convene to a Planning Commission Executive Session. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.

Commissioner De Lay asked Chair Muir if the Executive Session is appropriate according to sunshine laws. Chair Muir answered that it is in accordance with the Utah State Statute.

The Planning Commission convened to Executive Session.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Petition No. 400-04-09, a request by the Salt Lake City Council to conduct a formal review and modification to the City’s regulations, including modifications to the City’s land use and zoning regulations, relating to sexually oriented businesses.

This item was heard at 6:28 p.m.

Principal Planner Wayne Mills presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the table of changes in the staff report as a concept table of the proposed modifications. He said that since the Planning Commission received the staff report, Staff has developed actual language proposing the amendment of the ordinance. He reviewed the table of proposed amendments and compared the proposed modification to the current ordinance regulations. Mr. Mills referred to the map in the staff report, which defines the areas within the City where sexually oriented businesses may locate if the proposed amendments are approved. He noted that City Council will be receiving additional amendments to the business licensing portion of the Salt Lake City Code. He noted that the staff report lists the substantial changes to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Mills stated that if the proposed amendments are approved there will be a need for additional amendments for cross-referencing purposes only. He referred to the sign ordinance as an example stating that the table regulating the sign, type and height standards for the “CG” district would be amended to add a cross-reference to the sexually oriented business ordinance.

In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning text amendments pertaining to sexually oriented businesses as listed in the staff report.

Commissioner Daniels referred to the section that addresses signs which states that no more than one sign shall be allowed on sexually oriented business premises. He asked if that includes the building and the grounds. Mr. Mills answered that that includes the entire premises. He added that Staff did not review the sign regulations as part of the proposed amendments. Mr. Mills said that Staff concluded that since there have not been issues raised at this point, that portion did not need to be included in the review.

Chair Muir asked what is the basic criteria for developing the distance requirements. Mr. Mills replied that the distance requirements listed in the staff report were taken from the existing ordinance, which was adopted in 1995. Staff did not propose amendments to the distance requirements with this petition. Mr. Mills noted that he compared the current distance regulations to other cities’ regulations and they are similar.

Chair Muir said that it would help the Commission if they understood how the distance regulations were developed, since they are applying those standards to additional criteria.

Mr. Wilde stated that a downtown block is 660 linier square feet per side. He added that there was an analysis done in 1995 when the ordinance was adopted. Mr. Wilde gave an example of the distance requirement from the Gateway which is 165 feet. He said that the intent was to place sexually oriented businesses far enough away from the Gateway to not be visible. He noted that there were judgments made at the time of the analysis as to what is an appropriate distance in each of those cases.

Chair Muir referred to the distance requirement of public designated open space, which he interpreted as wildlife habitat and wetlands. He wondered how a sexually oriented business may negatively affect animal habit that may be precluded from human access. He wondered how the secondary negative impacts are determined. Mr. Mills replied that the intent of that was to separate sexually oriented businesses from parks and open spaces which are public gathering places for the City.

Chair Muir asked if the strategy of the Open Space Committee is to take large tracts of land and park them in a holding pattern to create open space which would not necessarily be intended for parks and recreation. He wondered if that element of the distance criteria is too inclusive.

Mr. Wilde clarified that the word “public” is used to make the distinction between a publicly owned parcel of land and a private field that some may claim to be open space. He added that the open space designation may be defined further to clarify the public space with a recreational purpose, which was the intention of Staff.

Commissioner Seelig referred to page five of the staff report relating to the requirement for conditional site plan review. She asked if that addition requires the Planning Commission review and approval of the site plan if any of the bulleted items occur. She specifically noted the item that lists an addition to an existing sexually oriented business site. Mr. Mills answered that that is correct. Commissioner Seelig asked Mr. Mills to explain the reasoning behind that addition. Mr. Mills replied that currently sexually oriented businesses are approved administratively, and it has been determined that these uses may have secondary adverse effects. By requiring sexually oriented businesses to go through a public hearing process it would enable the public to submit comments as to compliance of the sexually oriented business.

Commissioner Chambless referred to the boundaries of Gateway Corridor and asked if the “I 80” highway is not included because it is a federal highway. Mr. Mills answered that the Gateway Corridor was not extended past the Downtown Area; however, that was one of the reasons for requiring sexually oriented businesses to go through a conditional site plan review. If there is an impact, such as an orientation to a building, it would give the Planning Commission the opportunity to make requirements on building orientation away from those types of visual corridors.

Commissioner Chambless noted that potentially a sexually oriented business may locate along “I-80” west of Salt Lake City; or in the southern part of the City along “I-15”; and the Gateway Corridor directly south of the International Airport in the “M-1” and “M-2” zones. Mr. Mills replied that that is correct.

Commissioner Chambless asked if there are restrictions of signage with regard to size and lighting. He was specifically concerned with the area directly south of the Airport in the flight pattern. Mr. Mills replied that signs are very restricted in respect to size.

Mr. Zunguze added that there is a prohibition on illumination of signage.

Commissioner Scott asked how many sexually oriented businesses are currently in the Downtown area. Mr. Mills said that he is aware of two.

Commissioner De Lay noted that there is a difference between outcall and incall businesses.

Mr. Mills agreed and noted that outcall service agencies are not listed as sexually oriented businesses, since they do not have clients coming to the office. That space would be designated as an office use.

Commissioner De Lay stated that all of the employees of outcall service agencies are required to have sexually oriented business licenses. Mr. Mills said that that is correct.

Commissioner Chambless referred to the X-rated movies theaters back three or four decades ago and asked if those would be defined as sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Mills replied that is correct. He read the sexual oriented business definition as stated in the zoning ordinance.

Commissioner Chambless gave an example of a store that may sell questionable videos and asked if that would fall under the current definition of sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Mills answered that if the retail space which catered to that type of media was more than 15 percent of the store then it would be considered a sexually oriented business. He added that those regulations are covered under the business licensing portion of the ordinance.

Commissioner Scott asked what protection is proposed for current sexually oriented businesses in locations which will become nonconforming uses if the amendments are approved. Mr. Mills said that those establishments will not be allowed to expand further.

Chair Muir opened the public hearing.

No one was forth coming.

Chair Muir closed the public hearing.

Mr. Zunguze provided an example stating that if an existing sexually oriented business is in place and a church located in the vicinity that is closer than the distance separation requirement between the church and the sexually oriented business; the church would essentially push the currently legal sexually oriented business into a nonconforming status. He said that Staff’s intent with refining the ordinance is to ensure fairness. He stated that if the Commission would agree with that concept, Staff will fashion language to propose to the City Council to reflect the understanding that existing uses should not be disadvantaged. Mr. Zunguze said that Staff needs to find a way to not prejudice existing sexually oriented businesses.

Chair Muir asked Mr. Zunguze if he intends to apply that concept to all of the distance requirements rather than just churches. Mr. Zunguze said that that is correct, noting that Staff wanted to get the consensus of the Commission regarding that concept of not creating an unfair situation.

Commissioner De Lay asked if Mr. Zunguze is suggesting grandfathering the existing sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Zunguze replied that the existing businesses have complied with the regulations and should not find themselves in a disadvantaged situation due to the arrival of new uses citing distance requirements associated with their use.

Mr. Zunguze said that Staff will prepare language to present to City Council if the Commission would support that. The Commission agreed with that concept.

Motion for Petition No. 400-04-09

Commissioner De Lay made a motion in light of the comments, analysis and findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the following proposed zoning text amendments pertaining to Sexually Oriented Businesses:

1. That Section 21A.36.140B: Zoning Districts in which Sexually Oriented Businesses are Permitted, be amended to prohibit new SOBs within the D-1, D-2, and D-4 districts.

2. That Section 21A.36.140C: Required Distance from Other Uses, be amended to state that the distance requirement measurement is taken without regard to streets or other barriers in addition to intervening structures and that the measurement is taken from the nearest point of the property line of other uses to the nearest point of the property line of an SOB;

3. That Section 21A.36.140C: Required Distance from Other Uses, be amended to require a 1,000 foot distance between residential uses and SOBs.

4. That Section 21A.36.140C: Required Distance from Other Uses, be amended to require a 1,000 foot distance between licensed Child Daycare Centers and SOBs.

5. That Section 21A.36.140C: Required Distance from Other Uses, be amended to modify the definition of “park” as public recreation or open space, including a park, playground, swimming pool, golf course, athletic field, plaza, square, library grounds, designated public open space and/or designated trail.

6. That Section 21A.36.140D: Required Distance from Gateway Corridors, be amended to state that the distance requirement is measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures, streets or other barriers, from the nearest point of the gateway corridor street right-of-way line to the nearest point of the property line of the sexually oriented business.

7. That Section 21A.36.140E: Required Distance from Landmark Sites, be amended to prohibit SOBs within a 330 foot radius of any landmark site;

8. That Section 21A.36.140E: Required Distance from Landmark Sites, be amended to state that the distance requirement measurement is taken without regard to streets or other barriers in addition to intervening structures and that the measurement is taken from the nearest point of the property line of the landmark site to the nearest point of the property line of an SOB.

9. That Section 21A.36.140F: Concentration Prohibited, be amended to state that the required distance is measured from the nearest point of the property line of the existing SOB to the nearest point of the property line of the proposed SOB without regard to intervening structures, streets or other barriers.

10. That Section 21A.36.140H: Gateway Corridors, be amended to reflect the following changes:

600 South Street from 200 East Street to 500 West Street.

500 South Street from 200 East Street to 500 West Street.

Main Street from 700 South Street to North Temple Street

400 West from 900 South to Beck Street.

500 West from 600 South Street to North Temple Street.

400 South from 900 West to 200 East.

200 West from 900 South to 700 South.

700 South from 200 West to Main Street

11. That a new section - Nonconforming Sexually Oriented Businesses - be added to the SOB ordinance, along with the following:

For the purposes of this title, a legal nonconforming sexually oriented business may not be enlarged, expanded, or extended to occupy all or a part of another structure or site, or be extended to occupy additional space or square footage within the same structure that it did not occupy pursuant to Salt Lake City approval.

12. That a new section - Sexually Oriented Businesses Plan Review Required - be added to the SOB ordinance that would require conditional site plan review by the Planning Commission for SOBs where:

A. new construction and site development of a sexually oriented business is involved;

B. the conversion of a structure(s) into a sexually oriented business is being considered;

C. an existing sexually oriented business is contemplating an addition or expansion which would have at least one or more of the following effects:

a. Alteration of traffic flows by way of ingress, egress or within the site itself.

b. Alteration or rearrangement of on-site parking which results in a reduction or increase in the number of parking spaces or placement within a required yard area.

c. Addition to structure which increases the existing floor area.

d. The construction of additional off-street parking areas to support a sexually oriented business.

e. Alteration of existing signage including the location and design. An alteration shall not be interpreted to include changing the text or copy on signs that are designed to accommodate changeable copy.

D. If a Sexually Oriented Business does not fall under any of the above mentioned categories, it must still comply with all distance and signage requirements specified in the Sexually Oriented Business ordinance.

13. That a new section be added to the SOB ordinance that requires a conditional site plan review application fee of $300.00, plus the cost of first class postage for required notification mailings.

14. That a new section be added to the SOB ordinance that requires notification of the Planning Commission conditional site plan review to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the property under review and to the chair(s) of the affected community council(s).

15. That a new section be added to the SOB ordinance that requires the City to complete its review process within 30 days of the day a complete SOB conditional site plan review application is filed.

16. For the Planning Staff to address the issue of fairness with respect to new uses that have distance requirements, which will impact existing sexually oriented business uses.

Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.

Chair Muir asked to add an additional condition 17 requesting that the Planning Staff reexamine the definition of designated public Open Space to be implied as public recreation space.

Commissioner De Lay accepted that amendment. Commissioner Noda accepted the amendment as well.

17. The Planning Staff reexamine the definition of designated public Open Space to be implied as public recreation space.

Petition No. 480-04-03, Geoff Smart is requesting preliminary approval for the proposed conversion of two (2) existing structures in a Community Business “CB” Zoning District to private condominium ownership areas. The two (2) structures include the Parley’s Corporate Center located at 2545 East Parleys Way - a four (4) unit, single-story, retail/office structure; and the Balley’s Fitness Center - a single unit, two (2) story retail service structure located at 2505 East Parleys Way. In conjunction with this request, the Applicant is requesting to subdivide the 5.04-acre parcel (wherein the Parley’s Corporate Center and Balley’s Fitness Center structures are currently located) into two separate lots.

This item was heard at 7:04 p.m.

Principal Planner Greg Mikolash presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the “Issues Only” hearing held in November of 2003 and noted the major issues which were expressed by the public at that meeting. He stated that the new construction of the building on the east end of the 5-acre parcel was a big concern due to the proximity in relation to the neighboring properties. He added that the neighboring property owners also voiced concern regarding the parking issues associated with new construction. Mr. Mikolash noted that Staff had four specific concerns which related to the intent to not convert the two larger structures to private condominium ownership. The original proposal was that the old Blue Cross/Blue Shield building area would be common ownership. He said a majority of land control would be given to the owner of the eastern most structure. Staff was concerned that the two larger structures to the west may be misrepresented. He said that Staff had concerns that the condominium owners may not want maintenance control over the two larger structures to the west. Mr. Mikolash noted that Staff was also concerned with the potential land use conflicts between the three different uses and the five different structures. Following the “Issues Only” hearing, the Applicant presented revised plans that incorporated the suggestions of the Planning Commission and Staff. The revised plans show a subdivision amendment to the original plat, and a five unit, two building condominium conversion. Mr. Mikolash stated that the Applicant has been very accommodating. He noted the comments from City departments which were all in favor of the proposal. He added that the Applicant will be required to continue with the final plat process to record the condominium and the subdivision amendment. Based on the findings of fact as listed in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed two (2) lot minor subdivision/partial subdivision amendment and the five (5) unit, two (2) building preliminary condominium proposal for the Parley’s Corporate Center, subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report.

Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Mikolash if the only substantial change from the plans presented at the “Issues Only” hearing is the reduction of the amount of condos from 8 to 4. Mr. Mikolash added that the Applicant is also subdividing the existing 5-acre parcel in two which requires a subdivision amendment.

Commissioner Diamond inquired as to the parking implications. Mr. Mikolash answered that the parking will be shared between Bally’s and the Parley’s Corporate Center and the new structure will be shared. Parking calculations show that parking is adequate for the uses.

Mr. Geoff Smart representative of the Parley’s Corporate Center addressed the Planning Commission and said that he did not have anything to add.

Chair Muir opened the public hearing.

No one was forth coming.

Chair Muir closed the public hearing.

Motion for Petition No. 480-04-03

Commissioner Scott made a motion to based on the analysis, findings of fact as listed in the staff report that the Planning Commission approve the proposed two (2) lot minor subdivision/partial subdivision amendment and the five (5) unit, two (2) building preliminary condominium proposal for the Parley’s Corporate Center, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the final plat approval authority for the subdivision amendment be granted to the Planning Director.

2. That the final plat approval authority for the condominium be granted to the Planning Director.

3. The Petitioner shall address and adhere to all departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.

4. That the Planning Director take a good look at the Engineering and Public Utility comments regarding sewer connection.

Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.

Request by the City of North Salt Lake for a boundary adjustment between Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake concerning an 80-acre parcel of property owned by North Salt Lake City located east of the gravel pits along Beck Street.

This item was heard at 7:17 p.m.

North Salt Lake City Mayor Kay Briggs and Mr. Bill Wright Planning Consultant for North Salt Lake addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright presented the proposed boundary adjustment. He referred to the current proposal and noted that the 80 acres in question is currently located in Salt Lake City; however, the property is owned by North Salt Lake City. He referred to a map of the subject property and oriented the Planning Commission to the property location. He reviewed the timeline of the proposal saying that in October of 2002 a letter from North Salt Lake City was submitted to the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office expressing a desire to discuss a boundary adjustment. He said that in March of 2003 North Salt Lake City contacted Mr. Wright requesting a presentation regarding the concept of a boundary adjustment and what was involved. He noted that North Salt Lake received a letter from Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace around the same time, saying that he had discussed their request with the Salt Lake City Council and that they needed more information as to what type of uses North Salt Lake anticipated on the subject property. In April of 2003, North Salt Lake City began a process to determine alternative uses for this property. Mr. Wright stated that he advised North Salt Lake to determine the uses which would fit the needs of North Salt Lake City, as well as adopt a general amendment to the North Salt Lake City’s Plan. He said that he suggested that the plan be officially adopted in an effort to give more certainty as to what was intended for those 80 acres of property. In the summer of 2003, that process began. A task force, comprised of members of the community, was formed to explore the idea of a City cemetery. He said that the proposal presented this evening is the alternative that was adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council which they believe is a responsible way to use the 80-acre parcel of property.

Mr. Wright stated that North Salt Lake City is the only jurisdiction that can provide the basic public services necessary for the permitted open space uses as they currently exist under the Salt Lake City zoning regulations, and the proposed residential uses. He noted that the proposed residential uses will require basic pubic services which include street access; public water; public sewer utilities; storm drainage utilities; public safety which includes police, fire protection, paramedic services; schools; churches and any type of supportive services necessary for the development of both the open space and residential uses proposed for this property. He stated that Salt Lake City can not physically provide the needed municipal services for this property.

Mr. Wright stated that this proposal balances both the need to preserve open space and the needs of North Salt Lake City. He reviewed the proposal and noted that 47 acres will remain natural open space. He described the area proposed for the cemetery and noted that a cemetery is a permitted use in the open space zoning district. He said that these plans have been shared with the forest service and they are very interested in designating the Bonneville Shoreline Trail through this property. North Salt Lake City supports the trail, but are requesting that it be relocated to a higher elevation and follow the edge of the proposed cemetery. He said that the trail will remain in a natural setting and that placement will enhance the view corridor to the west.

Mr. Wright stated that this plan is a response to the request by the Salt Lake City Council regarding North Salt Lake’s intentions for the subject property. He said that the 70 of the 80 acres will continue to be used as open space, which has been designated by Salt Lake City and the remaining 10 acres will be used logically as a way to terminate further residential development of the bench as well as provide the opportunity to save more open space.

Mayor Kay Briggs stated that this process has been ongoing since October of 2002; however, North Salt Lake City has owned the property for 50 to 60 years. He thanked those that have gone to visit the site and noted that it can not be seen from any part of the Salt Lake Valley. He said that this property is North Salt Lake City’s back yard which they use as their social club and fitness area. He added that they intend to protect the area and will continue to be advocates for open space. Mayor Briggs noted that there are several small water wells along the bench which are worth protecting. He said that North Salt Lake intends to finish the Bonneville Shoreline trail across the hill to the ranger station at City Creek Canyon. Mayor Briggs stated that North Salt Lake is the only jurisdiction capable of responding to emergency situations. He felt that they could maintain and police the area without much of a burden and Salt Lake City can not. He said that it is a dream of North Salt Lake to have a cemetery and they are trying to expand open space rather than eliminating it. He hoped that this proposal will be positive for both jurisdictions and he recommended that the Planning Commission approve the current proposal.

Chair Muir asked Mayor Briggs regarding the need to develop the property. He said that normally you do not hear that request from a community, especially to develop single family residential. He noted that it typically takes more services for single family developments than the tax revenue they generated. He thought that the need to develop grows out of North Salt Lake City’s need to get a return out of the investment in the property. Mayor Briggs replied that the need for North Salt Lake to develop is the best way to protect the hill. He said that developing the property into a cemetery will stop further residential development which would infringe on the open space.

Chair Muir asked Mr. Wright what is the scale of the proposed cemetery in comparison to the surrounding jurisdictions. Mr. Wright gave several examples of surrounding jurisdiction cemetery sizes which verified that the scale of the proposed cemetery is appropriate.

Chair Muir referred to the current litigation in Draper against the Planning Commission and City Council regarding permitting houses on areas that should have been assumed to have geotechnical hazards. He wondered if this project is approved could those claims be made against Salt Lake City if there are problems with the proposed housing development. Mr. Wright stated that if approved, then that housing development would occur under the jurisdiction of North Salt Lake City.

Chair Muir clarified that the burden of judgment would fall on North Salt Lake City in that case.

Mr. Wright assured the Commission that the areas proposed for the residential development are required to have an extensive geotechnical analysis before a subdivision is approved.

Commissioner De Lay referred to the reclamation plans for the Hughes and Staker gravel pits and asked if those plans are in process. She said that if North Salt Lake instigated better management of that area it would have an impact on what the gravel pits will be doing in the future. Mr. Wright replied that Planning Staff may want to respond, but his memory of that property is that there is an easement that will be purchased or provided to Salt Lake City by Hughes and he was not sure if that had been accomplished at this point.

Mr. Wheelwright indicated that it had not been accomplished yet; however, he and Mr. Pace have been working on it recently.

Mr. Wright noted that Salt Lake City has an easement on the Staker property.

Commissioner De Lay asked if North Salt Lake is the only major City in Utah without a cemetery. Mayor Briggs replied that that is the case within Davis County.

Commissioner De Lay referred to the furthest west proposed canyon trail and asked Mr. Wright if that is a new trail which will come out of the Staker excavation project. Mr. Wright answered that the long term plan is that there will be a trail that will come out of the Staker property and would eventually connect with the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.

Commissioner De Lay referred to the Hunters’ property which is adjacent to the proposed site and asked if the Hunters are allowing public access to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Mr. Wright stated that at the public hearing when this plan was adopted, he made the comment that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail exists through the Hunter’s property, although not as a dedicated easement. He said that the Hunters countered that comment and said that there is no legal right from their perspective for anyone to be on the trail as it is laid out across their property. Mr. Wright said that the Hunters claim that they close the trail in order to preserve their rights. Mr. Wright stated that he paraphrased what was said at the public meeting and he could not verify if the Hunters actually close the trail.

Commissioner De Lay reiterated that the Hunters are trying to protect their property from a public easement. Mr. Wright said that was the impression that was given at the public hearing.

Mr. Wright added that this plan was modified to show the trail placement off the Hunter’s property because North Salt Lake does not have the authority to show the trail across the Hunter’s property.

Commissioner Chambless referred to the trail access from the Staker property and asked if it will be accessible by motorcycles. Mr. Wright replied that that is intended to be a walking trail only.

Mr. Wheelwright referred to the roadway across the Hunter property and stated that the Hunter’s have indicated to Staff that they have attempted to gate the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Salt Lake City Staff’s position is that there is a prescriptive use claim that Salt Lake City would intend to protect for pedestrian access along that roadway and if there was an effort made to block the trail, Staff would be prepared to do what is needed to protect that claim as well as enlist the forest service to assist in that.

Principal Planner Ray McCandless addressed the Planning Commission noting that Staff received additional comments which were not received in time to be included in the staff report, and were forwarded to the Commission this evening.

Chair Muir noted that Mr. Chris Biltoft sent an email to Staff stating that he could not attend the public meeting. He asked general questions regarding that proposal. Mr. McCandless said that he will report to Mr. Biltoft regarding that outcome of this meeting.

Chair Muir opened the public hearing.

Mr. Peter Von Severs Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council addressed the Commission in opposition to North Salt Lake’s proposal. He referred to the long range plan of Salt Lake City and said that the gravel pits were intended to be removed in order to expand open space. He said that it is distressing to hear that the proposal is to develop the area which is used to traverse the Bonneville Shoreline trail. He did not see a need to develop the area and said that the open space will be lost. He said that the feel of the area will change dramatically if it becomes a cemetery. Mr. Von Severs said that the concern of the Capitol Hill Community Council is that this crucial center piece of open space will be lost should the proposal be approved. He stated that the Capitol Hill Community Council did not have the opportunity to make a decision regarding this proposal before this meeting. The Capitol Hill Community Council will meet on March 17, 2004 and to discuss the issue.

Chair Muir encouraged the Capitol Hill Community Council to forward a formal position to the City Council.

Mr. Ralph Becker addressed the Commission in opposition of the North Salt Lake’s proposal. He said that as a former Salt Lake City Planning Commissioner he and others spent a large amount of time and attention trying to protect the area under consideration this evening. He referred to a study at that time which concluded that this area should remain open space. He said that there is no other property like the parcel being considered up and down the Wasatch Front, and it would be an enormous mistake for Salt Lake City to give up this property. He felt that the City did not need to give this property up if they would explore other options which would preserve the needs for all of the parties involved.

Chair Muir referred to the potential consequence being that if the Planning Commission does not come to a mutually acceptable balance between the two municipalities and deny the request, this issue may be resolved by the courts. Given the Planning Commission’s position, Chair Muir asked Mr. Becker as a former Planning Commissioner what he thought the reasonable compromise would be. Mr. Becker said that a reasonable compromise is something that would have to be worked out over time. It may require Salt Lake City to compensate North Salt Lake for its property. He referred to the statute for de-annexation and said that it is very clear with the court to use discretion in deciding to de-annex and the statue assumes the applicant to be a private entity rather then public. Mr. Becker said that Salt Lake City has an obligation to protect their right to this unique piece of property.

Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Becker if he would be willing to make his legal analysis part of the record because there are some Commissioners who have a different perspective of the risks. Mr. Becker said that he would never want to second guess the City Attorney’s Office. He said that at the time of the development proposals for the gravel pit operations, the Salt Lake City Attorney said that there was an absolute right for those owners to develop one third of the bench. He said that when those developments were finished none of the bench was developed and there were conservation efforts which are ongoing to preserve that area. He said that the City Council eventually consulted a private entity out of Denver that gave a different opinion than the City Attorney which allowed the City Council the opportunity to go in a different direction.

Mr. Jim Byrne addressed the Commission as Co-Chair of the Bonneville Shore Line Trail Committee and the Chair of the Bonneville Shoreline Coalition. He urged the Planning Commission to either approve option three or delay action until there is more information. He thought that North Salt Lake is attempting to be sensitive and did not want to criticize their plan; however, he felt that this area should be kept in the most natural state possible. He hoped that the Commission would take the time to study this property further before a decision is made.

Chair Muir referred to the current zoning of the property saying that a cemetery is within the permitted use of the open space regulations. He asked Mr. Burn if he felt that that would be an appropriate use. Mr. Burn said that he did not think that a cemetery would be appropriate. His hope is that the area would be conserved as natural open space.

Ms. Kathleen Stoddard addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal and asked that the Commission vote to keep this area within the Salt Lake City boundary as natural open space. She was concerned with development in this natural and beautiful area. She referred to the comment that North Salt Lake City is the only entity capable of providing services to this area, and said that if the area remains open space then there will not be a need for those services. She asked that the Planning Commission keep the property as is and help to preserve this serene piece of land.

Ms. Cindy Cromer addressed the Commission in opposition to the current proposal. She said that she participated with Ralph Becker and Tom Rogan in 1995 and 1996. The resulting document was that Beck Street Reclamation Plan. She suggested that the Planning Commission read that plan before they make a decision regarding this petition. She stated that the de-annexation proposal has not yet been considered by the Capitol Hill Community Council or the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee and she urged the Commission to allow time for those groups, being the most directly effected constituents, to review it before the Planning Commission makes a decision. Ms. Cromer felt that this proposal is a hostile take over and there are huge land-use conflicts. She said that if the proposal is approved Salt Lake City will be left with an increased burden of managing the boundary along the gravel pits. She urged the Commission to allow time for Salt Lake City to get a better deal, rather than losing this remarkable piece of Salt Lake City’s geographical history.

Commissioner Daniels asked Ms. Cromer how much time would be sufficient. Ms. Cromer replied that the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee has this item on an agenda for March 17, 2004 and the Capitol Hill Community Council will be hearing the item the same evening. She said that that would be a good starting point.

Chair Muir asked why this item has been presented to the Planning Commission before it was reviewed by the two advisory boards mentioned. Mr. Wheelwright replied that there is no ordinance procedure in place that requires prior notification or consideration. He added that Staff was sensing urgency from the Administration to respond to North Salt Lake City’s request.

Ms. Polly Hart, Vice-Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council spoke to the Commission addressing the disadvantages of recommending rejection of the proposal as listed in the staff report. She felt that the disadvantages are not legitimate. She referred to the argument that North Salt Lake does not have their own cemetery nor do they have a place to put a cemetery, she stated that North Salt Lake City has 20 acres at the top of the proposed site which is just 3 acres shy of the proposed land area needed for a cemetery.

Mr. John Bowman, a Geology Professor at the University of Utah addressed the Planning Commission to discuss the importance of the Bonneville Bench as open space and a geological feature for Salt Lake City. He said that the bench is the preserved shoreline of the highest level of the lake Bonneville. He said that this area is one of the finest examples of this type of geological feature in the world. He said that the property in question is one of the last well preserved sections along the entire Wasatch Front. He said that the City is in need of open space and this area is worth preserving. He urged the Commission to approve option three.

Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Bowman approximately how many geological field trips he is aware of that either he or other members of the University Faculty have taken. Mr. Bowman stated that he and others on the faculty have taken many fieldtrips.

Mr. Russell Larsen addressed the Commission as a representative of the Hughes and Hughes Investments. He said that they have been involved with the City in trying to reach a compromise regarding the gravel pit operations and the reclamation plan. He said that they are in support of the proposal and obviously they would like to leave the area in its natural pristine condition but sometimes that is not a possibility.

Ms. Katherine Gardener, a trustee of the Capitol Hill Community Council addressed the Commission. She wondered if there was another possibly for the proposed cemetery and suggested reducing the size of the golf course located near the site. She wondered why North Salt Lake did not include the Salt Lake citizens in the process. She hoped that there could be a compromise reached that would honor the preservation of the Capitol Hill area.

Mr. Stan Porter, Planning Commission Chair for North Salt Lake City addressed the Commission stating that he has always been an advocate for the protection of the proposed site. He felt that the proposal is a good compromise. He said that the compromise of the 10 acres proposed for residential development is minor in comparison to other areas within the Salt Lake Valley which are in need of preservation.

Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Porter if there is a mechanism in place in North Salt Lake which would insure the preservation of higher quality open space. Mr. Porter stated that his hope is that part of the proceeds from this agreement would go toward purchasing more open space. He said that in addition to the acreage proposed this evening there is up to 180 acres in North Salt Lake that could be considered for open space.

Mr. Fred Oswald addressed the Commission regarding proposal three in the staff report. He asked that the Commission allow the time for the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee to discuss the proposal and submit comments to the Planning Commission. He thought that that may give the Planning Commission insight as to the best decision regarding the proposal.

Mr. Rick Reese addressed the Commission saying that he supported option three. He hoped that either Salt Lake City or the Forest Service would be able to acquire this property. He said that collectively we should pursue every possible avenue to preserve this property. He felt that it is the Planning Commission’s responsibility to protect this land.

Mr. Michael Budig, President of the Wasatch Mountain Club addressed the Commission in support of the preservation of green space. He said that he supports option three in the staff report.

Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Budig if he is aware if any groups have looked at the wildlife corridor of this area. Mr. Budig said that he is not aware of any that have.

Ms. Susan Dulemeyer, representative of the Hunter Family which owns the 20 acres directly south of the proposed site. She said that their property had been rezoned to open space zoning without the property owners being notified. She said that they would not be adverse to a land swap or to sell the property at fair market value to preserve the open space. She said that while reviewing this proposal, the Planning Commission and the City Council need to take into account that there are also private owners involved in addition to the different municipalities. She stated that the Hunters are in favor of the boundary adjustment.

Chair Muir read to following public comments for the record:

Mr. Bret Smith asked that the Planning Commission approve option three as a compromise that will still preserve open space.

Mr. Marv Stoddard stated that he supported delaying the issue until the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee has an opportunity to study the area and possibly purchase the property.

Mayor Briggs stated that it would be best to review this proposal thoroughly and he did not see an issue with waiting for a decision until the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee has had the opportunity to review the proposal. He hoped the both municipalities will have a mutual positive feeling about the decision.

Chair Muir stated that it seems that both municipalities have basically the same goals of preserving open space. He said that the municipalities need to weigh the most important needs of each City and compare those two agendas to find the best solution. He noted that Salt Lake City has a new pool of money which may help prioritize land acquisitions for open space.

Commissioner Galli asked Mayor Briggs if the North Salt Lake City Administration would still be open to selling the property or a land trade if it seemed economically workable. Mayor Briggs thought that the general citizenry and Administration would be in favor of the best scenario. He thought that the majority of the people would be willing to listen to any proposal.

Commissioner De Lay asked if it would be appropriate to table this issue.

Chair Muir stated that the he felt that it is unconscionable to entertain the notion of rezoning this property to exclude a cemetery when it is entitled now. He stated that the community needs to realize that a cemetery is part of the equation.

Commissioner Scott asked Mayor Briggs which is more valuable the land for trade further up the canyon in North Salt Lake or the money from the sale of the proposed site. Mayor Briggs replied that his perspective is, that the land in North Salt Lake that they are currently trying to stop development from going into is more valuable; however, he stated that the area further up the hill needs to be protected from development.

Commissioner Chambless inquired about Mayor Briggs’ comments regarding previous emergency responses by North Salt Lake. Mayor Briggs replied that he perceived the emergency response as a first response issue, regardless of what city they happen to be in.

Chair Muir closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Seelig referred to the letter from the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee in the staff report. She stated that although there is no ordinance in place which requires committees or community councils to review a boundary adjustment, she felt that if there are City processes that relate to open space and they do not meaningfully intersect with the Planning Commission it seems counterintuitive to have an open space committee. She asked that in the future that the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee be more involved.

Chair Muir wondered if the Commission decides to table this item what is the next step. He asked who would be responsible for working through the issues with North Salt Lake City. Mr. Wheelwright replied that Staff will have meetings and discussions with North Salt Lake. He said that undoubtedly all of the effected entities will voice opinions which will eventually be forwarded to the City Council, who ultimately makes the final decision. He added that the Planning Commission may want to set up a subcommittee.

Commissioner De Lay supported the idea of a subcommittee and wondered what the reasonable time frame would be to table this issue.

Commissioner Chambless stated that it is important for all of the Commissioners to go visit the property to see it first hand.

Commissioner Scott added that the Commission needs to take the Community Council recommendation into consideration. She also agreed with the recommendation that the Commissioners read the Beck Street Reclamation Plan before a decision is made.

Commissioner Galli asked if there is a way that the Planning Commission can send a recommendation to City Council, that rather then reject the boundary adjustment, which he felt was unfair, that a member of the Community Council as well as a City Council member be a part of the subcommittee to expedite the process.

Chair Muir agreed with Commissioner Galli and said that the Planning Commission has an obligation to make a land use recommendation. He agreed with the idea of a committee that would bridge various entities.

Commissioner Galli asked if the Planning Commission has enough information now to make a recommendation saying that it is the sense of the Commission that none of the options presented are in the best interest of either jurisdiction. He asked if the Commission would be willing to strongly recommend that another option be explored in an attempt to preserve the natural open space and compensate North Salt Lake to accomplish their open space agenda in an expeditious fashion.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that Staff is willing to start field trips with the Commissioners on foot to see the property now, or they could make the trip in a few weeks in automobiles when it is less muddy.

Mr. Pace commented regarding the discussion of tabling the proposal to receive input from the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee and the Capitol Hill Community Council. He made the Commission aware that there has been discussion of forming another open space committee which would be advisory to the City Council regarding how to spend the open space bond funds. He stated that the Commission needs to be clear if they choose to table the issue as to who they need to receive input from. He said that it is inappropriate to make a land use decision based upon what you might regard as self interest in acquisition. He referred to a similar issue as an example saying that a few months ago the City Council heard an issue regarding property along Emigration Creek, he suggested that the City Council separate those interests and state the land use decision. If the City can acquire the land, there may be another option; however, assuming that there is no acquisition what would the recommendation be. He said that tabling the item to receive more information may be valuable although it should not be open ended.

Chair Muir stated the normally the Commission would separate land use issues from economic issues, but the Commission realizes that the type of land use assigned to the property has an inherent value and if the Mayor of North Salt Lake is using that value as leverage to acquire open space, those issues are difficult to separate. Chair Muir stated that the Commission may have to create a land use knowing that that is part of the economic reality. Mr. Pace agreed and said that it would be appropriate for the Commission to say based on the totality of the circumstances, as those facts will become known, the Planning Commission thinks this is the best decision.

Commissioner Galli noted that the petitioner is willing to work with the Commission in exploring the options suggested this evening. He stated that the Commission has the luxury of looking to the issues holistically. Mr. Pace agreed and said that the Commission needs to be clear as to how long they want to table this issue. He said that to wait for the two committees mentioned to meet on March 17, 2004 is a rather short delay. If the Commission wants to table the issue to see if bond money becomes available to purchase the land then that will be substantially longer. He said that he wanted to avoid unintended frustration between the two cities.

Chair Muir hoped that the issues could be worked through within eight weeks.

Commissioner Noda agreed that eight weeks is an appropriate timeframe and said that she would like to move as quickly as possible. She said that North Salt Lake has made a concerted effort to try to preserve as much open space as possible and she felt that their presentation was fair as to what their interests are. She appreciated the Hunter family and their cooperation in this process and asked if they could be involved in the committee meetings. She thanked those that commented this evening and stated that there is an obvious need to preserve open space.

Motion

Commissioner Noda made a motion to table the request by the City of North Salt Lake for a boundary adjustment between Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake concerning an 80-acre parcel of property owned by North Salt Lake City located east of the gravel pits along Beck Street, and that a subcommittee be created per the discretion of the Planning Director.

Commissioner Chambless asked to include in the motion a field trip for those among the Commission that would like to visit the site. Commissioner Noda accepted that suggestion.

Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.

Commissioner Diamond hoped that as this petition moves forward that the impacts on Salt Lake City will be kept in mind first and foremost.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.