SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph
Becker, Ralph Neilson, Cindy Cromer, Kimball Young, Jim McRea, Judi Short and
Gilbert Iker. Lynn Beckstead, Diana Kirk and Ann Roberts were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson and Lisa Miller.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Howa. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. 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
Approval of Minutes and Ratification of approval of Petition No. 400-95-11 by Lance Weekley from March 2, 1995.
Mr. Young moved to ratify the Planning Commission's approval of Petition No. 400-95-11 by Lance Weekley from March 2, 1995 and to approve the minutes of March 2, 1995 as presented. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Becker abstained from the vote relative to any action on the Lance Weekley case due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Howa, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
HISTORICAL LANDMARK APPEALS
INFORMAL HEARING -Appeal of the decision by the Historical Landmark Committee to deny Case No. 003-95. by Mike Calder of Calder Brothers Gas and Go, at 268 West 600 North in the Capitol Hill Historic District. requesting to demolish a single family home and replace it with two additional gas pumps and a parking lot.
Mr. Becker chaired the Planning Commission during the hearing of this case since Mr. Howa was not present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Lisa Miller presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker asked what the reasoning had been behind the approval of the demolition that had been granted by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board since the staff had recommended a 90 day delay and the structure had been found to be in a repairable condition.
Ms. Miller responded that she was not sure what that reasoning had been.
Mr. Mike Calder, representing Calder Brothers Gas and Go, stated that in order to remain competitive with other similar businesses, they needed to expand the size of their business to offer additional retail services. He stated that they had been in business in this area for approximately twenty years and would like to remain in business there for another twenty years. Mr. Calder said he did not believe overturning the Landmark denial on this matter would be setting a precedent for commercial encroachment since the size of the remaining residential properties were not conducive to commercial development. Mr. Calder said he believed their plans would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Calder requested the Planning Commission approve this request at this time and added that this property would be rezoned to "RMF-35" when the new ordinance was adopted, that he would have to wait out the waiting period, then demolish the structure and apply to have the property rezoned to a commercial status again. Mr. Calder said he did not want to have to go through all of those processes.
Mr. Iker asked Mr. Calder if the property had been commercially zone when they had purchased it.
Mr. Calder responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Young asked if they provided mechanical services.
Mr. Calder responded in the negative.
Mr. Neilson asked Mr. Calder when he had purchased the property.
Mr. Calder said they had purchased the property in November 1994.
Mr. Wright explained to Mr. Calder that the proposed zoning for this site was "SR-1", not "RMF-35".
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Hermoine Jex stated that the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council had been working to save this neighborhood. Ms. Jex requested the Planning Commission support the decision of the Historical Landmark Committee to deny this request. She stated that they were opposed to any additional commercial expansion to the east. Ms. Jex stated that the community council proposed that if the structure at 268 West 600 North could not be rehabilitated, it could be sold to the Community Development Corporation. She stated that Mr. Bruce Quint of the Community Development Corporation had stated that they would then determine what could be done with the structure and the property that would provide the most bene·fit for the neighborhood. Ms. Jex said they believed the need to save the block for residential use was greater than the need for this business to expand.
Mr. Scott Christensen, a resident of the area, stated that there were many people who were willing to rehabilitate residential properties in this area and added that this neighborhood had a "flavor" to it that could not be found any place else in the City. He stated that he had always been able to maneuver around the "Gas and Go" and had never had to wait for service; therefore, he questioned their need to expand. Mr. Christensen expressed concern about the possible loss of preservation property and setting a precedent of residential demolition in the neighborhood. He added that he believed the property would sell as residential if marketed right.
Ms. Katherine Hunt, a resident of the area, stated that she was pleased with the proposed "SR-1" zoning classification for this area and that it was important to save as many residential properties in this area as possible. Ms. Hunt stated that over the past several years, many of the properties in the area had been fixed up. She stated that she regularly used the services provided by the Calder Brothers and had never experienced long lines while waiting for service. She requested the Planning Commission uphold the Landmark Committee's denial of this request.
Mr. Richard Calder, a brother of the applicant, stated that they wanted to make a change that would make their business more viable and to be able to compete with other similar businesses. He stated that the Planning Commission would have to decide if businesses should be allowed to move forward with current trends or if preservation of historical residential structures should be maintained, no matter what the cost.
Ms. Paula Shaw, a resident of the area, stated that she was in the process of renovating several properties in this area and stated that she felt the business needed to be respective of the neighborhood which supported their business. She said she believed the house could be renovated and requested the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Landmark Committee.
Ms. Darcy Dixon, a concerned citizen, stated that four years ago there had been 700 boarded up houses in the City, but now, there were only 200. She stated that they were very sensitive to the needs of small businesses but requested the Planning Commission uphold the Historical Landmark Committee's decision to deny this request.
Ms. Paula Shaw stated that she was a realtor and aware of vacant commercial properties which were being land banked until commercial expansion of the area occurred in order to maximize their financial investment in the area.
Upon receiving no additional requests to address the Planning Commission Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for public comment.
Mr. Iker expressed concern that the applicant had purchased this property as a commercial property with the intent to use it for commercial use and might not be able to realize that use under the new zoning. Mr. Iker stated that the statements made by the applicant about needing to remain competitive with current trends were true. Mr. Neilson pointed out that the property had been acquired in November and had to have been aware of the proposed zoning for the property at the time of the purchase.
Mr. Neilson moved to uphold the Historical Landmark Committee's denial of this request. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Neilson and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Iker voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wright explained that this decision could be appealed to the City Council in writing within the next thirty days.
Mr. Howa returned to the meeting and Chaired the remainder of the Planning
Commission meeting. PETITIONS
INFORMAL HEARING - Petition No. 400-94-21 by Marion B. Smith requesting permission to purchase City property located in Arlington Hills Plat "J" at 1425 Tomahawk Drive.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright and Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Paterson explained that this matter had been discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting but added that the petitioner had not been present and there had been some confusion as to whether the petitioner desired to withdraw this petition or simply postpone it. Mr. Paterson stated that an attorney was in attendance at this meeting who would represent the petitioner on this matter. Mr. Paterson then gave a brief history of this case.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the contentions of the property owner for the past several years had been that they could not remove the retaining walls that encroached on City property because they were necessary for slope stability. Mr. Wheelwright said he had stated at the previous meeting that he did not believe there was a mass slope stability problem and that any erosion would be due to soil creep or erosion and not a potential for a land slide. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the staff had received a letter from SHB Agra, who had reviewed some of the previous work done by Busch and Gudgel, and that letter stated that all the retaining walls should remain in place. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the staff had been very surprised at this finding and had requested a meeting with them. He stated that a meeting had been held earlier in the day with representatives of SHB Agra, the petitioner and the Planning Staff to resolve this issue. Mr. Wheelwright stated that during this meeting the SHB Agra representative had stated that their assumptions had been based on the removal of all of the retaining walls from the pool deck east. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the staff had explained that it had never been their intent to require the removal of the retaining walls contained on the Smith property, only those encroaching on City property. Mr. Wheelwright said it had been his understanding when that meeting had concluded that the material that had been submitted in the letter had been invalidated by the realization that the staff
was not insisting upon the removal of all of the retaining walls. Mr. Wheelwright reiterated the staffs position that there was not a question of mass slope stability, that the slopes were bedrock controlled and the material on the bedrock varied in depth and material composition. He stated that the slope was highly subject to erosion and anything done on the hillside needed to be protected while revegetation was being established. Mr. Wheelwright stated that some trees had been planted on the slope and the staff had informed the petitioner that those that were indigenous to the area could remain and the land around them could be recontoured. He stated that the staff felt very strongly that the fence encroachments be removed immediately; that the satellite dish and dog kennel be removed immediately; and that the property owner comply with the Board of Adjustment decision from approximately three years ago that the side privacy walls be cut down to six feet. He urged the Planning Commission to deny this petition and commence with immediate enforcement.
Mr. Ralph Marsh, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Marsh stated that when his client had purchased this property, she had been informed that the area encroached upon was a part of the property and had built on the area which had already been encroached on thinking it was part of her property. Mr. Marsh stated that there were also other property owners in the area who were encroaching on City property as well. He stated that Mrs. Smith had been informed, about a year ago, that the best way to handle this matter would be to petition the City to purchase this property which is what she had done. Mr. Marsh stated that it was not the desire of Mrs. Smith to own the City property but to protect her home and property from hillside encroachment through soil creep, mud slides, heavy rains, brush fires and trespassers. Mr. Marsh said her preference would be to own the property in order to control it but was not necessary to solve the problem. Mr. Marsh stated that they would be perfectly willing to remove the dog house and the satellite dish but were concerned about protecting the slope. Mr. Marsh stated that Mrs. Smith had retained SHB Agra to analyze the matter and their report had stated that there could be severe problems with the slope and that the existing terracing should not be removed or altered and that regrading the hillside to its original grade would be very counterproductive.
Mr. Marsh stated that he had been present at the meeting referred to by Mr. Wheelwright that had been held earlier in the day and added that he disagreed with Mr. Wheelwright's interpretation of the outcome of that meeting. Mr. Marsh said his notes indicated that if block and wood walls were removed and the slope was replaced there would still be a soil creep problem that could be deep seated. He reiterated that it was their intention to prevent slope problems, not own the property. Mr. Marsh suggested that if the City did not want to sell the property a lease agreement might be a reasonable compromise to ensure protection of the slope.
Mr. Iker expressed skepticism that the property owners would respond in good faith to any agreement with the City since they had not complied with the Board of Adjustment's requirements relative to the side walls.
Mr. Marsh stated that that was past history that he had not been involved in and was not part of the petition before the Planning Commission at this time. Mr. Marsh said he did recognize the issue of good faith but added that according to his discussions with Mrs. Smith, she was personally willing to comply with that order.
Mr. Young asked the staff to explain the other encroachments onto City property.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the other encroachments were not as extensive and were limited to fences and lawn. Mr. Young asked what was being done to enforce on those encroachments. Mr. Wheelwright stated that they were waiting for this matter to be resolved before enforcing on those additional encroachments. Mr. Wheelwright added that the reason this petition had taken so long to deal with was due to staff workloads and the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project.
Mr. Howa said it sounded like the petitioner was desirous of removing every encroachment but the retaining walls. Mr. Marsh said they preferred to leave it the way it was but since they realized it was an encroachment, they would be willing to remove everything but the retaining walls.
Mr. Wright asked if they were withdrawing their petition to have the property declared surplus and allow the City to accept the retaining walls on City property in their ownership. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the City had dealt with the encroachment issue a year ago and this petition was strictly related to surplus property and the slope instability issue had been raised as a justification of why the land should be declared surplus.
Mr. Howa stated that slope instability was not a reason to declare City property surplus. Mr. Wright stated that if that was what they were submitting at this point, there was no reason to continue this hearing because that was an administrative issue, not an issue for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Marsh said he had not meant to state that the reason to declare the property surplus was based on the slope stability.
Mr. Wright asked exactly what Mr. Marsh was representing for his client.
Mr. Marsh stated that based on the fact that the City had done this for other property owners, Bill Wray and Paul Garza, in the past, the request was that they be allowed to purchase this property. He stated that he recognized there was a lot of resistance to that purchase, and suggested they reach a compromise.
Mr. Howa stated that it seemed the petitioner was offering a compromise by leaving the retaining walls on City property. Mr. Howa stated that whether or not the walls would be allowed to remain on City property was an administrative issue, not a Planning Commission issue.
Mr. Marsh stated that he was not withdrawing the petition and explained that his client was not interested in a "land grab". Mr. Marsh stated that Finding of Fact #3 dealing with open access to the foothills was not a true statement, that it had been closed off.
Mr. Wright said it was not closed off, it was open and the Finding of Fact was accurate.
Mr. Marsh questioned Findings of Fact #7 and #8 and said he believed those were opinions, not facts.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Joe Baldwin, the real estate agent for the property owner, stated that she had informed him she would be willing to remove the fence, the dog house and the satellite dish from the encroachment area.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Becker stated that there was nothing to stop the property owner from reinforcing the retaining wall within their property boundaries to stabilize it and protect their property relative to slope stability.
Mr. Howa requested the staff respond to Mr. Marsh's concerns relative to the Findings of Fact.
Mr. Paterson stated that relative to Finding #1, the property to the west of this parcel was an improved access to the foothills. Mr. Paterson stated that Finding #7 referred to the City-owned land that had been fenced off, thus preventing public access to publicly owned land. Mr. Paterson stated that Captain Sevastopolous had excavated the slope which definitely impacted the natural foothill topography and the staff believed this to be a detriment to the natural foothill topography.
Ms. Cromer asked if the Planning Commission could get written documentation of the revised geotechnical information as part of their findings. Mr. Wright stated that that would not be necessary.
Mr. Howa stated that the issue was not really the stability of the slope but the ownership. Mr. Wright said the City had the right to request the fence, dog house and satellite dish which had been placed on City property, be removed.
Mr. McRea moved, based on the ·findings of fact and the staff recommendation, that the Planning Commission deny the request to declare the property behind 1425 Tomahawk Drive surplus and to deny the request to lease the property to the petitioner as well as to require the petitioner to remove the existing encroachments from the City-owned property and restore the land to its original topographical and vegetation cove according to a restoration plan approved by the Planning Staff; and that the City begin immediate enforcement on other encroachment issues.
Mr. Howa requested Mr. McRea make the last portion of the motion a separate motion.
Mr. McRea withdrew the portion of the motion dealing with enforcement of other encroachments.
Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Marsh asked if he could make an objection.
Mr. Howa responded in the negative.
Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Howa explained to Mr. Marsh that this was not a court room where attorneys were allowed to make objections but added that he could make a statement if he chose to do so.
Mr. Marsh stated that the only item before this Commission was the petition for surplus property and he felt it was inappropriate for the Commission to vote on the last part of the motion.
Mr. Howa explained that Mr. McRea had withdrawn the last portion of the motion.
Mr. Marsh said the part he was referring to as inappropriate was the part recommending enforcement against the petitioner.
Mr. Howa explained that Mr. McRea had a right to request that as part of his motion.
Mr. McRea moved that the City begin immediate enforcement of other encroachments on any City-owned properties. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Cromer stated that the legislation on encroachments had been developed by the Planning Commission, and therefore, they had the right to make motions requesting encroachments be enforced.
SUBDIVISIONS
INFORMAL HEARING -Appeal filed by Michael Mesarch of the administrative decision approving a two lot subdivision at 228 West 600 North in a Residential "R-5" zoning district.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson explained that Mr. Mesarch was not present.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Upon receiving no response he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Neilson moved to uphold the administrative decision of the Planning Director on this matter. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
INFORMAL HEARING- Petition No. 400-95-10 by Randy Haugen requesting a plat amendment of Lot 5 and a portion of Lot 4 of the Hot Springs Subdivision: and Petition No. 41 0-162 by Randy Haugen requesting a conditional use for a commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of six lots to be located at 2193 North Warm Springs Road in an Industrial "M-3" zoning district.
Mr. Joel Paterson 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. Cromer asked if this project was affected by the City-wide moratorium.
Mr. Paterson responded in the negative.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to approve the request based on the findings of fact and subject to the condition listed in the staff report. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
INFORMAL HEARING -Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Review and Recommend Chapter 23. Sign Regulations. to the Salt Lake City Council.
Mr. Wilde stated that the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite contract called for keeping the Sign Ordinance mostly in its existing form and applying the new districts to the existing text. Mr. Wilde explained, however, that this approach had not worked well and they had completed a major revision of the Sign Ordinance. He stated that the two major areas of revision were that square footage limitations had been applied to all signs and a limit had been placed on the number of signs that could be placed on any given site. Mr. Wilde stated that Mr. Bruce Baird, the Assistant City Attorney, and Mr. Kurt Brimley of Young Electric Sign Company, had read the ordinance and offered their input on it.
Mr. Wright stated that the Sign Ordinance had been prepared rather quickly at the end of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project and the public had not had much time to review the ordinance. He suggested the Planning Commission adopt the sign ordinance as a temporary ordinance and that it be used as an interim ordinance during a six month review period while the staff analyzed it in more detail and accepted public comment on it. At the end of the six month period, a finalized version of the Sign Ordinance could then be adopted.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to adopt the Sign Ordinance, as presented by staff, as an interim ordinance for a period of six months, giving the staff an opportunity to analyze it in further detail and accept public comment on it. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that the City Council staff had mailed approximately 47,000 notices of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project to the property owners in the City informing them of the upcoming open houses and City Council hearings. Mr. Wright stated that plans had been made to set up a "phone bank” in order to answer the questions they anticipated would be generated by these notices. Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that the first City Council hearing had been held on the Zoning Rewrite Project on March 15th and added that approximately 100 people had attended with about half of them addressing the City Council with their concerns. Mr. Wright stated that no new inforn1ation had been presented and no questions asked that the staff had not already analyzed. Mr. Wright also informed the Planning Commission that the City Council had adopted a City-wide moratorium on development due to a "rush" of permit activity. He stated that this moratorium would be in effect until the Council adopted the new ordinance at their April 4th meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15p.m.