SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Jeff Jonas, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger and Vice-Chairperson Max Smith were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Doug Wheelwright, Jackie Gasparik, Nelson Knight, Doug Dansie, Elizabeth Giraud and Craig Hinckley.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:00 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
Mr. Steed moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, March 2, 2000. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-420 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 575 North Chicago Street in a Single Family Residential "R-1/7,000" zoning district;
AND, Case No. 410-426 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 950 West 300 North in a Single Family Residential "R-1/7,000" zoning district;
AND, Case No. 410-438 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 946 West Prosperity Avenue in a Single Family Residential "R¬1/7,000" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of each case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. McCandless relating to the cases.
Mr. Brad Groves, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
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.
Motion for Case Nos. 410-420, 410-426 and 410-438:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case Nos. 410-420, 410¬426 and 410-438 for the installation of ground mounted electrical cabinets that include back-up generators subject to the following general conditions of approval as listed in the staff report:
1 No propane tanks be used.
2 The cabinets, including the cement pad, be removed within 90 days if they no longer are needed or used and any lease with property owner terminated.
3 A surety bond or cash bond be posted assuring removal of the equipment and pad.
4 All utilities and cables be placed underground.
5 If TCI or its related entities install cabinets underground, or partially underground, in other community, TCI will retrofit this equipment within one year of availability of this technology, provided, TCI shall not be required to retrofit any equipment before the expiration of five years of the date of its approval. When new technology becomes available, the Planning Commission will no longer accept and/or approve above ground cabinets.
6 All lease agreements with property owners shall contain a 'hold harmless' language to sufficiently protect the property owner from liability.
Mr. Steed further recommended the following site-specific conditions:
Case Nos. 410-420, 410-426, 410-438:
1. A lease agreement will need to be signed with the property owner(s) as all three sites are on private property.
Case No. 410-426:
1. A screening fence along the east side of the alley and landscaping along the south side of the installation pad be required to help discourage graffiti. This site is visible from 300 North Street.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Short excused herself from the remainder of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-232 by Ernest Hughes requesting to re-evaluate the conditions of approval for an approved conditional use for a Class "B" Private Club license located in Faces Restaurant at 659 North 300 West in a Mixed-Use "MU" zoning district.
Mr. Nelson Knight 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. Knight stated that the Planning Commission approved a conditional use request by Mr. Hughes to operate as a Class "B" Private Club at its September 5, 1996 meeting with a list of eight conditions. Since the approval was granted, Mr. Hughes has continued to operate his business as a restaurant, not as a private club. Mr. Hughes is now requesting the Planning Commission to reconsider its original conditions of approval due to changes that have been made to the surrounding buildings.
Mr. Knight then addressed each of the eight conditions as follows:
1. The hours of operation are to be limited so that the establishment closes at
11:00 p.m.
Discussion: The purpose of this condition was to mitigate noise impacts to adjoining properties. Since the original approval, the motel to the north and west has been demolished. Even though there is a duplex next door to the south, the property is zoned MU, which allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses, and the rear building has been converted to an office.
Staff Finding: Staff believes that this condition is no longer necessary. By state law, liquor may be sold in private clubs from 10 a.m. until 1 a.m. except on Sundays and holidays when liquor may be sold from noon to midnight. On a state or national Election Day, liquor may not be sold until after the polls are closed.
2. The unlicensed vans on the property are to be removed.
Discussion: Mr. Hughes has moved the vans to the rear portion of the property out of view of the public.
Staff Finding: Moving the vans to the southwest corner of the lot adequately mitigates the visual impact on the surrounding properties.
3. That a light-proof, wood or masonry fence be constructed along the north and west sides of the property.
Discussion: The existing chain link fence and evergreen trees along the property lines provide an adequate physical and visual buffer for the surrounding properties. The new development to the north and west may provide additional buffering.
Staff Finding: A wood or masonry fence is no longer needed as a buffer on the north and west property lines.
4. That a landscaping plan consisting of landscaping in the front yard area and parking strip be submitted for Planning Director approval before the business license is approved, and that a bond be submitted to ensure completion of the landscaping.
Staff Finding: This condition has been met. The applicant has installed landscaping in the front yard and park strip.
5. That the dead or dying landscaping on the south and west property lines be removed.
Staff Finding: This condition has been met.
6. That the existing asphalt parking lot be repaired or resurfaced.
Discussion: The existing asphalt parking lot has a drivable surface. The owner will patch the areas that have subsided when his budget allows.
Staff Finding: The parking lot surface is drivable. The owner will repair the subsided areas of the lot within one year.
7. That the appearance of the shed on the northwest corner of the property be improved.
Discussion: The owner is in the process of adding siding to the shed. The existing plywood sheathing is exterior grade. The applicant has agreed to complete the siding work within six months of the issuance of the business license.
Staff Finding: This condition will be met within six months of the issuance of the business license.
8. That the approval of the conditional use for the Class "B" private club liquor license be re-evaluated for compliance with conditions and potential revocation of approval in one year.
Staff Finding: Staff will verify compliance with condition 6 within one year of the issuance of the business license for the private club, and condition 7 within six months of the issuance of the business license. In the future, Staff will re-evaluate the conditional use if complaints associated with the operation of the private club are received.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Knight relating to the case.
Mr. Daniels asked if the issuance of a business license would be considered the same as the start date for the actual use of the license. Mr. Wright responded by stating that there is no way to track when a business actually opens. Therefore, the issuance of the business license is the best way of keeping track.
Mr. Ernest Hughes, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Hughes then spoke concerning the issuance of a business license. He stated that he will obtain his business license when he is prepared to apply for his State license. After applying for his State license there will be hearing, at which, he will need to present his business license. Mr. Hughes then stated that he will not be able to operate as a private club until he receives the State's approval. Obtaining the State license will take approximately two months.
Ms. Barrows asked why the private club license was not obtained when approval was given in 1996. Mr. Hughes stated that he was unable to follow through due to financial reasons. Ms. Barrows then asked Mr. Hughes if he will be able to afford it now. Mr. Hughes responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Funk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cril Gorring, a concerned citizen, stated that she is aware of an existing private club that is less than 600 feet from Mr. Hughes' business. She then asked if two private clubs would be allowed in this area.
Mr. Hughes stated that the business in which Ms. Goring is referring to is not a private club, it is a beer bar.
Mr. Wright then stated that when Mr. Hughes applies for the private club license with Business Licensing, a screening will be done to make sure that a private club at the proposed location is within the Ordinance standards. Mr. Wright then stated that it is his understanding that the availability of a private club license exists for Mr. Hughes.
Ms. Katherine Gardner, representing Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she is concerned because she feels that 300 West is a gateway that has not received near the help or the consideration that some of the other gateways have received. Mr. Hughes came to the community council to present his proposal and explained that the conditions were not met in 1996 due to a financial hardship. Ms. Gardner wonders if he may still have a financial hardship. Ms. Gardner the addressed the fact that the Redevelopment Agency is planning to put houses on the north side of Mr. Hughes' business. She is concerned that the housing may not sell or rent because of the neighboring business being a private club. Ms. Gardner concluded by stating that she hopes that Mr. Hughes continues to do business and that everything goes well for him. However, she also wants to do what is best to help the neighborhood improve.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Funk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows asked if the proposed request for a private club is the best use for the land. If Mr. Hughes moves sometime in the future, will someone else be able to operate a private club at the same location. Mr. Wright responded by stating that the Planning Commission concluded, in 1996, that a private club was an appropriate land use.
Mr. Steed stated that he agrees that a private club is an appropriate use for the land. He then stated that he believes that a private club will be a boost to the community and will be a good addition to any future housing.
Ms. Barrows agrees with Mr. Steed's comments. However, she is concerned because conditional uses have adverse impacts. She feels that the conditional use (i.e. private club) should provide a light-proof, wood or masonry fence, not the new development because the club is producing the need for the fence.
Mr. Steed and Mr. Snelgrove feel that requiring Mr. Hughes to construct a fence is an unnecessary burden that is based on uncertainties for the abutting properties.
Motion for Case No. 410-232:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact for Case No. 410-232, to eliminate the need for Conditions 1, 2 and 3 and acknowledge the fact that Conditions 4 and 5 have been met. Mr. Steed further moved that Conditions 6 and 7 be retained and Condition 8 read as follows:
"That compliance with Conditions 6 and 7 be required within one year of the issuance of the business license for the private club. If compliance has not been made within one year, the conditional use shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for further review."
Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows voted "Nay". Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Funk, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-49 by Prowswood requesting that the property located between North Temple & 500 North and between 500 West & approximately 450 West be rezoned from Manufacturing "M-1" to a zoning district which allows the development of multi-family residential, townhouses and live/work space. In response, two new zones are being created, as part of this Petition, consistent with the Capitol Hill Master Plan, to accommodate the proposed development. The two zoning districts are Residential Mixed-Use "R-MU-35" and "R-MU-45", which encourage residential development while allowing for a variety of non-residential support services.
AND, Petition No. 400-99-61 by Salt Lake City Transportation Division requesting that 500 North Street be closed at the 500 West railroad crossing.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie stated that after the last public hearing, UDOT has indicated they would not allow directional horns, but are willing to accept a "quiet zone". A "quiet zone" will eliminate the need for a train to whistle at every crossing but allows train whistles in emergency situations. The "quiet zone" is acceptable to UDOT in conjunction with an upgrade of crossings at 300 and 400 North. Mr. Dansie then stated that Union Pacific does not necessarily support a quiet zone, but they do not oppose it either. Legally, implementation of a "quiet zone" is the City's responsibility, however, acceptance of a "quiet zone" is UDOT's prerogative.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Dansie relating to the two petitions.
Ms. Barrows asked if the closure of 500 North will prevent safe pedestrian crossing. Mr. Dansie stated that it has been agreed upon by all interested parties to identify 500 North as a private crossing. A private crossing means that 500 North will not be a crossing for pedestrians, bicycles or vehicles, however, it will still be paved and it will be gated. Emergency vehicles will have a key to the gate. Mr. Dansie then stated that pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles will be directed to cross 500 West at either 300 or 400 North.
Ms. Arnold stated that she is concerned that there is no written response in the staff report from either the Police Department or the Fire Department. Mr. Dansie stated that he has had correspondence from Mr. Brad Larsen, a representative for the two fire stations in the general area. Mr. Larsen spoke with the Captains of the two fire stations and both agreed with a private crossing at 500 North.
Ms. Arnold stated that she is also concerned about the public hearing notification because the notice only went to owners of the property adjacent to the street. She feels that the notice should have also gone to the users, tenants and leasing companies. She believes that the closure of a street belongs to the City, not just the residents within a couple of blocks on either side. Ms. Arnold also believes that people have not been given proper notice. Therefore, she would like the City to place a trial blockade at the 500 North Closure for 15-30 days so that the people who are really affected by the closure will be made aware of it.
Mr. Alan Wood, Vice President with the Prowswood Organization, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Wood then stated that Prowswood is very excited about this opportunity to provide affordable housing at the proposed location. Prowswood also recognizes that it is extremely important for the residents to have quiet enjoyment of their property. Mr. Wood continued by stating that the noise level of the train horns are very concerning to Prowswood and that the only way that the housing project could move forward is with the implementation of a "quiet zone" in the area.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Wood relating to the proposed project.
Mr. Snelgrove asked Mr. Wood if Prowswood plans to be involved with the construction of the quad gates for 300 and 400 North. Mr. Wood stated the feasibility studies on the real estate are currently below the "market return" requirements for this type of development. If Prowswood were to incur the cost of the quad gates and other surface and subsurface improvements, it would render the project infeasible.
Mr. Wright stated there is going to be negotiations between the Administration and Prowswood on the quad gates issue. The City Council will also be involved because of the budgeting issues. The premise of the negotiation is that safety must be provided at the 300 and 400 North crossings. If a "quiet zone" is implemented, it will benefit more than just this single development, however, this development helps the City accomplish a lot of its goals for affordable housing. Mr. Wright explained that the Planning Commission's role is to make their best recommendation about the land use issues to both the Administration and the City Council. Then, the Administration and the City Council will determine how best to accomplish the expenditures for the quad gates and the 500 West roadway.
Ms. Funk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Katherine Gardner, representing Capitol Hill Community Council, asked if directional horns will be used in conjunction with the quad gates. Mr. Wright responded by stating that there would be no directional horns. However, when the quad gates are lowered, the train's whistle will not be used unless there is an emergency.
Ms. Gardner then stated that when Prowswood came to the community council to present their project, there were no negative comments. There were a lot of comments about the 500 North closing. The community does not like to see the street closed because the two neighborhoods seem divided. Ms. Gardner then stated that if the street were to be closed, she hopes that it would not be destroyed so that the option of re-opening 500 North will be available in the future if desired.
Ms. Maria Garciaz, Executive Director for Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services and a representative for the Fairpark Community Council, stated that she supports both of the petitions and is very excited about the potential of someone considering developing in this area. As a non-profit developer, having to comply with the HUD guidelines creates a lot of challenges in constructing affordable housing in terms of costs. Ms. Garciaz stated that she is in favor of closing 500 North and the implementation of a "quiet zone". She realizes that there are a lot of issues in terms of the financial feasibility. As a non-profit developer, Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services is trying to work with Prowswood to see if there is an opportunity to bring additional funding to make the quad gates feasible. Ms. Garciaz concluded by stating that the Fairpark Community Council fully supports the closure of 500 North.
Mr. Ernest Hughes, a concerned citizen, asked if there has been any consideration given to the impact that this development, along with other new developments in the area, will have on the sewer system and the treatment plant. Mr. Hughes then stated that he believes that if housing is between $115,000 to $130,000, it is not considered low-income housing. He also feels that the proposed project has not been very well thought out.
Ms. Shirley McLaughlan, a member of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she is representing the community council as well as several businesses in the area. If 500 North is closed, the business located off of 500 North will have to do their business by going to 300 or 400 North. She does not feel that it is fair for Prowswood to close 500 North. Ms. McLaughlan then stated that she feels that closing 400 North will not affect as many people. Ms. McLaughlan then asked about the location of the commuter rail from Ogden to Provo.
Mr. Wright stated that the existing main line rail corridor will very likely be the corridor the commuter rail will use to go to the north. Mr. Wright then stated that the proposed project will not curtail that option.
Mr. Bill Reynolds, President of a business that is located on 400 North, stated that he is concerned about low-income housing being built close to railroad tracks from a safety standpoint. He feels that having quad gates will not prevent children from staying away from the tracks. Mr. Reynolds then stated that he agrees with Ms. Arnold's comment that before any street is closed barricades should first be used to allow people to experience the impact of what is going to happen. He then stated that he is worried about housing being constructed close to the businesses that have existed in this area for a long time.
Mr. John Christensen, property owner on 500 West, stated that he is concerned about the tracks moving to the west because his building currently shakes quite dramatically when a train passes by. He is also concerned about where the tracks will take the curve as it approaches the existing North Temple viaduct. Mr. Christensen would also like to see 500 North closed in such a way that it could be re-opened in the future if desired.
Mr. Wright responded to Mr. Christensen's concern about the existing North Temple viaduct. He stated that the North Temple viaduct will be rebuilt as a viaduct or as a tunnel.
Ms. Annje Whorton, a resident in the Fairpark area, stated that any resident in the area quickly learns not to use 500 North because a train is blocking the street all of the time. Therefore, residents are always using 300 or 400 North. Ms. Whorton then stated that she is in favor of the affordable housing.
Mr. Mark May, Vice-President of a business on 600 North, stated that he is opposed to the 500 North closure because employees and delivery trucks use that route to arrive and leave his business. Ms. Funk noted that as part of the proposed project, there will be a roadway on the east side of the tracks that will go north and south. Mr. May then stated that he is still not fully in favor of the 500 North closure, however, he is pleased that there will be a roadway on the east side of the tracks.
Mr. David Galvan, Real Estate Broker for Neighborhood Housing Services, stated that he is in favor of closing 500 North because he feels that there will be less traffic through the residential neighborhoods.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Funk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows then asked about the width of the roadways on both sides of the railroad tracks. Mr. Dansie stated that the roadways will have two full width travel lanes on both sides.
Ms. Arnold stated that she is concerned about putting a housing development in an area with horrific sound problem. She then stated that she has a problem with coupling the closure of 500 North with the proposed development. She does not believe that the people in the City have been given proper notice on the street closure. She believes that a street closure belongs to more than the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Arnold then stated that she would like a temporary closure of 500 North to really find out what the affect will be. She is, however, in favor of the proposed development.
Mr. Steed stated that he feels that 500 North should be closed based on the "quiet zone" because it will benefit Prowswood's development as well as the Fairpark, West Capitol Hill and Rosepark communities. He believes that the closure of 500 North is a slight impact to the area because generally trucks by-pass 500 North to use 300 and 400 North.
Ms. Barrows stated that rezoning the property from manufacturing to a residential mixed-use is favorable to the City. There are concerns about health and safety issues for the citizens. Ms. Barrows then stated that she is concerned about putting up a sound wall because she feels that it will enclose the community and noise will bounce off of it. She does not feel that the new community will be in any more danger than any other community that is along the rail line. Ms. Barrows continued by stating that she does not like the idea of a closure, however, she thinks that the "quiet zone" is a greater benefit to the community.
Mr. Daniels stated that he is in favor of the closure and he feels that it will benefit the community. He then stated that he feels that everyone in the area, not just the businesses and property owners, should have a right to know what is going on and have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing.
Motion for Petition Nos. 400-99-49:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-99-49 to the City Council with a positive recommendation approving:
• Adoption of the proposed "RMU-35" and RMU-45" zoning districts.
• A change in zoning map classification from "M-1" to "RMU-35" (north of 300 North) and "RMU-45 (south of 300 North); as outlined in the staff report.
These changes will be subject to the adoption and implementation of a "quiet zone" and the construction of 500 West infrastructure between North Temple and 500 North. Mr. Steed further recommended the following changes be made to the existing Zoning Ordinance (Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code) to accommodate the two new zones:
• Section 48.080 Landscaping; be modified to include "RMU-35" and "RMU-45".
• Section 44.050 Parking; be modified to include "RMU-35" and "RMU¬45" constant with other medium density multi-family zones.
• Section 46.090 Signs; be modified to include "RMU-35" and "RMU-45" with other mixed-use zones.
• Section 54.150 Planned Development; be allowed with a 9,000 square foot minimum lot area.
• Chapter 36 General Provisions; be modified as applicable.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Funk, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-61:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-99-61 to the City Council with a positive recommendation regarding the closure of 500 North at the 500 West rail crossing to pedestrian and general vehicle access, while retaining ownership of the property for utility needs, fire access and potential future use, subject to the adoption and functional implementation of a "quiet zone" between North Temple and 600 North. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Nay". Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Funk, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
P
UBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-452 by Shawn Eva and Kelly Lamoreaux requesting a conditional use to use the George M. Cannon house located at 720 E. Ashton Avenue as a bed and breakfast in a Residential "RMF-35" zoning district.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud 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.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Giraud relating to the case.
Ms. Funk spoke concerning the fact that the petitioners have started to work on the home prior to approval of the conditional use. Ms. Giraud stated that the petitioners live in the structure and when they first moved in there were repairs that were necessary for them to make. The petitioners understand that they took a risk by starting the renovation prior to the approval and that it may become uneconomically feasible for them to keep the property if their request is denied. Mr. Wright then stated that some of the repairs needed to be done to stop the deterioration of the building.
Mr. Shawn Eva and Mr. Kelly Lamoreaux, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Tom Bowen, attorney for the petitioners, was also present.
Ms. Funk 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.
Motion for Case No. 410-452:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-452 for a bed and breakfast at 720 E. Ashton Avenue subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. The development of the bed and breakfast be consistent with the plans submitted for this application.
2. Preservation staff review and approval of plans to remove any mature trees during the on-site development phase.
3. Satisfaction of all City departmental requirements.
Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Funk, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – The Planning Commission will receive public comment and consider making recommendations on additional amendments to the Park Strip Ordinance. The amendments are intended to provide increased flexibility in the design and improvement of the City's park strips.
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. Mr. Hinckley stated that the Salt Lake City Council held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 to receive input on amendments to the park strip landscaping standards. At the conclusion of the City Council's public hearing, Mayor Anderson requested that this issue be tabled for sixty days to allow the administration time to evaluate the public input and to propose additional amendments. The intent of these amendments is to provide increased flexibility in the design and improvement of the City's park strips to allow more landscaping choices for property owners. The purpose is also to address the City's goals for water conservation. The following amendments are proposed:
• The owners of vacant lots are currently exempt from park strip
landscaping standards. An amendment is proposed that would eliminate
that exemption.
• The requirement for minimum plant coverage is deleted.
• Prohibition of gravel, rocks and boulders is removed.
• Providing for irrigation of park strips becomes advisory rather than mandatory.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Hinckley relating to the proposed amendments.
Ms. Funk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, presented some branches to the Planning Commission to illustrate two important issues. The two issues are the effects of hardscaping on temperature and the health of public street trees. She noted that one branch is in bloom and the other branch, which extends over the sidewalk, is almost ready to bloom. Ms. Cromer then stated that she does not feel that the Park Strip Ordinance is ready for implementation because she feels that the ramifications, from her neighborhood in particularly, are disastrous and the impacts on public street trees are horrendous. The issue of park strips is about public property surrounded by public improvements encompassing the City's second most valuable natural resource – its public street trees. It is not about personal liberties, it is about public investments and improvements and the value of adjacent property owner's houses. Ms. Cromer then submitted an article for the record entitled "The Value of Streetscape Trees". Ms. Cromer also submitted three short articles from TREE CARE INDUSTRY which illustrate how superficial tree roots are, how extensive the roots are close to the tree, and how much damage can be done to a tree by providing an excavation (i.e. the installation of pavers) near the base of the tree. (A copy of Ms. Cromer's handouts are filed with the minutes.) Ms. Cromer continued by stating that she is not opposed to rocks in limited applications. However, plants and trees do a better job of reducing the demand for water, preserving public investment and maintaining cooler and more aesthetically pleasing communities. She is opposed to the extensive use of pavers in park strips. She feels that the installation of rocks could be handled best under a no fee permit to ensure that the longstanding concerns addressed by Public Utilities are considered. Ms. Cromer then asked the Planning Commission to create an environment, a micro-climate, in which City employees who understand the complexity of this equation (park strips) can do their jobs and the public process can proceed. If the Park Strip Ordinance is going to be dealt with, do no harm to the City's highly valuable street trees which are a defining element in many neighborhoods and belong to everyone because they are public street trees.
Ms. Meryl Redisch, Executive Director of Tree Utah, stated that Tree Utah is dedicated to improving the quality of life for Utahans through tree planting stewardship and education. Ms. Redisch then stated that she echoes Ms. Cromer's sentiments. Ms. Redisch added that she is concerned about existing trees in park strips that may be encased in solid cement. She fully supports water conservation measures, the use of organic materials and more drought tolerant trees. She feels that everyone should be thinking about xeriscaping. Ms. Redisch then expressed some concern that homeowners could very easily use the Park Strip Ordinance as a way to possibly harm and eventually kill the trees on their park strip. She feels that hardsurfacing will detract from the quality of the neighborhoods and could possibly pose a threat to the City's street trees. Ms. Redisch continued by stating that the Ordinance, as written, will not protect the existing trees on the park strips. Hardscaping would also prevent natural precipitation from percolating into the ground and into the trees root system.
Ms. Redisch then expressed some concern about utility companies needing to replace or repair their underground utilities. Who will incur the expense of removing the cement or pavers and then replacing them.
Mr. Mark Smedley, a concerned citizen, stated that he is in favor of conserving water. He then stated that gravel mulch allows water in just as well as grass, maybe even better. Mr. Smedley feels that the proposed changes to the Park Strip Ordinance are good changes. The proposed changes will also allow homeowners to make the choices about how they are going to use water on their lawns and the park strip.
Mr. Justin Hamula, representing the Utah Chapter of the American Society Landscape Architects (ASLA), stated that the ASLA are champions of water conservation. On a design and aesthetic standpoint, the continuity is taken away by allowing people to do virtually whatever they would like to do. He feels that the proposed changes are a determent to street trees and create a significant impact on the viability of the City's street trees. Mr. Hamula then stated that xeriscape does not mean zero scape; there are many other options available to homeowners if they do not want to use grass.
Ms. Kelly von Stroh, a concerned citizen, read a statement written by Ms. Liz McCoy who was unable to attend the hearing. The statement reads: "Thank you for reviewing the Ordinance about the landscaping of the City's parkway strips. I support the ordinance as written. I realize there are many conflicting opinions about this issue, but if we, as citizens of Salt Lake City, want to protect our water resources for future generations of Utahans, then we should plan for the future. With all due respect, I ask you all to remember that Utah is the second driest state in the nation with the highest per capita use of water. According to the New York Times, the state of Florida is rapidly headed toward a water crisis and while they are not even a high desert, Utah could be in the same situation unless we do something now. Perhaps we should not worry about beautification or parking issues that affect us today, but rather, think about the year 2010 when it is said we too might be running out of water. If we as a City act proactively, we can avoid this type of crisis. I hope the Planning Commission votes to follow the Mayor's lead and take a strong stance on water conservation by allowing non-vegetated parkway strips in Salt Lake City. This allows individuals to make a difference."
Mr. Mike Olsen, a concerned citizen, stated that he supports the changes in the Ordinance that will allow residents to plant a number of native species in the park strip. He has a concern that some homeowners may allow noxious weeds to grow in their park strip.
Ms. Nina Dougherty, Chair of the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, spoke both as a resident of Salt Lake City and as the Chair of the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club. She stated that the proposed amendments to the Ordinance are sensible and necessary. This is a water issue and a moral issue. Utah is a dry state. And, this is also an aesthetic and relearning issue – learning to love, as many do, native and other drought tolerant, low maintenance vegetation and landscapes. Ms. Dougherty continued by reading her comments from a handout, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. She stated that the proposed ordinance by and large does exactly the right thing in allowing homeowners to legally do what they have felt they must morally do. Ms. Dougherty then expressed some concerns that she has with the Ordinance. They include allowing all rocks in the park strip, not using the word "xeriscape" in the Ordinance, clarifying references to cement in the Ordinance as "poured cement", spacing of pavers needs to be addressed and case by case of each park strip should be considered. Ms. Dougherty stated that she feels that there needs to be guidance and demonstration to help people see what can be done in the park strips.
Mr. Roger Kjelgren, Professor of Horticulture at Utah State University, stated that he has been conducting research on water use in landscape plants for the past 20 years. He then added some scientific viewpoints to the proposed Ordinance. He stated that the Ordinance is part of a larger picture to conserve water because park strips are one of the most egregious water wasters due to the fact that they are impossible to irrigate. He then spoke regarding the use of non-vegetation. He has found that trees grow better without turf grass competition. Trees also grow very well under concrete because it acts as a mulch, however, a lot depends on the type of soil.
Mr. Allen Sanderson, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that impervious material, such as brick, concrete and natural stone pavers should only be used for carriage ways. He believes that removing the requirement for plant coverage is a mistake because of the heating element. He feels that the Ordinance should require some plants within the park strips. Mr. Sanderson then stated that he does not agree with the use of gravel in the park strips because of the underground utilities that exist. He also believes that gravel gets compacted easily which would not be good for the trees. He agrees with the use of large stones or boulders as long as plants are also used.
Mr. Rich Giraud, a concerned citizen, stated that having trees and plants improves the water quality because they intercept the rainfall which reduces the volume of water that is delivered to the storm water system. Therefore, he feels that the City should require and encourage plants in the park strip. Mr. Giraud then stated that plants have a tremendous buffering capacity and a cooling capacity for the City. If enough plants get removed, radiative heat surfaces will be exposed which will create an urban heat island problem. From an environmental management standpoint, as a City and as a community, it needs to be realized that water is a renewable resource.
Mr. Jerry Schmidt, a concerned citizen, submitted written comments to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Ordinance, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He then stated that he would like the Ordinance to allow homeowners to put rocks in their park strips. Mr. Schmidt then stated that he has reviewed the Ordinance and is concerned because he feels that it portrays "anything goes". Mr. Schmidt continued by stating that he would like Ordinance to require more water conservation, drought tolerant plants and the use of bark. He would like to see the incorporation of conservation measures in all planning to meet future water needs.
Mr. Zach Frankel, Utah Rivers Council, stated that he is very pleased that the Planning Commission is considering the proposed Park Strip Ordinance. He feels that it is a very good step forward for Salt Lake City. Mr. Frankel then stated that he is not in favor of allowing cement to be in the park strip because dirt does not give off as much heat as hardsurfaces. If gravel is allowed in the park strips, water will percolate into the ground better than it would if there was grass or some other turf. Mr. Frankel continued by stating that there is a water crisis in Utah because of the residents, not to their discredit but simply out of ignorance. Utah has the highest urban water use in the United States according to the U.S. Geological Survey. On average, Utah's urban water prices are third lowest in the nation and the lowest in the 11 western states. He then asked the Planning Commission to encourage every resident to do anything they want to reduce water use. It is clear that not everybody is going to want to put gravel in their park strips.
Ms. Franci DeLong, on the Board of Directors of the Utah Water Conservation Forum, stated that she is also a landscape contractor who specialize in low water landscaping. Ms. DeLong then stated that Blue Grass lawn uses about 18 gallons of water per square foot a year to keep green. A xeriscaped area will use about 3 gallons of water per square foot a year. She feels that aesthetic issues are not a concern because usually when one person in the neighborhood xeriscapes their yard, others will also want to do the same to their yards. During her years of landscaping, she has done a lot of things to park strips and has never hurt a tree. Therefore, it is possible to make changes to the park strip without hurting the street trees. Ms. DeLong continued by stating that she watered her lawn five times last year and her trees are doing just fine. She feels that the proposed Ordinance is an opportunity to give people a chance to save water in different ways – whatever is pleasing to them.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Funk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Discussion followed between staff and the Planning Commissioners regarding the proposed Park Strip Ordinance.
Ms. Arnold asked if the City's center strips would be effected by the Park Strip Ordinance. Mr. Wright responded by stating that the medians are generally designed and maintained by the City. The Park Strip Ordinance standards could be applied to the medians.
Mr. Wright then spoke regarding hardsurfacing in the park strips. He stated that there was a time when grass was the only material that could be placed in the park strips. Water conservationists addressed the City by recommending that there be other choices made available that would save water. At that point, the City identified that there were times when maintaining a park strip would be difficult (i.e. narrow park strips). Using concrete was then given as an option to those who had a 24" park strip. The proposed ordinance continues to allow concrete as an option if the park strip is 24" or less. The proposed ordinance will also allow brick pavers to be in a park strip of any size.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance he remembers it being flexible. At that time, he supported relaxing the plant coverage requirement lower than 75%. He then stated that he cannot support relaxing the plant coverage requirement to 0%. Mr. Snelgrove continued by stating that he believes it is possible to have some plant coverage in the park strip and still be able to conserve water. He feels that water conservation is a civic duty and that maintaining a park strip is consistent with, and enhances, the character of the surrounding City.
Mr. Steed stated that he agrees with Mr. Snelgrove's comments that there should be some plant coverage in the park strip. Mr. Steed also would like the concrete pavers to be limited to a percentage of the park strip and not be allowed in the entire park strip.
The Planning Commissioners then addressed the Administration's proposed amendments to the Park Strip Ordinance point by point. At the conclusion of their discussion, the Planning Commission recommended several changes to the Administration's proposed amendments. Some of the changes include:
• Plant Coverage. Requiring at least 50% of the park strip surface be covered with vegetation.
• Carriage Ways. If poured concrete is used, carriage ways shall be not more than four feet in width and shall be located so as to provide the most direct route from the curb to the sidewalk. The area of carriage ways shall be included in calculating the percentage of inorganic material in the park strip.
• Landscape Berms. Delete paragraph.
• Prohibited Materials. Except for street trees, no plant, boulder, monument, or other object which is over 18" in height shall be planted or located within site distance areas.
Other changes recommended by the Planning Commission are a requirement that existing street trees be protected by keeping paving materials at least 18" away from them and a notice that property owners are required to water street trees as required by the City's Urban Forestry Ordinance.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-40:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-99-40 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation of the amendments to the Park Strip Landscaping Standards subject to the changes recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Funk, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUE
Finalize the Planning Commission recommendation for the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.
Ms. Funk noted that this item has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Annual Subdivision and Condominium Report.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright and Ms. Jackie Gasparik led the discussion regarding the Annual Subdivision and Condominium Report. Mr. Wheelwright distributed a summary report of the Subdivision Approvals for 1999, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Wheelwright and Ms. Gasparik relating to the Annual Subdivision and Condominium Report.
Ms. Arnold addressed condominium conversions by asking if they were categorized by themselves or were they combined with condominiums. Mr. Wheelwright stated that condominium conversions have been combined with condominiums. Ms. Arnold then stated that the Ordinance requires condominium conversions by units be reported, separately from condominiums, to the Planning Commission on a yearly basis. She continued by stating that condominium conversions are very important to be aware of because when there has been a conversion, generally, modest housing has been lost. Therefore, it is important to know where the housing has been lost. Mr. Wheelwright responded by stating that staff will prepare a separate report on condominium conversions in future years for Planning Commission review.
Requests made by Ms. Arnold:
Ms. Arnold asked staff to look into using signs to notify the public regarding street closures. Ms. Arnold would also like the staff to look into publishing the Planning Commission agendas in both the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune. Mr. Wright stated that he would look into Ms. Arnold's requests, however, he feels that the budget will not allow the Planning Commission agendas to be published in the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.