SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Andrea Barrows, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kent Nelson, and Laurie Noda
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Ray McCandless, and Planners Melissa Anderson and Cheri Coffey.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:45 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.
Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde introduced Mary May with The Secretarial Source, whose company produced the planning commission minutes the previous week. Mr. Wilde clarified that The Secretarial Source did not produce the minutes of the January 31 meeting that the planning commissioners received via E-mail. Those minutes were taken by a court reporter on a court reporting machine.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The planning commission discussed the minutes from January 31 and the difficulty some had in trying to read them due to the format. Mr. Wilde offered to provide a hard copy to each commissioner. Robert “Bip” Daniels recommended that approval of those minutes be postponed until the next meeting to allow everyone time to read them but asked how that would affect moving the cases forward. Mr. Wilde explained that the cases are not final until the minutes are ratified. Permits can be issued, but they are subject to appeal for 30 days after the minutes are ratified. Approval of the minutes was postponed to the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-580, By Gold Cross Ambulance requesting a conditional use to allow a 123 foot high communication antenna, located on the roof of their dispatch and repair facility located at 762 South Redwood Road in a Light Manufacturing “M-1" zoning district.
Due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Wilde excused himself from this matter.
Ray McCandless reported that in January 2002 the Planning Commission approved a temporary antenna at this location for the Olympics for the Gold Cross Ambulance repair and dispatch facility on Redwood Road. He identified the location of the existing antenna in the Corridor Commercial Zone on a site map. In January, Gold Cross Ambulance indicated they would return to seek a permanent facility. Mr. McCandless noted that the temporary facility is located in the CC zone, and the applicant is petitioning to move it back behind the M-1 zone. There are no proposed changes to the tower or the number of antennas located on it. He stated that the Poplar Grove Community Council supports this request, and he has received no phone calls from adjoining property owners. The antenna is fairly tall but only two feet wide and is a lattice structure which is not highly visible from adjoining properties. The Staff believed the tower was more compatible in the M-1 zoning district and recommended approval to move the tower as proposed subject to meeting all federal, state, and local codes and ordinances.
Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith referred to two letters contained in the staff report, one from the Utah Department of Health and one from Chuck Querry. He noted that the Planning Department relied heavily on their opinions in terms of community safety and that, combined with negotiations with Gold Cross, makes them very comfortable.
Mr. Nelson asked if there is a maximum height in the M-1 Zone for towers. Mr. McCandless replied that the maximum allowable height for a permitted use is 65 feet. Anything over that requires conditional use approval. In the CC zoning district, the height for a permitted use is only 30 feet.
Mr. Nelson asked if the Staff made recommendations in the findings regarding paint. Mr. McCandless stated that paint was discussed at the last meeting, and at that time the Planning Commission did not feel painting was necessary, although he was unsure if that decision was made because it was a temporary facility. The Planning Commission could look at this issue again for the permanent facility. The Staff recommended that the antennas be painted to minimize reflectivity and for overall appearance.
Ms. Barrows asked for the location of other existing conditional use antennas and asked if there was anything of this height in the area. Mr. McCandless replied that there are no other antenna structures this tall. The front yard of this building has an existing monopole that is 75 feet high. Ms. Barrows noted that the language refers to a 125-foot tower, but she understood the tower would be less than 125 feet. Mr. McCandless explained that 125 feet is the overall height and includes the building. The tower is 80+ feet. Ms. Barrows wanted to know if approval for 125 feet was linked to this building or if the applicant could move it off this building and put up a 125-foot tower. Mr. McCandless stated that the conditional use approval would be limited to the tower as proposed on top of the roof.
Mike Moffitt, representing Gold Cross Ambulance, felt Staff had adequately covered their desire to relocate the existing antenna behind the M-1 line.
Ms. Barrows stated that she had the impression that without this tower they would not have service from Gold Cross Ambulance. She asked how many antennas Gold Cross has currently. Mr. Moffitt replied that they are dealing with the antennas shown on the mast. One antenna is a gun-shot antenna that relays radio traffic to Farnsworth Peak, and one radio at Farnsworth re-transmits from that location out. There are no other antennas outside the main dispatch center, and three counties are dispatched from that location.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Andrea Barrows felt this was an appropriate time to discuss color. She agreed with the Staff’s original recommendation for a flat medium grey color. She noted for the record that she was pleased with the final color of the AT&T tower on 7th East and 23rd South.
Motion for Case 410-580:
Andrea Barrows made a motion to recommend approval of petition #410-580 as a conditional use for a123-foot-high communication tower based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report, with an additional requirement that the antennas attached to the lattice tower be painted a flat medium gray color to reduce reflectivity. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-09, By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting to rezone the property at 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 residential to the Public Lands (PL) zone at 1040 West 700 South. The site is proposed for use as the new Salt Lake City Police Pioneer Precinct. Modifications to the existing building and site generally include additions to the north and west side of the building, a parking lot with separate access points for both public and police vehicles and landscaping improvements.
Planner Melissa Anderson reported that the Planning Commission observed the property during a field trip. She noted that this was originally submitted as a conditional use permit for a government facility in a residential zone. After analyzing the existing footprint and setback constraints as well as looking at the master plan, the Staff felt it was more appropriate to rezone the property to PL (Public Lands) since local government facilities such as police stations are permitted in the PL zone. The Police Department concurred with this recommendation. Ms. Anderson stated that this matter was brought before the Community Council last week to provide an update of a clearer site plan, and they made a favorable recommendation. Ms. Anderson believed the surrounding community and neighbors understood the impacts and benefits of having a police station nearby. Community rooms and a strong police presence have resulted in positive feedback. Ms. Anderson reported that public notice was sent out, and she had not received any phone calls from the public.
Ms. Barrows stated that she was unable to attend the field trip, but she was concerned with the change of grade for natural surveillance referenced in the CPTED report. Ms. Anderson explained that the area in front which faces 700 South is a rolling, grassy area, and the City will have to provide soil remediation to stabilize the site. There are not enough funds at this time to do all the architectural landscaping elements possible for the site. Ms. Barrows asked about the amount of grade change. Ms. Anderson was unsure but stated that she thought it was two to three feet.
Mr. Nelson asked for clarification on parking in front of the building as it is not allowed in the zone. Ms. Anderson explained that in the PL zone, parking is allowed up to the 30-foot setback. Mr. Nelson asked if there was any opposition to this plan at the Community Council meeting. Ms. Anderson replied that concerns were expressed relative to lighting and drainage, but there was no opposition to the zone change. She reviewed an architectural rendering of the site plan showing the areas designated for on-site public parking and community meeting rooms.
Ms. Barrows asked which zones house the existing police substations. Jerry Burton, representing the Police Department, stated that SLCPD currently does not have police substations. Ms. Anderson named municipal entities in Sugar House as examples of uses in the PL zone. Ms. Barrows expressed concern about how far they are stretching the definition of municipal service. She asked how many parking spaces currently exist on the site and the actual number for public and for police parking. Ms. Anderson replied that the proposed number is 82 spaces for police and 19 spaces for the public, and those numbers represent an expansion of the parking area.
Mr. Muir recalled how the Planning Commission had expanded the criteria for Pacific Power and required them to make improvements along the Jordan River Parkway. He felt this project should carry the same kind of consistency. He noted that it is a City facility, and they owe it to the public to be consistent. Ms. Anderson explained that there is an existing pathway and that the City is already working on a project along that area. A 50-foot setback will be observed which would be required of any commercial development from the high water mark, but other than that, no additional improvements are required. Ms. Coffey remarked that, when the City worked with Ivory Development in the 1990's on the subdivision, she was sure the Parkway was improved at that time. Ms. Anderson offered to check on the equity of park improvements with respect to the power project referred to by Mr. Muir referred to.
Chair Daniels referred to the existing path and noted that it is a paved path used by bicyclers, people with strollers, and others. The path is fairly complete, but that does not mean it could not be further improved.
Ms. McDonough asked about the use for the paved area on the Jordan River side. Ms. Anderson replied that it would be an outdoor picnic area for police personnel. Ms. McDonough asked if it would be open to the public. Mark Provone, representing the architects, explained that the area is behind a secured line for the police and would not have public access. The public could use the terrace on the east side.
Ms. Barrows stated that she could not figure out the fence line and asked if there would be a means, such as a meandering pathway, from the Jordan River Parkway to the public patio facility. Mr. Provone used the site plan to orient the Planning Commission to the project. He indicated public areas and police areas, access, and parking and explained that access to the Jordan Pathway will be along the sidewalks. Ms. McDonough asked if there was a security reason for not having public access along the south lawn. Mr. Provone replied that a sidewalk already exists on that side, and people are using it now. He expected that to continue without restriction.
Ms. Barrows asked about noise from the indoor gun range. Mr. Provone explained the gun range operation and how sound would be insulated from the neighbors. Ms. Barrows asked in what zones cop shops currently exist. Mr. Burton identified a number of locations and noted that they are all located in commercial zones.
Mr. Nelson commented on the berms and asked if they create a security concern. Mr. Burton replied that they can be a security concern to a certain degree, and that was addressed in the CPTED recommendation. He would prefer that the berms be leveled out so someone could not hide behind them, but financial considerations are a factor. This is a concern, but not one that would preclude moving the project forward.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Rich DeHoney, a property owner at 622 South Center Circle, stated that his property runs along a major portion of the police parking area. He did not oppose having a substation in his neighborhood, but he was opposed to the possible devaluation of his property because every view from the rear of his house would be police cars. He was concerned with privacy issue. He noted that there is currently no traffic along the back of his house, and he assumed this project would increase the traffic level. He was also concerned about the hustle and bustle on the other side of the fence invading his quiet yard and privacy time.
Mr. Burton stated that he felt Mr. DeHoney’s concerns were valid, and he would never imply that there would be less activity. A police department is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Three shift changes happen on a regular basis in addition to administrative staff hours. He stated that he would like to do as much as possible to alleviate the disturbance to Mr. DeHoney and, without knowing the zoning ordinance, suggested the possibility of a higher fence and shrubs.
Mr. Nelson suggested putting taller trees in the 12-foot area to protect Mr. DeHoney’s view. Mr. DeHoney stated that he found this suggestion acceptable. He noted that he works nights, and he was worried about the construction schedule interfering with his sleep time.
Gaylord Smith, representing Salt Lake City Engineering, addressed concerns regarding the fence line and felt they could easily accommodate additional screening. He was unaware of the Code limits for fence heights in that area, and he stated that they would be willing to re-fence the fence line from the river to the street. Regarding the construction schedule, he noted that most of the construction will take place inside the building. However, there will be some demolition, and Mr. DeHoney should expect that to be noisy. Mr. Smith expected that regular construction hours during the summer would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. It might be possible that the contractor could work with Mr. DeHoney and schedule jack hammering and other extremely noisy work for later in the day.
Mr. Burton stated that the issue of police sirens was raised at the Poplar Grove Community Council meeting. Unlike the fire department, the police department does not turn on its sirens until after leaving the parking lot unless there is a problem in the neighborhood.
Regarding re-fencing, Mr. Smith asked Mr. DeHoney if he would prefer a new fence to replace his fence or if he would prefer a stand alone fence on the other side. Mr. DeHoney replied that his main concern was protecting the serenity of his back yard, and he would rather look at trees than a 10-foot fence. Chair Daniels suggested that Mr. DeHoney, the Engineering Department, and the Police Department keep in contact to make sure all those issues are addressed satisfactorily. Mr. Smith noted that he has met with three other neighbors to discuss fences for the purpose of privacy, sound, and lighting impacts.
Mr. DeHoney stated that he was unaware of the shooting range and asked about the noise impact. Mr. Smith replied that he may hear some noise, but nothing that would be unacceptable to the neighbors. Mr. DeHoney asked about parking lot lighting. Mr. Burton replied that the lights will shine down and not out. Mr. DeHoney asked if they would have some garbage cleanup along the public access. Mr. Burton stated that there will not be public access into the police area. Any garbage would come from the police officers, and they will make sure it is always cleaned up.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barrows stated that she preferred the looks of a rolling berm and did not favor finding money to level it. However, she would like to see something that makes it more hospitable since they are a public amenity. She referred to Mr. Muir’s comments regarding Pacific Power and agreed that this petitioner should be held to the same accountability. She requested that the Staff follow through to make sure they have the same kind of consistency.
Mr. Jonas was unsure how they could be consistent when this is a rezone. Ms. Barrows pointed out that this project will be a permitted use after the re-zone, and the Planning Commission will not have the opportunity to request their wants and desires.
Ms. Barrows stated that she did not understand why they need so much parking. Ms. McDonough agreed and felt they should ask the petitioner to keep the parking to a minimum. She suggested increasing the landscaped yard to the north if at all possible. Mr. Goldsmith noted that the parking requirement is based on the square footage of the building. Mr. Nelson asked if they could eliminate 20 parking stalls and still meet the requirements.
Chair Daniels asked Mr. Smith to address the question of reduced parking. Mr. Smith explained the parking situation and how they arrived at the numbers. If the Planning Commission directed, he could bring back a portion of the green space.
Ms. Funk stated that she was still concerned about parking and asked if the police actually need 81 parking stalls. She felt a 60-20 split was much more reasonable than an 80-20 split. If the police could get by with 60 parking stalls, they could reduce the amount of parking and still meet the parking requirement for the building square footage.
Mr. Jonas suggested that they address the issue of the rezone as one item and recommend the parking issue to the City Council as a separate item. Mr. Goldsmith agreed with the Commissioners in terms of parking and offered to meet with Mr. Smith to see if it could be reduced.
Motion for Petition #400-02-09
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition #400-02–09 to rezone the property located at 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 to Public Lands based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion with the modification that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Barrows, Ms Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Arla Funk moved to direct the Planning Director to work with the Police Department before this petition is presented to the City Council to reduce the parking to the extent that it can be reduced and possibly moved off to the street or possibly totally reduced within the facility itself. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Ms. Barrows asked if the motion should be amended to mention the discussion of public amenities in terms of potential walking paths and other amenities the petitioner has offered which the Planning Commission supports. Mr. Nelson felt the motion should specifically mention the trees along the north side. Ms. Funk accepted the amendment to her motion that landscaping also be considered with additional planting as necessary to reduce the impacts on the neighbors. Laurie Noda seconded this amendment. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sugar House Business District Zoning Map Update: Staff will present the Final Sugar House Business District zoning map, as was requested by the Planning Commission when they gave a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the text and map amendments for the Sugar House Business District Zone, on January 17, 2002.
Ms. Anderson stated that on January 17 the Planning Commission made a positive recommendation regarding the Sugar House Business District Rezone and ordinance amendment, at which time the Planning Commission requested that the Staff return with the zoning map. The map and ordinance language were included with the minutes of that meeting. Ms. Anderson noted that the motion on January 17 included a request to look at the area south of the Business District area that she refers to as the small pocket study to evaluate that zoning. She distributed copies of a work schedule for that analysis. Also attached was a map showing what is going on in Sugar House. This year they will do the Westminster small area plan, and this spring she will do the small pocket area analysis. If funding is available for a traffic impact study, she would like to do a small area plan for the business district.
Ms. Barrows stated that she was happy to see that the small wedge on 21st South and Highland Drive shown on the preliminary map had been removed. She asked if they should be aware of any other changes.
Ms. Anderson stated that the City Attorney recommended that the Staff prepare an ordinance defining an overlay zone for the area indicated on the map. For consistency with the ordinance, she has written language describing the overlay zone and included a boundary description with a map which will be transmitted to the City Council in that fashion. She noted that this does not change anything previously presented to the Planning Commission other than the mechanics of the ordinance and how it is displayed as an overlay. She referred to an angled portion on the land use map and noted that, for zoning purposes, they are following the property line. This change was also recommended by the City Attorney who suggested that the Staff present what was recommended by the Planning Commission and then disclose what was being transmitted.
Mr. Nelson asked if they were beyond the time for discussing height limitations in the CSHBD2 zones. Mr. Wilde explained that the Planning Commission has advanced a recommendation to the City Council, and if they choose to revisit any portion, they should bring it back. Mr. Nelson explained that his reason for further discussion would be to get more density and higher buildings. Mr. Goldsmith stated that it is within the Planning Commission’s purview to call this back, but he believed that any effort to increase density would be very difficult.
Mr. Muir noted that in the small area plan, the boundaries are streets, and he asked why they do not treat both sides of the street in a small area plan. Ms. Anderson replied that this can be done in a way to include both sides of the street. Mr. Muir stated that, if they intend to convince retailers to convert their mindset from an auto-oriented customer base to a pedestrian-oriented customer base, they have to use a walkable circumference of 1,000 to 1,500 feet and give them the density to support it. They will have a more persuasive argument if they can show that they have analyzed the circumference around an establishment and are prepared to put in a mechanism to increase and create the density. Without that, he believed they would be asking retailers to change their mindset without allowing the density to support them. He felt that a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) requirement made sense. Ms. Barrows asked for clarification on a TOD and was told they would be using a quarter mile.
Mr. Jonas expressed concern about moving this plan forward without addressing all the small parts. Mr. Goldsmith stated that they would like to move forward as quickly as possible, and he did not think it served any purpose to hold up a completed portion while waiting to complete another one. Mr. Jonas remarked that this was started January 17, and it is now March 7. They wanted to initiate a petition to get this planning started, and in 45 days they only have a schedule. They do not have a proposal from Staff, which is what he thought they asked for, and this schedule is not consistent with their request. Mr. Wilde explained that the next step in the overall walkable community package is a City Council briefing which will probably be scheduled in April. If they move quickly on this, they could catch up before they actually transmit the other segment through a formal City Council hearing. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not want to hold this project hostage, but they tried to send the message last time that they were not happy with the pace this was moving. Mr. Wilde stated that their message was heard, and that message prompted this schedule. Mr. Goldsmith felt this was a justifiable schedule, and he had no intention of defending to the Planning Commission the pace at which his Staff has been working. They have just come through 120 days of trying to stay on top of day to day changes that were brought to them during the Olympics. Trying to advance the goals of the community is tough when there is a big party going on at the same time. He assured the Planning Commission that they would keep to the schedule and they can hold him accountable in June.
Ms. Funk favored Mr. Muir’s suggestion. They know that Smith’s is in the process of regrouping, and she was concerned that they would come in with their project before this is in place. Mr. Muir remarked that neighborhood grocery stores are unique because they can service the immediate neighborhood, unlike Shopko and other retailers. The Planning Commission should be consistent and provide them the market base to support a reconfiguration. Ms. Funk agreed but felt that Smith’s was not the only thing existing in the neighborhood.
Mr. Jonas noted that the agenda calls this item an update and asked if the Planning Commission needed to vote on whether the map is adequate. Mr. Goldsmith replied that it is only an informative update and no action is required.
Chair Daniels asked Mr. Goldsmith if he was looking at stepping up the pace. Mr. Goldsmith replied that they will move the pace as quickly as possible, and in the meantime, the City Council has requested a global briefing on the walkable community in general, which includes some pieces that have not been presented to the Planning Commission.
Ms. McDonough cautioned against doing anything in haste. This rezone requires a study, and some of the information is complex. She did not like to see things overlooked and other things pushed through in an improper way and preferred to have whatever they approve done in a thoughtful manner. Ms. Anderson explained that was her main objective. She noted that there are strong competing interests, and she would like to put a great deal of integrity to the staff recommendation. She stated that she does not take her research lightly, and she needs this month to be well prepared for the meeting with all the property owners. There is much on the line, and she wanted her recommendation to be sound and objective.
Ms. Noda agreed with Ms. McDonough and felt they should take the time to make a reasonable decision. She understood that Smith’s was getting ready to propose something, but it would be better for them to move forward looking at all the information they can get. She believed they should allow the Staff as much time as they need to obtain as much information as possible for a better overall picture.
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.