SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 at the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Jennifer Seelig, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough Prescott Muir and Kathy Scott. Chairperson Tim Chambless was not in attendance.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Community Development Director Louis Zunguze, Deputy Community Development Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Cheri Coffey, Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik, Associate Planner Janice Lew, Principal Planner Ray McCandless and Acting Planning Commission Secretary Deborah Martin.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Vice Chairperson Noda 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.
Planning Commission Members voting during the meeting are as follows: Commissioner Seelig, Commission De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Scott. Commissioner Noda, as Vice Chairperson, did not vote.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 27, 2005
(This item was heard at 5:47 p.m.)
Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to approve the minutes with the noted revisions. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:49 p.m.)
The Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair had nothing to report at this time. Vice Chairperson Noda noted that they have not met with the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council, and they will schedule a meeting when Chairperson Chambless returns from his trip.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Zunguze explained that on April 27, 2005, the Planning Commission moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board of Directors to support funding for the Transportation Master Plan for Downtown. The Planning Staff has since prepared a letter reflecting the recommendation and is requesting that the Planning Commission review and sign it. Mr. Zunguze noted that the RDA Board is meeting May 12 to vote on the matter and the Planning Commission recommendation should be presented to them by then. Vice Chairperson Noda agreed to review and sign the letter.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Tanya Chatterton requesting the following zoning and subdivision actions for the "Traces" Garden Store located at approximately 1432 South 1100 East:
Petition Number 400-05-03 – Zoning text amendment to allow a "Plant and Garden Shop with Outdoor Retail Sales Area" as a conditional use in the Residential Business (RB) zoning district.
Petition Number 400-05-04 – Rezone property located at approximately 1432 South 1100 East, currently zoned Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35), Single Family Residential (R-1-5,000) and Residential Business (RB) to a Residential Business (RB) and Single Family Residential (R-1-5,000) zoning district. The rezoning also requires amending the 1974 Salt Lake City Central Community Development Plan (as updated by the Salt Lake City Zoning Rewrite Project of 1995) to identify the property as low-density residential and residential business land use.
Petition Number 410-736 – Conditional Use approval of a "Plant and Garden Shop With Outdoor Retail Sales Area" located at approximately 1432 South 1100 East in a proposed Residential Business (RB) zoning district.
Petition Number 490-05-08 – Preliminary subdivision approval of a two lot minor subdivision for the property located at approximately 1432 South 1100 East with access on Roosevelt Street. (Staff – Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandless@slcgov.com)
(This item was heard at 5:51 p.m.)
Tanya Chatterton was present.
Mr. McCandless explained that the “Traces Garden Shop” is located on the northwest corner of Roosevelt Avenue and 1100 East. The business began as a home occupation and has since expanded to the point where several zoning actions need to take place in order to allow the use to continue. The Applicant is requesting amendments to the zoning text, the zoning map and the master plan to reflect the proposed rezoning, and is requesting conditional use and preliminary subdivision approvals. Mr. McCandless noted that two Staff Reports were written to help clarify the issues. One Staff Report addresses the rezoning and master plan amendment, which will be a recommendation forwarded to the City Council. The second Staff Report addresses the conditional use and subdivision approvals.
Addressing the text amendment, Mr. McCandless explained that the properties between 1300 South and 1700 South on both sides of 1100 East are zoned RB. The RB Zone extends approximately 125 feet on each side of 1100 East. A large parcel with an apartment building directly to the north of the subject site is zoned RMF 35. To the west and east of the RB Zone and the property zoned RMF 35, are single family residential subdivisions zoned R 1/5000. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow a plant and garden shop as a permitted or conditional use in the RB Zone. Staff is recommending that the zoning text be amended to allow plant and garden shops with outdoor displays as a conditional use in the RB Zone. The Zoning Ordinance allows plant and garden shops in other mixed use zones as a conditional use, and Staff considers the RB a mixed use zone and finds that also allowing plant and garden shops in the RB zone as a conditional use would be compatible.
As for the zoning map amendment, Mr. McCandless explained that the subject site consists of approximately one acre and has three zoning classifications on it. The north portion of the parcel encompassing the dwelling is zoned RMF 35, the southeast corner is zoned RB and the west portion is zoned R 1/5000. In 1994, the subject property was created by consolidating five parcels, which may explain the multiple zoning classifications. Staff recommends subdividing a single family lot in the southwest corner which would remain R 1/5000 and rezoning the rest of the parcel RB. Staff determined that creating the proposed single family lot, Lot 2, would act as a buffer and limit potential encroachment of commercial activity into the residential area to the west. Mr. McCandless noted that the subdivision lot complies with area and lot width requirements of the R 1/5000 zoning district.
Mr. McCandless said that a conditional use would be required should the zoning text amendment be approved by the City Council. Staff review of the conditional use included determining impact on adjoining residential properties and recommended the following conditions of approval for the conditional use:
1. Adoption of the zoning text amendment to allow a plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area in the RB zoning district; amending the land use map of the Central Community Development Plan as updated by the Zoning Rewrite Project to residential business and single-family residential; and rezoning the property to single-family residential (R-1/5000) and Residential Business (RB).
2. Compliance with all applicable City departmental requirements and revocation of the business license if all City departmental requirements are not met within one year of the City Council approval.
3. Limit the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
4. Install a screening fence or vegetative screening hedge along the west property line of the proposed Lot 2.
5. Recordation of a final subdivision plat or notice with Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office.
6. Prohibit storage, outdoor display or sales area north of proposed Lot 2.
7. Prohibit outdoor display or retail sales on the residential lot.
Responding to questions and concerns from Planning Commission Members, Mr. McCandless explained that the RB Zone to the north of the subject site consistently extends 125 feet and varies to the south of the site. The northern portion of the subject lot that is proposed to be zoned RB extends about 291 feet. Staff recommended prohibiting storage, displays and sales in the north portion to minimize the impact of business activity on the residential lots to the west and south.
Addressing Commissioner Diamond’s concern about the size of the parcel proposed to be zoned RB, Mr. McCandless explained that the lot existed prior to the 1995 Zoning Rewrite and it is a non complying lot in that the RB Zone limits parcels to 10,000 square feet. Staff recommended the subdivision lot to mitigate the size and to bring the RB Zone closer to 1100 East.
Ms. Chatterton explained that “Traces” offers a space with a history of wonderful gardens, art and artists; and it is a neighborhood destination where people can come and feel comfortable. “Traces” also supports several community functions and it is Ms. Chatterton’s objective to continue this neighborhood friendly haven for years to come.
Dennis Guy Sell, representing the East Central Community Council, explained that the Community Council considered the request in March 2005 and the Council noted that there were no problems identified by the neighbors and it appeared that the business is popular in the community. Mr. Guy Sell noted the Staff Report (page 5) and further explained that it accurately reflects the Community Council’s position. They are in favor of the zoning text amendment that will allow the business to operate finding that the business is a viable employment opportunity for people in the neighborhood. However, the Council is opposed to the overall rezoning in that they find it may cause an economical hardship on the property owner. The Community Council recommended that the zoning error be corrected, a conditional use be approved to protect the neighborhood and the text change to the Ordinance be put forth for approval; and at the same time, minimize Ms. Chatterton’s cost if in fact the vacant residential lot will be taxed at a higher rate than it is currently taxed.
Cindy Cromer explained that she was involved in the 1995 Zoning Rewrite and finds that the northern portion of the property may have been incorrectly zoned RMF 35 and should have been zoned RB. The property is a corner lot along the 1100 East RB corridor, and the structure on the property has no history of multiple uses. Ms. Cromer also finds that the RB zoning classification is problematic. “Traces” and similar uses are very desirable for RB zones, but are not included as permitted uses. Ms. Cromer said that she believes the City is aggressively and inconsistently responding to zoning issues on the subject property. The zoning error could have been brought before the Planning Commission straightforwardly as other zoning errors have been previously brought to them. She finds it arbitrary to not allow outdoor displays or sales on the north portion of the proposed RB classification. Several businesses along the 1100 East RB corridor constantly display merchandise on public property and yet no timely enforcement action is taken on those businesses. Not allowing outdoor displays and sales to serve as buffering is also inconsistent as to what has been allowed for other businesses along the RB corridor. Ms. Cromer specifically takes issue with the rezoning to RB in that it results in a net loss of residentially zoned property. The neighborhood does not need more commercially zoned property, especially a problematic zone. She believes that keeping the R 1/5000 boundary as is provides a consistent depth of the existing RB Zone and an opportunity to provide two residential parcels, one of which could be a well managed flag lot. As proposed, she believes that there would be tax consequences with a vacant subdivided lot, the RB zoning extends further west into the residential area than anywhere else along the 1100 East corridor, and the buffering is inconsistent as to what has been allowed for other businesses along the RB corridor.
Kay (Berger) Arnold, 1365 East 1300 South, explained that she attended the neighborhood council meeting and the neighbors, some also present at this meeting, supported the business. Ms. Arnold then spoke to the tax and flag lot issues. The subject property currently has one tax id number so it is one lot. The proposal corrects zoning issues and provides the neighborhood with one standard residential lot. Ms. Arnold said that she finds flag lots problematic and undesirable for abutting neighbors. Ms. Chatterton purchased an RB lot and although it will cost her a loss in RB zoning, Ms. Arnold finds that Staff did a good job addressing the zoning issues and she supports the proposal.
Ms. Chatterton asked the Planning Commission to reconsider Condition 3 in the Staff Report that limits hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She would like to be allowed to operate until 9:00 p.m. Ms. Chatterton then responded to Commissioners McDonough and De Lay regarding Condition 6 prohibiting storage, outdoor display and sales area north of the proposed residential lot. The north portion and the area proposed for the residential lot has been garden space for more than ten years and Ms. Chatterton plans on maintaining the garden excluding items that are not organic. Ms. Arnold presented pictures of the garden noting that it has about six substantial arbors supporting vegetation.
The meeting was closed to public comment and Planning Commission Members and Staff discussed the proposal. Acknowledging the intent to buffer the abutting residential area from commercial activity, Commission Members voiced concerns about Conditions 3, 6 and 7; specifically, Condition 6 prohibiting outdoor displays and sales on the RB portion in that it may be too restrictive and arbitrary. Commissioner Scott reasoned that buffering could better be addressed through the zoning text amendment of which she found troublesome as proposed. Commissioner Scott explained that the intent of the RB zoning was to provide limited commercial use and took on a strip configuration along 1100 East. She found the proposed rezoning inconsistent by allowing the RB portion of the subject lot to project 100 feet more into the residential area and surrounded by residential use on three sides. She suggested maintaining the R 1/5000 Zone as is and creating a flag lot on the west portion of the parcel.
It was noted during the discussion that Ms. Chatterton wanted the entire lot to be zoned RB and she agreed to subdividing one residential lot.
Responding to concerns regarding the conditions and future uses, Mr. Wilde explained that the conditions being imposed are specific to “Traces” and are not all encompassing to future conditional uses. Any permitted use would be able to take advantage of any allowance that the RB Zone offers, but the RB Zone allows only businesses that are conductive to low impact. Commissioner De Lay asked Staff why a plant and garden shop could not be a permitted use in the RB Zone. Mr. Zunguze answered that they would then be allowed in all RB zones.
Commissioner Scott asked Staff to clarify the enforcement issue. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the business was allowed as a home occupation and it has grown to the point where the Applicant no longer lives in the home. The house itself is in a residential zone and the business is allowed to be operated under a home occupation permit. Subsequently, a commercial business is actually being operated from the dwelling which results in a zoning violation. A second enforcement issue pertains to the concrete pad for a parking area that was installed without a building permit.
Motion for Petition 400-05-03 and 400-05-04
Pursuant to the comments, analysis and findings, Commissioner De Lay moved for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to rezone the subject property from moderate density multi family residential (RMF 35), residential business (RB) and single family residential (R 1/5000) to RB and R 1/5000 zoning as proposed; to further recommend to the City Council that the Future Land Use Map of 1974 Central Community Development Plan be amended to reflect the property as low density residential and residential business; and to also recommend to the City Council to amend Section 21A.24.190 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts to allow plant and garden shops with outdoor retail sales areas as a conditional use in the RB zoning district.
Commissioner Galli seconded the motion. Commissioners De Lay, Seelig, Galli and McDonough voted aye and Commissioners Diamond, Muir and Scott voted no; the motion passed with a four three vote.
Motion for Petition 410-736 and 490-05-09
Pursuant to the comments, analysis and findings, Commissioner De Lay moved for the Planning Commission to grant conditional use and preliminary subdivision approval subject to the conditions outlined on Page 12 of the Staff Report as modified:
1. Adoption of the zoning text amendment to allow a “plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area” in the Residential Business (RB) zoning district; amending the land use map of the Central Community Development Plan as updated by the Zoning Rewrite Project to residential business and single family residential; and rezoning the property to Single Family Residential (R 1/5000) and Residential Business (RB).
2. Compliance with all applicable City departmental requirements and revocation of the Business License if all City departmental requirements are not met within one year of the City Council approval of the proposed ordinance amendment, rezoning and master plan amendment.
3. Limit the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
4. Install a screening fence or vegetative screening hedge along the west property line of Lot 2.
5. Recordation of a final subdivision plat or notice with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office.
6. Prohibit retail sales on the residential lot.
Commissioner Galli seconded the motion. Commissioners De Lay, Seelig, Diamond, Galli, McDonough and Muir voted aye and Commissioner Scott voted no; the motion passed with a six one vote.
Commissioner Galli was excused for the remainder of the hearing.
The Planning Commission took a break at 6:59 p.m. and the hearing resumed at 7:08 p.m.
Petition No. 490-05-05 – Mr. & Mrs. Dennis W. Gay request a preliminary subdivision amendment of the Dorchester Pointe Subdivision Plat "A", P.U.D., to combine Lots 106 and 107 at approximately 22 & 36 East Knightsbridge Lane into one residential lot for future construction of a single-family home in an (FR-2/21,780) Foothill Residential Zoning District. (Staff – Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354 or jackie.gasparik@slcgov.com)
(This item was heard at 7:08 p.m.)
Brad H. Davis (Architect for Babcock Design Group) was present to represent Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Gay.
Ms. Gasparik explained that the Applicant is proposing to combine Lots 106 and 107 for the purpose of constructing a new single family dwelling which requires an amendment to the Dorchester Pointe Subdivision Plat A, P.U.D. The Lots are located at approximately 22 and 36 East Knightsbridge Lane in the Foothill FR 2 zoning district. Ms. Gasparik further explained that the proposal meets all Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance requirements in Section 21A.24.030 regarding the Foothill Residential District and also meets the requirements of Title 20 for Subdivisions. Staff is recommending approval subject to Conditions 1 through 5 as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Gasparik noted that the Planning Commission Members were presented copies of email correspondences from abutting property owners Ted Nagata (815 North Sandhurst Drive) and Jane Marquardt (42 East Knightsbridge Lane) supporting the application.
Mr. Davis explained that they wish to combine the two residential lots into one with the intent to lessen the density impact. The proposed dwelling will have a one story high front façade. Mr. Davis noted that they reviewed the Staff Report and are willing to abide by the recommendations. He also noted that the footprint site plan is included in the packet. The combination of the lots will result in one lot .09 acres in size.
The meeting was closed to public comment and there was no further discussion.
Motion for Petition 490-05-05
Based upon the comments, analysis and findings of facts, Commissioner Muir moved for the Planning Commission to approve the requested subdivision amendment subject to the following Conditions 1 through 5 as outlined in the Staff Report:
1. Any future development on the new lot will require compliance with site development guidelines.
2. Services are currently stubbed out to each lot. Any existing laterals for water and sewer service that are not going to be used must be terminated at the main, per Salt Lake City Public Utility standards, by a licensed and bonded plumbing contractor or converted to an irrigation service. The sanitary sewer lateral must be capped at the property line. All removed meters must be returned to the Public Utilities Department. All mentioned work must be inspected and approved by the Public Utilities Department.
3. The Applicant must apply for final plat approval for the proposed amendment and go through the approval process prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. The final plat should show a buildable area of no more than 19,732 square feet with a special notice to purchaser on the final plat that the maximum building coverage allowed on the new lot is 10,172 square feet.
5. Compliance with all departmental reviews and comments.
Commission Scott seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed with a unanimous vote.
Petition No. 410-735 – T-Mobile, represented by Jerome Gourley, is requesting conditional use approval to install a 10 foot high wireless telecommunications antenna structure on the roof of the Indian Hills Elementary School located at 2496 East St. Mary's Drive. The electrical equipment will be housed within the building. The project is located in a Public Lands (PL) zoning district. The Administrative Hearing Officer elected to forward the request to the Planning Commission for consideration following a public hearing held on April 14, 2005. (Staff – Janice Lew at 535-7625)
(This item was heard at 7:13 p.m.)
Jerome Gourley representing T Mobile was present.
Ms. Lew explained that the request is before the Planning Commission because the Hearing Officer, Deputy Director Douglas Wheelwright, elected to forward the request during the public administrative hearing held on April 14, 2005. A group of neighborhood property owners attended the hearing and expressed their concerns regarding the negative impact on property values that was caused by the reconstruction of the Indian Hills Elementary School. Ms. Lew further explained that Staff determined the request complies with the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance as a routine facility and is similar to other roof mounted facilities that were administratively approved in the past. Ms. Lew noted that City zoning requirements do not apply to school districts, so review of the construction of the school is not under City or Planning Commission purview.
Ms. Lew explained that the request is to install an antenna structure that will be 4 feet wide by 10 feet high on the roof of the Indian Hills School. The antenna structure consists of three antennas, each 72 inches high and 8 inches wide. The antennas will be enclosed within a screening structure that takes on the appearance of a brick chimney. The screening material will match the brick façade of the building. Ms. Lew added that the Applicant constructed a mockup of the proposed structure and placed it on the roof in the exact location of the actual one. During the field trip, the Planning Commission Members looked at the visual impact from several directions. The Applicant provided pictures of the mockup and presented them to the Planning Commission. Also, Staff received public comment in a letter from David Smoot urging the Planning Commission to deny the request, and the letter is included in the Staff Report. Ms. Lew concluded by explaining that Staff supports the request based on the Zoning Ordinance specifically identifying existing structures as suitable locations for mounting antennas, and the proposal is consistent with specific zoning requirements for roof mounted antennas. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the proposal subject to Conditions 1 through 4 as outlined in the Staff Report.
Mr. Gourley explained that the application they have submitted resolves issues that T Mobile has in terms of meeting the demand and needs of residents who live, work and travel through that particular area. T Mobile worked hard to identify a site including review of other locations such as the Bonneville Golf Course and the Larkin Mortuary. The roof mounted antennas at the Indian Hills School is an ideal location and is where it should be in a residential area in that it meets expectations and complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mr. Gourley added that T Mobile is very pleased with the relationship they have with the School District. T Mobile was allowed to go through the roof of the school to hide the receiver equipment. It will be located inside a small storage closet on the third floor of the school completely enclosed and away from children and the public.
Addressing Commissioner Scott’s question whether or not it is normal to enclose antennas in a mock chimney, Mr. Gourley explained that they commonly provide false parapets for stealth application in that most cities preclude installing uncovered antennas in residential areas. Mr. Gourley introduced Randy Prigian, concealment contractor for Inside Exhibits, and presented a sample of the material that will be used to screen the antennas. He explained that the material is a polyurethane material that enables radio frequency signals to pass through while providing a visually nondescript architectural feature to structures.
Addressing Commissioner Diamond’s concern about health issues, Mr. Gourley explained that electromagnetic fields certainly exist any time there are radio frequency waves. Cellular telephones are actually radios and T Mobile owns 1850 to 1965 megahertz. There is not enough power in these bands to cause problems with health and is far from causing any interference to other signals. Mr. Gourley added that health concerns relating to telecommunications are so minimal that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 precludes discussion of health issues at public hearings. Commissioner Diamond said that he believes there is too much focus on communication and not health, and he feels health issues are important enough to discuss.
David Smoot, 2579 East Beacon Drive, acknowledged his written comments in the email and wanted to make additional comments. He said that his arguments are not relative to the existence of the school or the design of the proposal; it is having another chimney that visually intrudes into the neighborhood’s “million dollar” view. Mr. Smoot noted that the proposal may affect a small group, but it is a long term impact for at least the next 30 years. Mr. Smoot said that he also finds it interesting that Salt Lake City and Larkin did not want the project for whatever reason be it finances or visual intrusion. He then referred to Sections 21A.54.080 and 21A.40.090 in the Zoning Ordinance and explained that he believes the proposal does not meet the requirements of these Sections. The buffering is inappropriate and there is clearly an adverse impact on adjacent land owners, specifically visual impacts that call for review. He explained that there will be an additional 10 feet on top of an already very large building. Mr. Smoot also believes that the proposal is incompatible with the unique character of the residential area when considering conditional use regulations. The uniqueness lays within the fact that the school is landlocked by residences and only one street leads to it of which only five homes are along that street. The situation is very different from other school locations such as Uintah and the Avenues with nearby major thoroughfares. The neighborhood is also set apart from and is not in a business oriented area that could handle the intrusiveness. Mr. Smoot then referred to the Staff analysis that the proposal does not appear intrusive from the street or ground level. The topography of the neighborhood significantly slopes and the north, east and south views are considerably affected, and the Planning Commission is required to investigate. Mr. Smoot then voiced his concerns regarding co location. He explained that no towers existed for at least one year and now there will be one, and he questioned how many more will be installed. He acknowledged poor service with his cellular phone, but does not want it improved at the expense of such a great intrusion, not even from his provider. Mr. Smoot added that the neighbors are simply worn down from the school building process, yet they continued to voice their concerns at the administrative hearing. He and the neighbors believe there are alternatives and less intrusive locations, and more compatible locations than in the middle of a very residential area without major thoroughfare or business associations. Mr. Smoot concluded by saying that the neighborhood does not need it and the proposal does not meet the conditional use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Lewis Gardener, Principal for the Indian Hills Elementary School, referred to the packet explaining that T Mobile made several presentations including mockups to the community council, the PTA and anyone associated with community concerns. The advantages and disadvantages were weighed considerably and the community council decided unanimously to allow T Mobile the “chimney” at the proposed location. Mr. Gardener added that he is unaware of any other providers approaching the school district to place antennas on his school.
John Tayler, Executive Director of Auxiliary Services for the Salt Lake City School District, explained that his Department is responsible for all facilities throughout the school district, and they support the application. The School District believes that they have a great partnership with T Mobile and the proceeds from the lease will be used in Indian Hills School and throughout the school district to support their communications process. The money will also help augment the needs of the community inside the school. Mr. Tayler said he believes it is important that the Planning Commission consider not only the local residents, but also the consumers in that particular area including the ones traveling through. Mr. Tayler acknowledged that the School District does not have any other applicants requesting the use of any other school district facilities, and all requests are required to go through him personally.
Mr. Gourley said that he understands not everyone will be happy with the proposal and for that reason; T Mobile has diligently complied with all requirements. He noted that they also notified everyone in the neighborhood within 450 feet of the site and only seven people representing four households attended the administrative hearing. They voiced concerns about the school construction and not one opposed the antennas; so to suggest that the entire neighborhood is upset, is not the case. Mr. Gourley explained that T Mobile did their very best to create a stealth application while solving their demand problem. He added that T Mobile is mandated by the FCC to provide service when bands are purchased. T Mobile has no options in the matter and they are doing the best they can and spending extra money to comply, and Mr. Gourley urged the Planning Commission to approve the application.
The meeting was closed to pubic comment and the Planning Commission Members discussed the proposal; specifically, the material of the antenna structure. The structure is brown shaded brick and the roof of the school is a white membrane material. It was debated whether simulated brick or white screening would be more visually appealing. Mr. Wheelwright noted that colors of antennas have been extensively reviewed and the most inconspicuous is a flat light grey. When asked which material the City would consider the most desirable, Mr. Wheelwright said that it would depend on the direction. From the east viewing downward, the lighter color would better blend. From the north, south and west viewing upward, the simulated brick would better blend. He noted that during the field trip, the mockup was difficult to spot.
It was also discussed that the Planning Commission may review the antenna structure even though they have no approval authority over the school district. Commission Noda noted that the 1996 Telecommunications Act separates zoning ordinance authority to local city governments regarding cellular phone towers.
Motion for Petition 410-735
Based upon Staff analysis, findings and recommendations, Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to approve the conditional use to install a ten foot high wireless telecommunications antenna structure on the roof of the Indian Hills Elementary School located at 2496 East St. Mary’s Drive. The electrical equipment will be housed within the building and the proposed facility will be subject to Conditions 1 through 4 as listed on Page 9 in the Staff Report:
1. A professional engineer’s stamp shall be provided on the construction drawings.
2. The design of the screening structure shall be compatible with the materials of the building.
3. The Petitioner shall meet all applicable City, County, State or Federal requirements.
4. The conditional use approval shall be valid for a one year period unless a building permit is issued and construction is actually begun, or the use commenced within that period, or a longer time is requested and granted by the Administrative Hearing Officer.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioners De Lay, Seelig, Muir and Scott voted aye, and Commissioners Diamond and McDonough voted no; the motion passed with a four two vote.
It is noted that the Planning Commission Members and Staff discussed at length the screening material of the antenna structure prior to voting on the motion. Also, responding to Commissioner Diamond’s question regarding other antennas on the roof, Mr. Tayler explained that no other telecommunication antennas are proposed at this time. Smaller antennas similar to H.A.M. radio operator antennas may be installed.
Unfinished Business
(This item was heard at 7:53 p.m.)
Funding for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan - Mr. Zunguze informed the Planning Commission that funding for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan appears favorable. Mayor Rocky Anderson recommended full funding for the Master Plan and Mr. Zunguze will present the Mayor’s recommendation to the City Council Tuesday, May 17, 2005. Mr. Zunguze added that an airborne (helicopter) field trip of the Northwest Quadrant is planned as part of the preparatory work regarding developing the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. He encouraged participation from Planning Commission Members. Mr. Zunguze noted that the field trip will be planned for a week day and asked the Commission Members to contact his secretary if they would like to participate.
Commissioner Noda asked whether or not Planning Staff obtained best practice information from the National Association of Counties regarding staffing in other cities of similar size. The Planning Commission requested the information in order to prepare a letter to the City Council to request support for new positions in the Planning Division.
Mr. Zunguze explained that the information has not yet been obtained, but Mayor Anderson is supporting additional staff for the Planning Division and that recommendation is before the City Council.
Commissioner Seelig suggested referring to the development of the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan and the time required in updating existing master plans in the letter to the City Council to rally support for additional staffing.
Public Noticing – Deputy Planning Director Cheri Coffey explained that Planning Staff secretaries are revising roll sheets for various commissions and boards to invite public interest for public hearing notices and participation. She explained that each Commission and Board that Planning Staff assists has separate list servers and Staff is determining whether or not one list server could be used for all commissions and boards. Ms. Coffey added that the City Council has also asked the Planning Staff to review citizen participation issues in terms of obtaining more public input in a timely manner. The Planning Staff is in the process of reviewing different noticing processes and will be presenting some kind of plan to the City Council. The Planning Staff will report back to the Planning Commission after submitting a plan to the City Council.
Commissioner Seelig noted that she raised the issue whether or not Community Affairs would be interested in providing widespread noticing for community council and other public meetings. If Community Affairs is not interested, she would then redirect her efforts. Ms. Coffey explained that Staff has not yet discussed with Community Affairs their noticing process and she would like to understand it so that public interest collected from other sources could be transferred, if possible, to them.
Proposal to Initiate a Petition for Public Way Displays - Commissioner Scott noted the East Central Community Council concern for displays in public ways and their suggestion for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition. The suggestion was included in the packet for the “Traces” proposal. Commissioner Scott asked whether or not the issue is an enforcement matter or warrants a petition.
Mr. Zunguze explained that the display of merchandise in the public way is an enforcement issue. Several City entities including Planning, the Police Department and Public Utilities have regulations regarding such displays. He advised the Planning Commission to consider the magnitude of issues involved in initiating such a petition and to consider the best use of Staff time. He believes that in the scheme of other planning issues, placement of displays is not a pressing concern and there are appropriate existing regulations that deal with a vast majority of such enforcement issues.
Mr. Wheelwright added that items and merchandise are generally displayed during hours of business operations and Planning Staff has not received a great deal of public concern. He noted that the initiation of a petition would involve reviewing public way permitting, business licensing and lease issues.
Telecommunications Subcommittee – Commissioner De Lay noted that the Planning Commission established a telecommunications subcommittee and consequently she is the only Commission Member who attends meetings. It would benefit the Planning Commission as a whole when reviewing telecommunication proposals if there were group participation. Commissioner De Lay explained that numerous issues including safety, location and stealth design have been reviewed and T Mobile in Petition 410 735 presented the least amount of intrusion.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.