SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Jim McRea, Kimball Young, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gilbert Iker, Aria Funk, Max Smith and Fred Fife. Richard J. Howa and Diana Kirk were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Ray McCandless, Doug Dansie, and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Becker. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Iker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 2, 1996 as presented. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-21 5 by Western PCS II Corporation requesting a conditional use for a cellular wall mount antenna to be located at 420 East South Temple Street in a Residential Office JJR_O" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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.
A short discussion took place relative to the height of the penthouse structure on top of the building, where the antennae would be located, and the extent of the visibility of the antennae and their general appearance.
Ms. Annabelle Roie, representing JM Consulting for Western PCS II Corporation, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Roie explained that these antennae would not extend above the building, and therefore, there would be little or no visual obstruction. She stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Iker moved to approve Petition No. 410-215, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted 1# Aye. I' Mr. Howa and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Mark Gibbons for CRS Engineers requesting approval for a two lot subdivision located at 1051 South West Temple in a Commercial IICC" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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.
A short discussion took place including required setbacks, sidewalk width, landscaping requirements, fencing height and whether or not fencing for this type of use would be appropriate.
Mr. Mark Gibbons, the petitioner, introduced Ms. Qita Wooley and Mr. Barry Smith who gave the presentation for the petitioner and demonstrated the site plan. They explained their landscaping plans, parking, ingress and egress, lighting plans, building materials, and added that the purpose of the gate was to limit access to after-hour traffic. Mr. Barry Smith explained that the playground area would be enclosed by fencing.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Norma Anems, representing the People's Freeway Community Council, asked why this matter had not been presented to their community council for their review. Mr. McCandless stated that this was a subdivision issue and the only notification requirement was for abutting property owners.
Mr. Wilde stated that if this matter had been a conditional use issue, it would have gone to them for their review, but since it was a subdivision issue, it was not required to go to the community council.
Ms. Fae Nichols, also representing the People's Freeway Community Council, stated that the staff report needed to be amended. She explained that there were no parks in this area, contrary to comments made in the staff report.
Ms. Funk asked what the proposed use was for the other lot.
Mr. Gibbons responded that there were no plans for that lot at this time.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Iker asked who owned the retention pond. Mr. Doug Wheelwright explained that it was owned by the City.
Mr. Wilde suggested the Planning Commission might want to include a condition that final landscaping plans be approved by the Planning Director, if this item were approved. Mr. Iker asked if the Planning Commission had any control over continuity of the landscaping to the west since that lot was not developed.
Mr. Wheelwright said that could be handled under the subdivision approval process and a request to the Parks Department.
Mr. McRea moved to approve this request, to impose similar landscaping requirements and pedestrian improvements on Lot #2 to be consistent with Lot #1,to recommend the Planning Staff request the Parks Department to investigate improvement possibilities for the playground area and report their findings to the Planning Commission, and to delegate final landscaping authority to the Planning Director. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Mr. Howa and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-22 by Bruce Vana for the Utah Department of Transportation requesting Salt Lake City to close and declare surplus a portion of 700 West Street between Genessee Avenue and 800 South Street as well as a portion of 1 00 South Street west of 700 West Street to accommodate the 1-1 5 corridor improvement project.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright 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. Wheelwright used briefing boards to demonstrate the proposed changes necessary to implement the proposed 1-1 5 Reconstruction Project.
Mr. Vance Hansen, representing the Utah Department of Transportation, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hansen stated that they were in agreement with the staff report.
Mr. Iker asked if the Utah Department of Transportation had gone through any formal notification procedures to inform the residents of this area of the proposal for this area.
Mr. Hansen stated that they used their environmental process for notification which did not cover some of the smaller details. Mr. Hansen explained that cities had their own notification process for street closures and vacations and when they applied for a street closure or vacation, they relied on that city's Planning Commission notification to help inform the residents.
Mr. Becker asked if a decision were going to be made that did not affect a decision by a City but did affect an individual property owner, if that matter would go through a public hearing or public process. Mr. Hansen said that would not necessarily occur and was separate from their regular public process.
Mr. Hansen stated that their regular public process identified right-of-way purchases that might involve a “taking". Mr. Hansen explained that this situation fell more under the specific design of the project and if they impacted a piece of property to the point that they would have to purchase that property, and another design alternative were possible which might preserve a current business, they referred to it as a specific design alternative and at that point, they would contact the property owners involved. Mr. Hansen stated that they had talked to every property owner that might be impacted by this proposal with the exception of the City Cab Company.
Mr. Smith asked if that meant there would not be any impacts to the City Cab property.
Mr. Hansen stated that they would be purchasing some property for 1-15, itself, and they would be contacted about that particular issue. Mr. Hansen added that the City Cab Company had been notified of each of their meetings on this matter.
Mr. McRea asked if a “taking” issue were involved. Mr. Hansen said there were no “takings" issues in this matter, that the “takings" issues were only involved in the 1-1 5 corridor issues.
Mr. Iker stated that he imagined there would be many other situations similar to this one and added that we needed to make sure the hearing process was a good process.
Mr. Becker suggested it would be easier to understand all of the issues connected with the reconstruction project together, rather than in a piece-meal fashion. Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Edie Trimmer, representing the Poplar Grove Community Council, stated that they were concerned that all of the issues relative to the reconstruction project would be handled in a piece-meal fashion. She stated that she agreed with the suggestion to handle this matter in a more comprehensive manner and to ensure the residents of the area were notified of proposed changes prior to the implementation of those changes.
Mr. Roger Ashmect, a property owner in the area, stated that his business was a very large structural steel manufacturing business and would be devastated if this proposal were approved. Mr. Ashmect stated that they had purchased this particular building because of the huge scale of their business and the fact that this site offered the necessary ingress and egress for the large trucks needed to move the very large materials they dealt with. He stated that the wheel bases for his trucks were larger and longer than the typical truck base in order to accommodate the size of steel being transported. Mr. Ashmect stated that if this proposal were approved and his truck traffic were rerouted, it would have to go through a residential neighborhood. Mr. Ashmect stated that under the existing configuration, he was able to accommodate one truck loading, one truck unloading and another truck still able to access the property to unload. He requested the Planning Commission approve the overpass alternative rather than approving the street closure.
Mr. Becker asked if anyone from the Utah Department of Transportation had contacted him relative to this matter.
Mr. Ashmect responded that Mr. Bruce Vana and Mr. Vance Hansen had talked with him about this proposal and its various options. Mr. Ashmect stated that they had put up a rope to represent where the retaining wall would be located and had discovered his larger trucks would not be able to maneuver the opening if the retaining wall were constructed. He added that in order to back in, the trucks would have to "jack-knife" and one of his drivers had informed him he would no longer service this company if he had to "jack-knife" his truck to access the property since it was too dangerous.
Ms. Funk asked if Mr. Ashmect had alternative suggestions that would work. He responded that if the proposal with the overpass were approved, he would be able to access his property underneath the overpass.
Mr. Hansen stated that while he and Mr. Vana were meeting with Mr. Ashmect one truck had been able to access the property. Mr. Ashmect explained that that truck had been a small wheel-based truck, not a large one. Mr. Hansen stated that it had been indicated to them that there had been times Mr. Ashmect had had to remove the right-of-way fence to accommodate access for some of the larger trucks and they did not feel this was appropriate. Mr. Hansen stated that they were still in the preliminary stages but expressed concern that the structure lengths they had to deal with could only be a maximum of 300 feet in length or a specialty design would have to be implemented. He added that this would put the columnar supports where the sidewalk was now located. Mr. Hansen said he wasn't sure how that could be constructed without support.
Mr. Becker asked if the State treated situations where property owners were impacted by rights-of-way such as this one as a “takings" issue.
Mr. Hansen responded in the affirmative and added that they had discussed these issues with Mr. Ashmect.
Ms. Beatrice Peck, representing Site Design, a business in the area, stated that she was confused about the proposed closure on 100 South and added that they had understood that some of the land on 100 South would be made available for the relocation of their manufacturing business. She asked if they would be able to use the land for relocation purposes or if it would be used for construction purposes.
Mr. Hansen said their intent was to reimburse them for the land the State would be “taking" so a new facility could be placed on the land where 1 00 South currently exists. Mr. Hansen added that the State had no plans to use that parcel for their construction purposes.
Mr. Bruce Jackson, representing City Cab Company, stated that on slow nights they had approximately 25 cars parked on 1 00 South Street and in the winter months, that number would climb to about 50 cars. Mr. Jackson stated that with the completion of the new Salt Palace and the Olympics coming to Salt Lake City, they expected their business to double within the next six years. He stated that if this proposal were approved, it could create a major parking problem for his company since there were no other parking options in the area. Mr. Jackson asked what portion of 1 00 South Street would remain available for them to use for parking.
Mr. Hansen responded that he was not sure what City regulations were when a street was vacated or closed. Mr. Hansen stated that once the street was closed or vacated, it would no longer belong to the City.
Mr. Becker stated that it was clear to him that there were still too many issues on this matter that needed to be negotiated and this was not the forum to work out those issues. He suggested the Planning Commission table this matter and give the petitioner time to meet with the property owners in the area and work out the details, after which, it could be brought back for Planning Commission action. Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion. A discussion followed including a request from the Planning Commission to have the issues relative to the reconstruction process presented as a long term plan, rather than in a piece-meal fashion and that notification be made to the communities involved prior to the Planning Commission hearings. Mr. Becker suggested the State work with the Planning Staff to coordinate their efforts and help facilitate the public notification process.
Mr. Iker moved to table Petition No. 400-96-22 and suggested the State work with the community and the Planning Staff to resolve the concerns of the abutting property owners. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Mr. Howa and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Modification and redesign of Petition No. 410-187 by Neil Richardson requesting a conditional use for a planned development for single family attached dwellings at 961 South Wasatch Drive in a Residential IIRMF-30" zoning district. The petitioner has requested approval of a different site layout/design and an increase in units from 21 as previously approved to 24 units.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pahl stated that the proposed gates for this project were higher than allowed in the ordinance.
Mr. Dwight Packard and Mr. Kurt Daemtz, representing the Richardson Design Group, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Daemtz stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Daemtz explained that the gates, though higher than allowed by the ordinance, would be set back behind the required setback.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bill Williams, a resident of the Oak Hills Condominiums, stated that they had concerns about building height and possible view obstructions. He also expressed concern that there was too little green space provided by the proposal and Mt. Fuel's ability to access their valve building on the property.
Mr. Wilde stated that this building would remain within the 30 foot height envelope with the exception of the four turrets which would extend above the height allowance as they tapered to a point.
Ms. Pahl stated that the petitioner was providing more green space than the ordinance required on the interior of the project.
Mr. Packard stated that Mt. Fuel was using an existing right-of-way to access their valve building about every three months and that procedure would continue.
Mr. Darrin Hawley, a resident of the area, asked who would own the land not covered by structures. Mr. Wheelwright explained that it would be commonly owned by all of the property owners of the project.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith moved to approve Petition No. 410-187 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and that final landscaping approval be granted by the Planning Director. Mr. McRea seconded the motion.
Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted llAye." Mr. Howa and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-34 by Repertory Dance Theater requesting Salt Lake City to clarify the sidewalk beautification standards to allow for the placement of donor names within the sidewalk to create a “Walk of Stars" in front of the new Rose Wagner Theater at 134 West 300 South Street.
This item was postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-1 6 by Janet Sloan requesting approval of an amendment to Lot 32 of the Highland Acres Subdivision in order to create a flag lot at the rear of the property located at 1839 East Claybourne Avenue in a Residential lIR-1/7000" zoning district.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker asked if the master plan for this area called for anything more specific than low density residential.
Mr. Paterson responded in the negative.
Mr. Becker asked how this area had been handled in the Zoning Rewrite Project.
Mr. Paterson responded that following Planning Commission adoption of the new proposed Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Staff had recommended to the City Council, that this area be zoned IlR-1/7000" rather than lIR_2" and that the City work to accommodate the development of flag lots in this area consisting of relatively large lots.
Mr. Becker asked how much comment had been received at the hearing relative to the flag lot recommendation. Mr. Wilde responded that there had not been much comment about that recommendation at the hearing.
Mr. Wright explained that a request had been made that the area be zoned “R_2" to allow for duplexes but added that the staff felt the area should remain zoned for single family use and the flag lot was an option for how to deal with some of the larger lots.
Mr. Iker asked what size of house could be constructed on the rear lot.
Mr. Paterson responded that since this area was not in the foothills, the buildable area was not applicable. Mr. Paterson stated that the house size would be limited by the building height allowed and the setbacks, and due to the size of this lot, a relatively large house could be constructed on the site. Mr. Iker asked if that would be larger than the other homes in the area. Mr. Paterson stated that if it were constructed to the limits, it would be larger than the other homes in the area.
Mr. Fife asked how wide the pole area, or access, to the flag lot was required to be.
Mr. Paterson responded that it was required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Mr. Paterson pointed out that it would be next to a side yard setback which would increase the distance between the pole area and the house on the front parcel.
Mr. Fife stated that the pole area requirements would limit the number of potential flag lots in the area. Mr. Paterson said it appeared there was a possibility of approximately 13-15 more lots that could be subdivided to include flag lots in the area.
Mr. Paterson said that number was an estimate from looking at the aerial map and explained that the number could go up or down slightly if actual measurements were taken.
Ms. Funk asked how the Planning Staff felt about flag lot proposals now that they were seeing applications to create flag lots. Mr. Wilde stated that prior to the revision of the Zoning Ordinance, there weren't adequate provisions for flag lots.
Mr. Wilde stated that the staff felt they offered a legitimate development option that might not otherwise be possible.
Ms. Roberts asked if each flag lot application would have to come before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wilde stated that they would have to go through the administrative subdivision approval process or through the Planning Commission and that each case would have to be evaluated on its own merits. Mr. Wilde added that once they had approved one flag lot, they would be setting a pattern they would be expected to follow.
Mr. Paterson stated that the administrative process was not as simple as it might sound, that someone couldn't just walk through the door and demand approval because they met all of the requirements. Mr. Paterson stated that the notification requirements were the same as for hearings before the Planning Commission, that a hearing was held before the hearing officer, and the appeal process existed for administrative hearings just as they did for Planning Commission hearings.
Mr. Doug Slagle, representing the petitioner, stated that the proposal would allow his sister-in-law to build a house on the rear portion of this property. Mr. Slagle said they believed this use of the lot would be more productive than leaving it as a weed patch; that the land was developable land currently going to waste. He stated that he believed the impacts to the neighborhood would be minimal, if they existed at all. He asked if there were a compelling interest to take away their individual rights as property owners. Mr. Slagle said he believed this would increase surrounding property values by cleaning up the rear portion of this lot. Mr. Slagle stated that the house they would be constructing would be significantly farther away from the other houses in the area than any of their other neighbors. Mr. Slagle stated that the rear property would provide an easement on the driveway for the house on the front parcel. He stated that from the street, the appearance of change would be minimal. Mr. Slagle handed out copies of their preliminary plans, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He said they believed this proposal would benefit everyone involved. He added that his sister-in-Law's means were such that the house constructed would probably be in the range of something with a 1200 square foot footprint.
Mr. Iker asked if he would be willing to accept voluntary limitations on the size of the house.
Mr. Slagle stated that he would not be the property owner but he believed Ms. Janet Sloan would be willing to do that.
Mr. Wilde explained that the Planning Commission could place size restrictions on the building under their approval process.
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that these large lots were allowed to have accessory buildings constructed on them such as large storage sheds, small barns, etc. Mr. Wright said he wanted to make sure everyone understood these accessory buildings were permitted on these large lots.
Mr. Slagle stated that there were already a number of large structures such as chicken coops which he did not feel contributed to the quality of the neighborhood as much as a nice, landscaped yard would contribute.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dick Hadfield, a resident of the area, stated that originally most of the houses in the area did have chicken coops in the rear but most of the coops no longer existed. Mr. Hadfield stated that this site was located in the area where flooding from the ditch which ran through this neighborhood was the greatest. He said the other property owners along the ditch would have to take on the liability for that flooding, not the owners of the ditch. Mr. Hadfield stated that none of them wanted to be saddled with that liability. He added that the character of this neighborhood, with its half-acre lots, was unlike any other neighborhood in the City and should not be lost.
Mr. William Smith, an abutting property owner, stated that he had purchased his home because of the large lot and suggested if the petitioners didn't like lots this large, they should have purchased elsewhere. Mr. William Smith expressed concern that if this request were approved, other applications for flag lots would quickly follow throughout the neighborhood. He said he agreed with Mr. Hadfield that it would be a shame to tear up the existing character of this neighborhood by approving this request.
Ms. Barbara Grover, a resident of the area, expressed concern that if this request were approved, the Planning Commission would have no grounds to deny future requests for additional flag lots. Ms. Grover stated that one flag lot might not adversely impact this neighborhood but several of them would destroy its existing character. She stated that most of the people who lived in this area had purchased their property because the lots were so large. Ms. Grover expressed concern that too much development would change the whole area which now had no sidewalks and very large trees. She said she feared the City would require sidewalks to be installed and the trees removed to facilitate that installation if this area were developed for a higher density. She urged the Planning Commission to think about the repercussions of this decision.
Mr. Joel Paterson stated that the Engineering Department would require the petitioner to sign a Special Improvement District waiver if this request were approved. Mr. Paterson stated that the City would not force installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk on the rest of the block because of this development.
Ms. Grover said an increase in density in the area might cause the City to want those improvements to be made in this area. Mr. Paterson agreed that was a possibility.
Mr. Rob Bero, a resident of the area, stated that he agreed with all of the comments made by others at this meeting. Mr. Bero stated that people purchased in this neighborhood for the large lots and aesthetic values were as important to consider as economic values. He said he did not want to see flag lots developed in this area since it was so unique.
Mr. Taylor Robbins, a resident of the area, asked what there was to prevent someone from purchasing several adjoining lots in order to accommodate the flag lot requirements relative to square footage and setbacks.
Mr. Becker explained that that possibility existed in every neighborhood but added that any proposal to do that would have to go through the subdivision amendment process and the flag lot approval process.
Mr. Robbins said it was not relevant for the staff report to mention problems that existed on deep lots in other locations of the City since this area did not experience those kinds of problems. Mr. Robbins stated that the petitioner was requesting a right be granted to him that had not existed when he purchased this property, that the City would not be taking away his right to develop this parcel if this matter were denied.
Mr. Kevin Donohue, a resident of the area, stated that this proposal was not congruent with the community master plan and was against the wishes of everyone else in the neighborhood. Mr. Donohue said he believed the Residential “R-1/12,000" zoning district was more appropriate for this area than the
llR-1/7000" zoning and suggested it be rezoned. He stated that he did not want to incur any liability in terms of flooding that might occur on this parcel.
Mr. Donohue stated that as population density increased, so did crime and he did not want to see crime increase in this area.
Mr. John Murphy, a resident of the area, stated that they had purchased here for the lot size, not just the house. Mr. Murphy stated that his family used his back yard a great deal and if this request were approved, the new house would be too close to area his family used on a regular basis. He stated that they wanted to keep this area as it presently existed in order to retain its uniqueness.
Ms. Angie Richardson, a resident of the area, stated that this area contained a lot of green space with very large trees and room for large gardens. She stated that they had also purchased their property because of the lot size and she didn't want the area to change.
Mr. Nathan Massie, a resident of the area, stated that he understood the petitioner's desire to develop his property but expressed concern if flag lot development became a common practice in the area. Mr. Massie stated that there were other issues that needed to be considered than just economic benefit to a single individual. He added that if he had wanted to live in a congested area, he would have purchased in Sandy or West Jordan. He expressed concern that this would open the door to more flag lot development. He said he preferred to retain the uniqueness of the area as it now existed.
Mr. Jerry Richardson, a resident of the area, requested the Planning Commission put themselves in the shoes of the residents of this area and think how they would feel if they lived in an area of half-acre lots that could be lost to this type of development.
Mr. Brad Naylor I a resident of the area, stated that Mr. Joel Paterson had mentioned receiving two petitions signed by residents of this area who were opposed to this proposal and added that there had actually been three separate petitions, each signed by twenty people or more and the subdivision consisted of 66 homes.
Mr. William Smith, a resident of the area, stated that he had never been notified about flag lot zoning for this area.
Mr. Becker explained that the City had recently adopted a new Zoning Ordinance after years of an extensive evaluation, notification and meeting process. Mr. Becker stated that every property owner of record, in the City I had been sent notification of the proposed ordinance changes prior to its adoption.
Mr. Taylor Robbins stated that his property had flag lots on either side which had not been developed according to the zoning regulations and he envied those property owners who did not live next to such lots.
Ms. Christin Robbins, a resident of the area, stated that she had been raised in Holladay when all of the lots had been large lots but had now been exploited and subdivided into smaller lots. Ms. Robbins stated that this was a unique area and if the petitioner did not want a lot this large, she suggested he sell it to someone who did. She said they had purchased their property for the land, not the house. She added that the entire neighborhood should not be compromised by one property owner who did not want such a large lot. She suggested he might be happier living elsewhere on a smaller lot.
Mr. Paul Lynn, a resident of the area, said the only problem he saw in the neighborhood was the weeds at the back of his own lot which he had not been able to attend to this year due to some physical difficulties he had been experiencing.
Mr. Doug Slagle, the petitioner, responded to some of the comments that had been made and stated that it seemed to him the primary concerns to the neighborhood were that he would be developing a slippery slope and that once he did this, everyone in the neighborhood would want to follow suit. Mr. Slagle stated that only approximately 1 3-1 5 out of 66 lots could comply which would not create a tidal wave of flag lots. He said he was not asking for an exemption from local zoning ordinances, but rather, to construct a single family dwelling under the current zoning ordinances. Mr. Slagle added that he was not asking anyone to sell the half-acre lots they had purchased and he did not understand how this potential development would have a major effect on the surrounding property owners. He stated that under the current zoning, this proposal was allowed and they should be able to exercise their rights under the current law.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Becker outlined the options available to the Planning Commission as follows: 1) approve the flag lot as proposed, 2) approve the flag lot with amendment provisions; 3) deny the flag lot proposal; or 4) deny the flag lot proposal and request a rezoning for this area to a Residential IIR_1 /1 2,000" zoning district which would prohibit flag lot development in this subdivision in the future.
Mr. Wright stated that another option might be to deny this request, then state that the Planning Commission's policy was to not entertain flag lot proposals unless they were presented to them in a comprehensive manner with a plan for the entire area.
Ms. Roberts stated that she was impressed that everyone in the neighborhood, except the petitioner, seemed to be opposed to this request. She expressed concern that developers might start purchasing lots in the neighborhood as they were sold in order to develop flag lots.
Motion on Petition No. 400-96-1 6:
Ms. Roberts moved to deny Petition No. 400-96-16, based on the findings from the public comment received at this meeting. Ms. Roberts further moved for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to rezone this area to Residential “R-1 /12,000". Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Wright suggested the Planning Commission might want to make a finding that the original subdivision of this area was a viable subdivision and they found no reason to amend it. Mr. Becker suggested a finding be made that the uniqueness of the character of this neighborhood should be preserved. Ms. Roberts amended her motion to include the findings that the original subdivision of this area was a viable subdivision which should not be amended, and the uniqueness of the existing character of the area should be preserved. Ms. Short accepted the amendment to the motion.
Mr. McRea stated that he had lived in this neighborhood for about 12 years and the City needed to heed the historical character of this neighborhood; that it was the last agricultural bastion established in the City. Mr. McRea said this neighborhood had retained that character and this was an historical perspective that could not be overlooked. He added that he believed there were other reasons for preserving this character such as its uniqueness and the cohesiveness of the neighborhood which justified the motion to deny this request.
Mr. Max Smith said he agreed with the comments made by Mr. McRea. The motion, in his opinion was based on this area having a very distinctive character which should be preserved.
Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Max Smith and Mr. Iker voted II Aye" on the motion to deny. Mr. Howa and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.