SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas and Judi Short. Arla Funk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Craig Hinckley, Robert Glessner, Margaret Pahl, Ray McCandless, Nelson Knight, Doug Dansie and Bill Allayaud.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Daniels moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 4, 2000 subject to the discussed corrections being made. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-20 by NTL, LLC/Park 'n Jet requesting that Section 21A.32.140, Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance be amended by adding "Commercial Parking Lot" as a permitted use in the Business Park "BP" zoning district.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Hinckley relating to the case.
Mr. George Paulson, President of Park 'n Jet (32 E. Dartmoor Place), was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Paulson relating to the case.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2000
1
Mr. Smith 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.
Ms. Barrows stated that she is concerned when there has not been a specific use ("Commercial Parking Lot") in a zone previously, especially if there could be negatives to it, that it go directly to a permitted use. Ms. Barrows then stated that she would be more comfortable adding "Commercial Parking Lot" as a conditional use in the Business Park "BP" zoning district.
Mr. Wilde stated that the Planning Commission could add "Commercial Parking Lot" as a conditional use if they so desired. Mr. Wilde then stated that staff's reasoning for adding "Commercial Parking Lot" as a permitted use is that the "BP" districts are not in or around residential districts. Mr. Wilde continued by clarifying that automobile rental agencies are a permitted use in the "BP" zoning district.
Mr. Jonas stated that he would not feel comfortable adding "Commercial Parking Lots" as a conditional use because uses such as automobile rental agencies and park 'n ride lots are permitted uses in the "BP" zoning district.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-20:
Mr. Jonas moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-00-20 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation to amend Section 21A.32.140 (Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by adding "Commercial Parking Lot" as a permitted use in Business Park "BP" zones. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows voted "Nay". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-391 by Questar Gas requesting a conditional use to expand an existing private utility site by constructing a 254 square foot building to house a regulator system for preheating natural gas lines located at 119 South Douglas Street in a Residential "R-2" zoning district.
Mr. Robert Glessner 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. Glessner stated that the proposed public utility equipment is essential for the supply and distribution of natural gas. The new heating system will prevent the freezing of adjacent water, sewer and storm drain systems and improve and protect the supply and distribution of natural gas services during harsh winter climates.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Glessner relating to the case.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2000
2
Mr. Abdullah Isseldin, representing Questar Gas, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Also present was Mr. George Wilberger, Contract Property Agent for Questar Gas, and Mr. Dennis Thompson, Salt Lake Region Engineer for Questar Gas.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of the representatives for Questar Gas relating to the case.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Kelly McBride, 1250 East 100 South, presented a letter to the Planning Commissioners signed by her parents, Ronald and Vicky McBride, and herself, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. McBride then stated that she and her parents are against the proposed Questar expansion because they are concerned about the possible environmental implications of the expansion and the noise level that may increase due to the proposed new fan.
Mr. Izzeldin addressed her concerns by stating that the smoke stack will have a silencer placed on it to reduce noises emanating from the building. The noise generated will not be a high pitched noise and it will be no louder than what a typical boiler produces. Mr. Izzeldin continued by stating that the purpose for not having windows on the side of the building is because of the noise generated from the equipment within the structure. The design of the building will contain the sounds generated from the equipment. Mr. Izzeldin then addressed Ms. McBride's concerns relating to possible environmental implications. He stated that the emissions from the equipment is mainly heat and that natural gases will be used as the heating element. The exhaust from the heating system are similar to a heating furnace in a home.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Izzeldin if there are other units, that are the same size, anywhere else in the City. Mr. Izzeldin responded by stating that there is a larger unit than what is being proposed located in a residential area in West Valley City. Mr. Jonas then asked if there have been any complaints regarding the unit in West Valley City. Mr. Izzeldin responded in the negative.
Ms. Arnold then asked Ms. McBride if there is noise coming from the existing utility building. Ms. McBride responded by stating that she hears some noise and on occasion she hears a popping sound.
Ms. Arnold then addressed the proposed addition and wondered if eliminating the windows from the existing building and the proposed addition would help muffle the noise.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2000
3
Ms. Barrows stated that she appreciates the fact that the private utility building is setback behind landscaping. She also appreciates that the building has the feel of a home with the windows.
Motion for Case No. 410-391:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-391 for a 254 square foot addition to an existing private utility building subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with one addition by the Planning Commission:
1 Front yard landscaping shall be installed within the front 20-feet of the property with an automatic irrigation system according to City code. A 6-inch curb shall be installed along the front property line.
2 The existing front yard 6-foot fence shall be relocated 20-feet from the front yard property line. The fence may connect to the north and south side of the proposed structure. A 4-foot vinyl fence shall be constructed around the perimeter of the front yard.
3 A hard surfaced driveway and approach shall be installed between the gated entry of the compound and the front yard setback line.
4 The applicant shall either install windows or "artificial" window treatments along the south side of the regulating station structure for a more residential appeal.
5 Elevations, landscape plans and final site plan are subject to Planning Director approval.
6 That Questar Gas should put a 45 degree angle on the north fence line (northwest corner) to accommodate neighbor's turning motions in their driveway.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-462 by Sid Haycock requesting a conditional use for a 4 unit residential planned development located at 580 North Redwood Road in a Residential "RMF-30" zoning district.
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 a conditional use approval is required because all of the lots do not have frontage on a dedicated public street.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Pahl relating to the case.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2000
4
Ms. Arnold asked if there will be any parking within the proposed planned development. Ms. Pahl stated that the garage will accommodate two cars, however, there is no guest parking. There is also some parallel parking on Redwood Road in front of the property.
Mr. Jonas spoke concerning the 4-foot sidewalk along the frontage of the units being recommended by the Transportation Division. Mr. Jonas then stated that he does not feel that the sidewalk is a good idea because it is in front of the garage.
Mr. Sid Haycock, the petitioner (1901 E. Vintage Woods Court), was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Haycock relating to the case.
Mr. Smith 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.
Motion for Case No. 410-462:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-462 for a 4¬unit residential planned development subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission):
1 Compliance with the technical departmental conditions.
2 UDOT approval for the Redwood Road access.
3 The final plat approval and final landscaping plan approval delegated to the Planning Director.
4 That there be a sidewalk from Redwood Road to the first house and then dropped in front of the garages.
Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-461 by US West Wireless requesting a conditional use to install wireless telecommunication antennas and related equipment on a utility pole located at 1145 South 1500 East in a Single Family Residential "R-1/5,000" zoning district.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2000
5
Mr. Jonas disclosed that he is on the Utah Local Olympic Coordinating Council, sponsored by US West. The Olympic Coordinating Council is a community organization to help US West improve their goals as part of their sponsorship of the Olympics. Having disclosed this, Mr. Jonas feels that this will not preclude his providing unbiased opinions during this proceeding.
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. Mr. McCandless stated that he did receive a call from the adjoining property owner expressing his concern that the pole is fairly close to the property line. The property owner then stated that he would like to widen his driveway sometime in the future and asked that the replacement utility pole be shifted 3-feet to the north. Mr. McCandless then stated that shifting the pole is acceptable to staff.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. McCandless relating to the case.
Mr. Glen Nelson, representing US West Wireless, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Nelson relating to the case.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Nelson if US West owned the pole. Mr. Nelson responded by stating that the pole is owned by Utah Power. Ms. Barrows then asked Mr. Nelson if he would have a problem with the pole being moved 3-feet to the north to accommodate the adjoining property owner's request. Mr. Nelson responded by stating that he does not have a problem, in fact, US West would like to coordinate moving the pole with Utah Power.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Lisette Gibson, Yalecrest Community Council Chair (1764 Hubbard Avenue), stated that this proposal has not been presented at an actual meeting. Ms. Gibson then spoke in favor of the proposal and stated that she is not aware of any community concerns.
Mr. Lynn Nelson, 1475 Princeton Avenue, stated that he is not in favor of the proposed location of the utility pole because of the visual impact it will have from his backyard. He feels that there may be a better location for the antennas and hopes that one can be found.
Ms. Short pointed out that the Planning Commission has made a big effort to urge the industry to look at installing the antennas in places that would be less visible.
Ms. Barrows then stated that installing antennas in a residential area, without a visual impact, is difficult due to the fact that there are no tall buildings.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2000
6
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Arnold asked why the antennas could not be placed on the Uintah School which is located nearby.
Mr. Nelson stated that US West Wireless considered placing the antennas on the Uintah School grounds. Due to some technicalities with the school and the fact that there were already some antennas located on the grounds, US West did not find a place on the school grounds that was advantageous. Therefore, another site had to be found.
Motion for Case No. 410-461:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-461 to allow wireless telecommunications antennas on a utility pole subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 The replacement pole being wood.
2 The antennas and mounting brackets being painted to match the replacement pole.
3 Complete removal of the existing utility pole.
4 The facility being approved by all applicable City departments.
5 No beacons being used.
6 All antennas being mounted flush against the pole and no more than 2 feet in diameter.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold voted "Nay". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-10 by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency requesting a zoning amendment from Special Development Pattern Residential District “SR-1” to Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District “RMF-35” for the properties located at 319-321 West 600 North, 323-325 West 600 North and 578-582 North Pugsley Street. The Redevelopment Agency anticipates demolishing the existing structures and selling the properties to a developer for construction of four attached townhomes.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2000
7
Mr. Nelson Knight presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that this proposal has been to the Capitol Hill Community Council on several occasions and voted to endorse the zoning change with the following conditions:
1 The property should remain residential and should not be zoned to allow commercial or mixed use.
2 There should be a maximum of four townhomes constructed on the property.
3 The zoning change should take effect upon issuance of a building permit.
4 The developers chosen by the Redevelopment Agency should present their development proposal to the Capitol Hill Community Council for review.
5 The Redevelopment Agency should place Conditions, Covenants and restrictions on the property to enforce the density restriction and to maintain the property as a residential use.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Knight relating to the petition.
Mr. Danny Walz, representing the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Walz relating to the petition.
Mr. Jonas stated that he feels that a maximum of four townhomes does not give the Redevelopment Agency the flexibility to best utilize the property. A developer may find that five townhomes could be better than four.
Mr. Walz stated that he is more comfortable leaving the decision up to the community council. The community council has approved four townhomes and he does not want to have to go back through the process to get their approval for five.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council (606 DeSoto Street), stated that the community council's biggest concern was that the property remain residential and not go to commercial. She is pleased to see that it will remain residential and gives her support to the project.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2000
8
Mr. Daniels asked about the community council vote for this proposal. Ms. Gardner stated that she does not have the actual count, however, it was a majority vote in favor of the proposal with a few votes against the proposal.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith expressed some concern about the fact that the existing duplexes could not be financially rehabbed within reason. Mr. Smith then stated that the criteria that made him comfortable with the demolition of the existing duplexes was their proximity to the street. Mr. Smith then noted that the emphasis for the demolition of the duplexes is due to their proximity to the street not that the duplexes could not be rehabbed.
Mr. Daniels stated that he feels that three townhomes would be more of a comfort for the homeowners than having four or five townhomes on the property.
The Planning Commission then discussed possible options concerning the proposal for a zoning amendment.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-10:
Mr. Jonas moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-00-10 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation to amend the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map from Residential "SR-1" to Residential "RMF-35" for the properties at 319¬321 West 600 North, 323-325 West 600 North and 578-582 N. Pugsley Street subject to the following conditions identified by the Capitol Hill Community Council:
1 The property should remain residential and should not be zoned to allow commercial or mixed use.
2 There should be a maximum of four townhomes constructed on the property.
3 The zoning change should take effect upon issuance of a building permit.
4 The developers chosen by the Redevelopment Agency should present their development proposal to the Capitol Hill Community Council for review.
5 The Redevelopment Agency should place Conditions, Covenants and restrictions on the property to enforce the density restriction and to maintain the property as a residential use.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-19 by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department requesting a review of sign regulations in the Downtown area to enable property owners to use signage to create an inviting atmosphere for the Downtown area. The staff has responded by proposing changes that would allow new signs including, but not limited to, perpendicular signs, canopy signs and official flags across the property line in the Downtown "D-1" and "D-4" zoning districts.
Mr. Doug Dansie 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. Dansie discussed the proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance.
The Planning Commissioners then discussed the proposed changes and asked questions of Mr. Dansie relating to the petition.
Ms. Arnold stated that there seems to be a lot of enforcement that will be necessary and she wonders if there will be enough staff to do the enforcing.
Mr. Wilde stated that in terms of zoning enforcement, sign enforcement is one of the most difficult elements. Zoning enforcement is handled mostly by complaint, therefore, unless there is a complaint or an obvious problem, illegal signs may not get noticed. Mr. Wilde then stated that the amendments that staff is recommending reflects the Administration's desire to loosen up Downtown.
Mr. Daniels stated that he is not a fan of a lot of signs. However, he feels that the proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance is a way to help the Downtown business district.
Mr. Jonas spoke concerning flag signs and then stated that if the flags are hung too low they can become an attractive nuisance. Mr. Dansie noted that the ordinance states that all signs, including flags, shall maintain a 10-foot clearance from the sidewalk. The 10-foot clearance pertains to the bottom of the flag, not the pole.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cleve Brakefield, representing GAP, Inc. from San Francisco, stated that an angle flag has a wire support system that holds the flag taut down so that it does not flip around. The flag will not hang rigid, but, it will keep the bottom of the flag intact with the base of the support. Mr. Brakefield was in favor of the changes, however, he recommended that flags have an 8-foot projection.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows spoke concerning flags and stated that she feels that official flags should be regulated so that there are not too many of them. She also feels that the size of the flag should be regulated so that they are not huge.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-19:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-00-19 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation to amend the Sign Ordinance, Chapter 21A.46, to allow limited "blade" signs and other modifications within the Downtown "D-1" and "D-4" zoning districts as outlined in the staff report and the attached ordinance. Ms. Short further moved that the recommendation include allowing flags to have an 8-foot projection. Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Student presentation on the Sugar House Business District.
Students from the University of Utah shared a brief presentation to the Planning Commission of their ideas for long range planning for the Sugar House Business District.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.