SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Aria Funk, Craig Mariger, Fred Fife, Diana Kirk and Mike Steed. Chairperson Max Smith, Jim McRea and Gilbert lker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Craig Hinckley, Doug Wheelwright, Jackie Gasparik, Randy Taylor, Doug Dansie, Joel Paterson, Emil Pierson and Lisa Miller.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Ms. Short. 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
Ms. Funk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 7, 1998. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, Mr. lker and Mr. McRea were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-98-08 by Lumberman Investment Corporation to annex a 45 acre parcel located north of 1700 North at 1850 West. Residential "R-1¬7000" zoning is being requested as well as preliminary subdivision approval for a new 197 lot subdivision.
Ms. Short noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING -Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance (City Code Title 20) relative to bond and security requirements for public improvements in new subdivisions.
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 stated that the provisions of the Utah State Code established the procedure for municipalities to prepare and adopt subdivision ordinances. These provisions require that the Planning Commission shall prepare and recommend a proposed subdivision ordinance to the legislative body after giving notice and holding a public hearing. Mr. Boyd Ferguson, Assistant City Attorney, was assigned the task of drafting the revisions to the bonding ordinance and to coordinate reviews with the City Engineer, Public Utilities and Planning Staff.
Mr. Ferguson was present for this portion of the meeting to discuss the proposed ordinance and to answer questions made by the Planning Commission members. Mr. Mariger had several comments and concerns in relation to the wording of the ordinance.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Due to the recommended changes made by Mr. Mariger, staff suggested that the Planning Commission table this item until the changes can be made to the ordinance.
Motion for consideration of a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the Planning Commission's concerns and proposed changes, to table their consideration of a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance (City Code Title 20) relative to bond and security requirements for public improvements in new subdivisions until Staff can make the proposed changes and bring the ordinance back to the Planning Commission for their approval. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, Mr. lker and Mr. McRea were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -A request by Mr. Travis Cornaby for approval of a three lot minor subdivision located at 802 East 2700 South in a Residential "R-1-7000" zoning district.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik 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. Gasparik then stated that an appeal letter was received from Mr. Scott Cottingham, representing Russell and Linda Thomas. The letter stated that Mr. and Mrs. Thomas are disputing the Salt Lake County record by filing a quiet title lawsuit regarding the location of the property line between the two properties with Mr. Cornaby, and believe that the Cornaby Subdivision should not be approved until the dispute is resolved.
Mr. Travis Cornaby, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Mariger asked Mr. Cornaby if he had a problem with the Planning Commission members being reconsulted if the Thomas' win their dispute? Mr. Cornaby stated that he would not be comfortable with waiting to subdivide the property until after the Thomas' dispute is resolved.
Ms. Gasparik stated that staff has explored the option of reconfiguring the lots if the Thomas' should win the quiet title lawsuit. Ms. Gasparik then stated that there is enough square footage between the three lots that, if the lots needed to be reconfigured, the lot in question could meet the minimum square footage for the zoning requirements.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Cornaby how he feels about reconfiguring the lots. Mr. Cornaby stated that he would agree to having the lots reconfigured if it becomes necessary for Planning Commission approval. Mr. Cornaby then stated that he would like the property lines for the three lots to remain as they are currently configured so as to not decrease the property value of any of the lots.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Scott Cottingham, an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, recommended that the Planning Commission not make any decisions until the quiet title lawsuit is resolved. Mr. Cottingham believes that the Thomas' will prevail because if the western edge of the driveway has been the recognized boundary line continuously for more than 20 years, then by the legal doctrine of boundary by acquiescence, that edge is the boundary line. (A copy of a letter submitted by Mr. Cottingham, and staff's response to his letter, are filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Nicholas Mojzac, an abutting property owner, stated that he is opposed to the proposed subdivision because he feels that it will change the general character of the neighborhood. Mr. Mojzac also stated that the houses in the new subdivision will add to an already congested neighborhood.
Mr. Thomas, an abutting property owner, stated that he is opposed to the proposed subdivision because he feels that the access to his property should be given priority over any new construction due to the fact that his house was one of the first homes built in the neighborhood.
Ms. Vonda Flanders, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed subdivision. Ms. Flanders then stated that there are other legal issues, besides the issues presented by Mr. Cottingham, regarding the two properties that will also need to be considered.
Mr. Lynn Pace, Salt Lake City Assistant Attorney, stated that from a legal perspective he is concerned about the lawsuit that has been filed disputing the ownership of the right-of-way. Speaking to the Planning Commission, Mr. Pace stated that If the outcome of the lawsuit makes a difference to your decision, it is probably premature to approve the proposed subdivision at this time. He then stated that there is .no guarantee as to how quickly the lawsuit will be resolved. If the Planning Commission wants to give their approval at this time, regardless of what the outcome of the lawsuit is, a solution would be to reconfigure the property lines to assure ordinance compliance.
Mrs. Thomas, an abutting property owner, stated that she would be in favor of the proposed subdivision if there was a solution that did not require her to either lose a portion of her driveway or share it with the abutting property owners.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk stated that she feels that the Planning Commission should approve the proposed subdivision because she does not believe that the petitioner should be penalized due to the pending lawsuit as well as reconfiguring the property lines.
Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that the Planning Commission should require that the property lines for the three lots be reconfigured so that all minimum zoning requirements are met and then approve the proposed subdivision.
Motion for Cornaby Minor Subdivision:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve the Cornaby three lot residential minor subdivision subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 The future development of this property will require full frontage roadway improvements to be installed along the 800 East Street frontage of the property as required by the Engineering Division.
2 All drive approaches to the property must be approved and be consistent with the requirements of the Division of Transportation.
3 The subdivision must meet all division and department requirements and regulations according to City Ordinances.
Motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve the Cornaby three lot residential rr1inor subdivision subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with one add it ion as noted:
1 The future development of this property will require full frontage roadway improven1ents to be installed along the 800 East Street frontage of the property as required by the Engineering Division.
2 All drive approaches to the property must be approved and be consistent with the requirements of the Division of Transportation.
3 The subdivision must meet all division and department requirements and regulations according to City Ordinances.
4 That the lot lines be redrawn so that if the allegations of the lawsuit turn out to be true. all three lots will meet the minimum zoning requirements of 7.000 square feet. (underlined portion added by the Planning Corr1mission)
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk voted "Nay". Mr. Smith, Mr. lker and Mr. McRea were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-308 by the Homeless Youth Resource Center requesting a conditional use for a transitional treatment home located at 718 South 600 East in a Residential/Historic "RMF-30" zoning district.
Mr. Randy Taylor 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. Taylor stated that the existing building has been operated as a multi-unit alternative care facility for many years. This former transitional treatment center, serving mental health patients, was not a problem in the neighborhood even though the potential for problems was there. The residents for the new use will be carefully screened and they sign a "Residential Program Rules Contract" indicating that they will adhere to the sixteen rules listed below:
1. Be respectful to yourself, your house manager, your roommates and your neighbors.
2. No gang colors, signs or lingo.
3. No racial slurs (verbal or written) of any kind.
4. No visitors· allowed in bedrooms. Friends may visit in common areas.
5. No drugs or alcohol anywhere on premises.
6. You must be completely drug and alcohol free.
7. You must be willing to take a urine analysis test upon request.
8. Rooms will be checked at least weekly.
9. Smoking allowed only in designated outdoor area.
10. No violence or threats of violence will be tolerated.
11. No weapons of any kind.
12. You must be working either full time or going to school and working part time. You cannot be unemployed for more than 10 days in a 6 month contract period.
13. You must meet with your case manager at the Center at least weekly.
14. Weekly resident meetings are mandatory.
15. No pets.
16. Take responsibility for this house. This is the only program of its kind in Utah for homeless teens. Take pride in it. Keep your bedroom clean, clean up after yourself, and make sure you do your daily cleaning job.
Mr. Dana Kendrick, Mr. Steve Erickson and Mr. Brad Simkins, representing the petitioner, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Kendrick then stated that the main objective for their attendance tonight is to accurately respond to concerns and/or questions of the Planning Commission members.
Mr. Mariger asked about the screening process for the residents. Mr. Simkins stated that a screening committee will review the history, background and the current issues of each applicant. The screening corr1mittee will also review the "Residential Program Rules Contract" (the sixteen rules listed above) with each applicant. The corr1mittee will then look for a history of violence, if they have an active affiliation with gangs and if they are active drug users. Any history of violence will automatically disqualify the applicant. Mr. Sin1kins continued by stating that the purpose of the facility is to give the youth (ages 16 to 19), who are sincerely motivated to want to make a change in their life, an opportunity. A point system will be used when the residents are in violation of the rules. Violations will result in points ranging from disqualification to being put on probation to having privileges suspended. There will be a maximum of 13 residents, both male and female, and each resident will be required to pay rent.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Evelyn Johnson, Ex-Officio Chair of Central City Neighborhood Council, stated that the Council voted in favor of the proposed transitional treatment home with the exception of one member. Ms. Johnson feels that the proposed use will have less of an impact than the previous use and that it will be well supervised. She is delighted to see that the homeless teens in the neighborhood will finally have a place to go to begin turning their lives around.
Ms. Susan Berman, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed transitional treatment home. Ms. Berman then stated that more of these types of facilities need to be integrated into the neighborhoods.
Mr. Kurt Gentry, a property owner in the area, stated that he is concerned about the potential risk factors that a transitional treatment facility can bring into a neighborhood. Mr. Gentry then stated that he feels that the petitioner should always have a responsibility to the neighborhood so that the influence of drugs and violence are kept away from the youth. Mr. Gentry continued by stating that he would like to see the residents of the facility give back to community for the opportunity they have been given.
Ms. Maun Alston, Executive Director of Traveler's Aid Society, stated that Salt Lake County Youth Services operates many shelter homes and programs for youth that are similar to the proposed facility. She feels that transitional treatment facilities for homeless teens are desperately needed because there are currently no shelters for teens without parents.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Wright reminded the Planning Commission that if they were to approve the conditional use, they would have the right to revoke it if the facility begins operating outside of the conditions that were mentioned as part of the approval.
Mr. Mariger questioned whether or not the proposed transitional treatment center is an allowed nonconforming use in a "RMF-30" zoning district because he feels that the type of facility is not the same as the previous use of the building. Mr. Wilde responded by stating that the proposed use is substantially similar to the legal nonconforming use and it did not require additional parking. The former use was licensed as a convalescent center, which is an allowed use in the "RMF-45" zoning district. Transitional treatment homes are also allowed as a conditional use in the "RMF-45 zoning district. Therefore, the proposed use was allowed as a continuation of a legal nonconforming use.
Ms. Funk stated that she has no objections to the proposed facility however she is opposed to the ordinance. Ms. Funk feels that the ordinance needs to be looked again because she believes that the spacing requirement allows too many conditional uses in any neighborhood which generally has a negative impact.
Motion for Petition No. 41 0-308:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 41 0-308 for a Transitional Treatment Home at 718 South 600 East subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with one addition as noted:
1 That the applicant verify that the 800 foot spacing requirement between this use and other similar uses as outlined in the findings has been met.
2 Any outside remodeling to the building, fencing, etc. must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission.
3 All applicable State requirements must be met.
4 This program shall not allow any clients referred by the State Department of Corrections.
1 The home shall meet all applicable Salt Lake City codes.
2 The home shall be properly managed in conformance with the Homeless Youth Resource Center's "Residential Program Rules Contract" to assure that no excessive noise or other disturbances are allowed.
3 The Planning Commission reserves the right to bring this conditional use back for review and revocation if necessary.
4 That Planning Staff update the Planning Commission one year from now as to how the Transitional Treatment Home is doing. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger voted "Nay". Ms. Funk abstained. Mr. Smith, Mr. lker and Mr. McRea were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-271 by Craig Mecham requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development to build a six story office building with underground parking located at approximately 2170 South 1300 East in a Commercial "C-SHBD" zoning district.
Ms. Short noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-309 by Artspace requesting a conditional use for a mixed use planned development located at the southwest corner of 500 West and 200 South in a Downtown "D-3" zoning district (Downtown "D-3" zoning pending City Council approval).
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. Stephen Goldsmith, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Goldsmith then stated that working with the Planning Staff has been very helpful. Mr. Goldsmith continued by briefing the Planning Commission on what he is proposing for the multiple building mixed use development. The proposed project will have approximately 140 mixed income housing units, a new Salt Lake Buddhist Temple, KRCL radio, a deli/restaurant, multi-cultural center, offices, theater, child care, a Japanese market and it will also include underground parking. Mr. Goldsmith then stated that the project will blend in with the existing business so that no one is displaced.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Maun Alston, Executive Director of Traveler's Aid Society, stated that she is very supportive of this project and that she is pleased with the many wonderful projects that Mr. Goldsmith has already added to the community.
Mr. Richard Thomas, an abutting property owner, stated that he is supportive of the project, however, he noted one potential problem in regards with access to the rear of his property. He stated that for over 20 years an alley, at the rear of his property, has provided access to the dumpster as well as for delivery trucks. Mr. Goldsmith's project, as proposed, will take away the alley making it difficult for large vehicles to access the rear of his property. Mr. Thomas then stated that he has been working with Mr. Goldsmith and they have not yet come to an agreement as to how he will continue to access the rear of the property. Mr. Goldsmith noted that he has been actively working on a solution that will allow Mr. Thomas to continue to access the rear of his property.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
The Planning Commission members addressed possible options related to Mr. Thomas' right-of-way concern.
Motion for Petition No. 41 0-309:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-309 for a mixed use planned development located at the southwest corner of 500 West and 200 South in a Downtown "D-3" zoning district based on the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 The project meet all requirements of the Transportation Division, including final approval for number of stalls required, delivery areas, parking lot layout and stall sizes and/or receive appropriate approval through the alternative parking process.
2 The project meet all other applicable codes, including the 40°/o glass requirements on street frontages.
1 Rezoning to Downtown "D-3" be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of a building permit.
2 Any changes to the approved project be specifically reviewed and authorized by the Planning Director.
3 This process does not constitute approval of public way improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, angle parking) which will be handled separately.
4 This process does not constitute subdivision approval (elimination of lot lines, condominium process) which will be handled separately.
5 That building permits not be issued for the cottage portion of the project until there is a resolution of the dispute with Mr. Richard Thomas. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, Mr. lker and Mr. McRea were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Briefing on the Gateway Development Master Plan.
Mr. Wright, Mr. Joel Paterson, and Mr. Emil Pierson updated the Planning Commission on the progress being made with the Gateway Development Master Plan prior to the scheduled public hearing on Thursday, June 4, 1998. Ms. Jan Striefel, of Landmark Design, was also present for this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Paterson mentioned that if the Planning Commission members have any comments regarding the Master Plan, they can let staff know prior to the public hearing.
Discussion of Zoning Ordinance refinements.
Ms. Short noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
Briefing on the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan.
Mr. Craig Hinckley stated that Salt Lake City has been working on an update to the 1988 Watershed Management Plan since Fall of 1997. Bear West is the primary consultant and the contract is being administered through Salt Lake City Public Utilities. Mr. Ralph Becker of Bear West and Ms. Florence Reynolds, Water Quality Administrator for Public Utilities were present.
Mr. Becker stated that the updated Watershed Management Plan will focus on the City's ongoing responsibilities for watershed protection in the Wasatch Canyons. These Canyons include City Creek, Emigration, Red Butte, Parley's, Mill Creek, Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood. Mr. Becker then stated that in order to establish policies to fulfill its responsibilities for watershed management, the City is conducting a review of changes in watershed conditions since 1988, evaluating policies of other responsible government entities in the Canyons and utilizing public input to help shape the issues and options for future watershed management. Mr. Becker then reviewed some of the alternatives being reviewed for the new Plan. (A copy of the draft alternatives under review for the 1998 Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan Update is filed with the minutes.)
The Planning Commission members reviewed the draft alternatives and discussed the plan by asking questions of Mr. Becker and Ms. Reynolds. It was noted that a public hearing for the Watershed Management Plan will be scheduled for an upcoming Planning Commission meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.