SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; and Planners Elizabeth Giraud, Doug Dansie, Ray McCandless, Janice Lew, Melissa Anderson and Joel Paterson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:44 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
Approval of the Minutes from Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Ms. Scott requested the following corrections:
Page 4, third paragraph, third sentence shall be corrected to read, “He asked Mr. Terragno how many land use disputes, particularly around borders, would be handled.
Mr. Muir requested the following correction:
Page 34, the vote for the Amended Motion lists Ms. Scott as voting “Aye” twice. It shall be corrected to read, “Ms. Scott, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, and Ms. McDonough voted “Aye”.
Mr. Jonas requested the following corrections:
Page 10, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Jonas asked if the proposed new lot line at the east edge of the commercial building was consistent with a CC zoning.
Page 19, forth paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Staff incorporated the Community Council recommendation into their recommendations.”
For the sake of clarity, Mr. Jonas requested that Conditions of Approval be listed along with their corresponding Motion or Amended Motion, rather than at the end of the Findings of Fact.
Mr. Diamond requested the following corrections:
Page 21, third paragraph, forth sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Diamond asked if the glass would be reflective because the kitchens were facing McClelland Street.”
Page 21, seventh paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Johansen to address Mr. Diamond’s suggestion for deleting the existing curb cut coming off of 2100 South into the parking lot.”
Page 24, first paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Diamond referred to a past presentation by Landmark about the Sugar House master plan.”
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to approve the minutes for May 14, 2003 as corrected. Mr. Diamond seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze referred the Planning Commissioners to a memorandum from Planning Supervisor Cheri Coffey regarding proposed changes to Hodges Lane Conditional Use Petition 410-463 (reduced street width and approved subdivision). He asked for direction from the Commission about whether they would like the Planning Division to go ahead and review and approve the request by the Neighborhood Housing Services for a modification of their previously approved subdivision. Neighborhood Housing Services wishes to change their plan from detached to attached garages. The Commission agreed that the Planning Division should take care of it.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
Consideration of the Consent Agenda began at 5:51 p.m.
A. Terry Sieter/Suntree Development and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to grant two easements for underground water and sewer mains to be locate within the right of way of two existing Salt Lake City owned drainage canals. The sites are located on the West side of Redwood Road on the North and South sides of Interstate Highway I-215 at approximately 2600 North Redwood Road, in Davis County.
B. Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake Public Utilities Department – requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to exchange certain deeds of easement for existing utility facilities. Public Utilities would release an easement for a waterline which has been relocated to a public street, and the Housing Authority would receive the release of a private sewer line easement granted to the City by mistake. Both easements relate to the recent development of the Jefferson School Apartment project, located at 1099 South West Temple, in a Residential/Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district.
Mr. Jonas invited anyone from the public to come forward and speak to the issues. None were forthcoming.
Motion
Ms. Noda moved to approve the matters on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Consent Agenda business was concluded at 5:52 p.m.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
None to consider.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone had anything they wished to discuss at this point. Mr. Daniels encouraged the Commission to take a look at the draft document he presented at the Planning Commission’s recent retreat. He would like the Commission to come up with a policy about how to deal with recusals or lack thereof. He said perhaps Staff could come up with something that could be presented to the City Attorney’s Office for review and move forward with adopting a policy. Mr. Jonas said that would be fine.
Ms. Seelig asked when the Commissioners could expect to see follow up notes about the recent retreat. Mr. Zunguze said he had just received the minutes and was reviewing them at this point. He thought he could get the minutes to the Commissioners at the first meeting in June. He would at that time present an agenda for various items that they need to work on as a Commission.
Mr. Jonas asked if any appeals had been heard since the last meeting. Mr. Zunguze said no, but two were pending – one on the restaurant on 900 East, and the Highland Dental Plaza.
Mr. Muir said he did not think it mattered who showed up to a subcommittee as long as it does not constitute a quorum of the Planning Commission. He asked why it was material who decided to attend subcommittee meetings. He referred to some concern expressed that John Diamond attended the subcommittee formed at the last meeting. Mr. Jonas agreed with Mr. Muir. Mr. Diamond clarified that he was supposed to be on that subcommittee. Mr. Pace said the issue of a conflict is separate from whether or not there is a quorum. If a Commissioner has a conflict, he or she should not be participating at all.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-02, Proposed text amendment to Section 21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv), (Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission) of the Historic Preservation Overlay (H) zoning district of the Salt Lake City ordinance. Proposed revisions would require that decisions be sent to applicants within ten working days after the Historic Landmark Commission adopts its minutes, rather than ten days following the Historic Landmark Commission's decision as the ordinance currently requires.
This hearing began at 6:00 p.m. Planner Elizabeth Giraud presented the petition as written in the staff report. This is a housecleaning issue that came up during an appeal. Currently, the ordinance states that the findings and orders will be sent out 10 days after Historic Landmark Commission decisions. However, the Historic Landmark Commission’s decisions are made at the time of the meeting. The findings and orders are derived from the minutes, however the minutes are not adopted until the next meeting which is generally two weeks later. Because the secretary cannot mail the findings and orders to the applicant until the minutes are adopted, this discrepancy has left the Historic Landmark Commission vulnerable on appeal.
In order to protect due process of the applicant and the Historic Landmark Commission on appeal, they wish to clear up the discrepancy. They have done that in three parts of the ordinance. First, in the H Historic Overlay District Section it says that the findings and orders will be sent out 10 days after the minutes are adopted. Second, in the section of the Historic Overlay zone it says people will be allowed to appeal 30 days following the mailing date of the findings and orders. Third, in Section 21A.10 (General Application and Public Hearing Procedures), they have inserted language which protects the current practices of the Planning Commission, but clarifies that for the Historic Landmark Commission findings and orders will be sent out 10 days after their adoption of the minutes.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone thought of making landmarks consistent with the way the Planning Commission does it. Ms. Giraud said that had been considered, but that they tried to make things as easy as possible for their applicants to get their building permits as soon as possible so that they would not have to wait until the minutes were adopted.
Ms. Arnold said there had been an issue earlier about reversing the parking lot for the LDS church that was reversed because the minutes had not been dealt with. That showed that anything could happen before the minutes are adopted.
Ms. Giraud said it was now simple to listen to a tape of the meeting and for staff to write down what conditions were, which makes it easy for Staff to work with the applicants, sign off on their plans and get building permits. In her experience, she could not recall a problem that was caused because of the lag between adopting the minutes and the decisions of the meeting.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Pace what the legal process was in the situation that Ms. Arnold described. He explained that a parking lot for the LDS church was turned down, and one of the people who voted against it prior to adoption of the minutes asked to reopen the issue. The Planning Commission’s procedure is that a decision is not final until the minutes are adopted. Mr. Pace said that was correct. At the same meeting where the minutes are approved, someone could ask to reopen the proceedings so that, in theory, the Commission would not have a decision until the minutes are approved. There are differing indications within the City Code as to when a decision is final. Some say it is final upon the issuance of findings and orders, some say upon issuance of the minutes, and some say upon decision. That comes into play for two reasons. One is for the purposes of getting a permit to go whatever has been approved. The other is for the purpose of filing an appeal. Mr. Pace was not confident that for the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, and Housing Advisory and Appeal Board that those are consistent throughout the code. Mr. Pace recalled a Board of Adjustment case, whose code was clear that a decision was final upon the date of decision. The applicant filed an appeal more than 30 days after the decision, but less than 30 days from the approval of the minutes. A Third District Court judge ruled that the decision was not final because the decision could be changed prior to the approval of the minutes. Mr. Pace felt the safer course of action would be to go through the code and make sure the decision was not final until the final step had been taken. If the last step is the adoption of the minutes, the decision should not be final until the minutes are adopted.
Mr. Jonas asked if they should rewrite Historic Landmark Commission code to be consistent with the Planning Commission’s code, which is that the decision is final upon approval of the minutes. Mr. Pace said that was what the court had seemed to suggest in it’s ruling, although it had not always been followed in terms of issuing a permit.
Mr. Chambless thought he recalled that the time involved does not count until the minutes are approved and actually leaving the building. Mr. Pace did not recall that, but thought it was from the date of approval of the minutes. Typically, the clock runs from the date the action is taken.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that there are several months a year where the Historic Landmark Commission only meets once a month, usually during the winter months. This might make an applicant have to wait a month to have something like a garage approved. Mr. Pace said they could make people wait until the next meeting, which imposes an unintended delay. Or they could find another mechanism for approving the minutes that does not require a meeting. For instance, the minutes could be sent out by email. A formal meeting to approve the minutes is not always needed if people only have typographical corrections. Ms. Giraud said it also takes the secretary several days to prepare the minutes.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Pace was comfortable with the Commission going with the suggestions in the staff report. Mr. Pace said yes, he felt it was appropriate. The only hardship it creates would be on those occasions when the next meeting is more than two weeks later. Mr. Pace said the recommended approach was good in the staff report, but that there was more that needed to be done to make the process consistent throughout. For example, if a decision is not final until after the minutes are adopted, a building permit should not be issued until the minutes are adopted.
Mr. Jonas was confused because the staff report recommended a final decision on the day it is made, not when the minutes were approved. And yet Mr. Pace said the courts had already set a precedent that a decision was not final until the minutes were approved.
Ms. Arnold asked if Ms. Giraud could come back with all the discrepancies fixed in the ordinance. Mr. Pace said Ms. Giraud had a mandate in the code that under the system could not be met. By definition the City was always violating the code. Mr. Pace believed that should be corrected immediately. He said more needed to be fixed, but the Commission should not hold off on a decision tonight because there is still more to be done.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public and asked for anyone from the Community Councils or general public wished to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then closed the public hearing.
Ms. Giraud said changing the time the effective date is made would need to be a new petition, and would throw a wrench in their operations. Mr. Jonas felt the Commission should resolve the present petition and decide later if they want to open up the whole issue up to address further changes to the ordinance.
Motion
Ms. Noda moved that based on the analysis and findings presented in the report, the Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-02 to amend the zoning text as set forth in the staff report, including attachments.
Attachments:
1. Proposed zoning text changes
2. Minutes, Historic Landmark Commission
3. Letter to community councils
Ms. McDonough seconded the motion.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms. Arnold voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Findings: The proposed amendments are consistent with the proposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Findings: This standard is not applicable to the proposed amendment.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Findings: This standard is not applicable to the proposed amendment.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Findings: This standard does not pertain to the proposed text amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-02 to amend the zoning text as indicated in the attached text.
Attachments:
1. Proposed zoning text changes
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISIONS
Chapter 21A.34: OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Review and Decision by the Historic Landmark Commission
21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iii). The decision of the Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective at the time the decision is made. Demolition permits for landmark sites or contributing structures shall not be issued until the appeal period has expired.
21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv): Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission on the application, including a copy of the findings of fact, shall be sent by first-class mail to the applicant within ten (10) working days following the Historic Landmark Commission’s decision. shall be sent by first-class mail to the applicant within ten (10) working days following the Historic Landmark Commission’s adoption of the minutes.
21A.34.020(F)(2)(h): Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision to Land Use Appeals Board: The applicant, any owner of abutting property or of property located within the same H Historic Preservation Overlay District, any recognized or registered organization pursuant to Chapter 2.62 of this Code, the Utah State Historical Society or the Utah Heritage Foundation, aggrieved by the Historic Landmark Commission’s decision, may object to the decision by filing a written appeal with the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty (30) days following the decision the mailing date of the findings and orders to the applicant.
Chapter 21A.10: GENERAL APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES
Notification
21A.10.030(H). A letter notifying the applicant of the decision of the decision-making body or officer shall be sent by mail within ten (10) days of the decision except for the Historic Landmark Commission, whose written notice of its decision shall be sent by first-class mail to the applicant within ten (10) working days following the Historic Landmark Commission’s adoption of the minutes, pursuant to Section 21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv) of this Title. A copy of the decision shall also be made available to the applicant at the offices of the decision-making body or officer during normal business hours, within a reasonable period of time after the decision.
2. Minutes, Historic Landmark Commission
3. Letter to community councils
See attachments 2 & 3 filed in the staff report.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone wished to initiate a petition. Mr. Daniels said there could be a more expeditious way of approving the minutes so that things could move ahead.
Mr. Jonas said it would be a good idea for Staff to look at all the issues as suggested by the City Attorney.
Petition Initiated by the Commission
The Commission asked Staff to initiate a petition to look at all the issues as suggested by the City Attorney and come up with a way to make the code consistent throughout.
This hearing ended at 6:19 p.m.
Petition No. 400-03-09, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to modify the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings. The proposal would allow a large screen television to be placed on the lower two floors of any building located in a Downtown (D-1 and D-4) zoning districts of Salt Lake City that is the home of a view-for-free FCC licensed television station (not pay cable, satellite, or closed circuit).
This hearing began at 6:19 p.m. Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. This is a proposal to allow television monitors on buildings in association with a television station. The issues surrounding this are tricky, because it is a medium that is hard to define. The issues include appropriateness, whether or not it enlivens Downtown, is it a valid form of signage, etc. Also, the right to decide what you want to watch is eliminated when a person is outside of their own home. The petition has been modified throughout the process. Originally the City sent out a notice to all the television stations, Business Advisory Board and community councils. The definition for outdoor television monitors has evolved through the process it no longer excludes cable or satellite as originally defined. The definition of the proposed ordinance is as follows:
21A.62.040 Outdoor Television Monitor. An outdoor large screen television monitor that displays material generated and/or produced by an on-site television station. The material displayed shall be the television station’s primary broadcast feed and shall not be in conflict with Federal Communication’s Commission (FCC) Community Standards that apply to broadcasts from the television station between the hours of 6AM and 12 Midnight (regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor). The material displayed must be the same information that is simultaneously broadcast to the general public (except between the hours of 12 midnight and 6AM, where daytime programming, consistent with Community Standards, may be substituted). Outdoor television monitors may not be illuminated to a brightness that causes undue glare or interference with adjacent properties. Sound emanating from the outdoor television monitor may not exceed Salt Lake City or County health standards.
21A.46.070.J Height And Elevation Of Building Signs: 11. Outdoor Television Monitor: Shall not be located above the second floor of the building.
21A.46.110 Sign Regulations For Downtown Districts:
The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the downtown districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited.
A. Sign Regulations For The D-1 And D-4 downtown districts:
1. Purpose: Signage in the D-1 and D-4 downtown districts should reflect the unique character of the downtown as a regional center for commercial, cultural, entertainment and civic activity. Sign regulations for these districts are intended to allow for the design of signage that complements the downtown's dynamic physical and functional characteristics.
2. Applicability: Regulations on table 21A.46.110A3a of this section shall apply to all uses within the D-1 and D-4 districts.
3. a. Sign Type, Size And Height Standards For The D-1 And D-4 D districts:
STANDARDS FOR THE D-1 AND D-4 DISTRICTS
Types Of Signs Permitted Maximum Area Per Sign Face In Square Feet Maximum Height Of Freestanding Signs In Feet1 Minimum Setback2 Number Of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type Limit On Combined Number Of Signs3
Flat sign (storefront orientation)4 2 sq. ft. per linear ft. of each store frontage5 (see note 1 below) n/a 1 per business storefront None
Flat sign (general building orientation) 4 sq. ft. per linear ft. of building face5 (see note 1 below) n/a 1 per building face None
Monument sign 1 sq. ft. per linear ft. of street frontage 20 ft. None 1 per street frontage 1 sign per street frontage
Pole sign 1 sq. ft. per linear ft. of street frontage; 200 sq. ft. maximum for a single business, 300 sq. ft. maximum for multiple businesses 45 ft. None, but shall not extend across a property line 1 per street frontage
Projecting building sign 125 sq. ft. per side; 250 sq. ft. total (see note 1 below) (see subsection A4b of this section) 6 ft. from face of building but not within 2 ft. of the back of curb6 1 per street frontage (see subsection A4b of this section) 1 sign per street frontage
Projecting business storefront sign 9 sq. ft. per side; 18 sq. ft. total (see note 1 below) sign face limited to 4 ft. in height 4 ft. from face of building but not within 2 ft. of the back of curb6 1 per public business entry to the street None
Projecting parking entry sign 9 sq. ft. per side; 18 sq. ft. total (see note 1 below) sign face limited to 4 ft. in height 4 ft. from face of building but not within 2 ft. of the back of curb6 1 per driveway or parking lot entry None
Marquee sign Subject only to subsection 21A.46.070O of this chapter See subsection 21A.46.070O of this chapter See subsection 21A.46.070O of this chapter 1 per storefront None
Canopy, drive-through 40% of canopy face if signage is on 2 faces.
20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces (see note 1 below) n/a 1 per canopy face None
Awning signs 1 sq. ft. per linear ft. of storefront (sign area only) (see note 1 below) May extend from face of building but not within 2 ft. from back of curb6 1 per first floor door/window None
Canopy signs 1 sq. ft. per linear ft. of storefront (sign area only) 20 sq. ft. maximum per canopy (see note 1 below) May extend from face of building but not within 2 ft. from back of curb6 1 per first floor building entry None
Roof signs 4 sq. ft. per linear ft. of building face or 6 sq. ft. per linear ft. of building face on buildings taller than 100 ft. (see note 1 below) n/a 1 per street frontage None
Corporate flag 32 sq. ft. (see subsection A4c of this section) 8 ft. from face of building but not within 2 ft. of the back of curb6 1 per 50 ft. of street frontage, 50 ft. minimum street frontage required 2 per street frontage
Construction sign 64 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per storefront None
Political sign 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. No limit None
Real estate sign 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. None 1 per street frontage None
Private directional sign 8 sq. ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. No limit None
New development sign 200 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per street frontage None
Window sign 25% of total frontage window area per use No limit n/a No limit None
Public safety sign 8 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. None No limit None
Nameplate, building 3 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. None 1 per building None
Outdoor Television monitor4,7 50 sq. ft. (see note 1 below) sign face limited to 8 ft. in height None 1 per building None
Notes:
1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A.46.070J of this Chapter.
2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs.
3. The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined.
4. Storefront flat signs and Outdoor Television Monitors limited to locations on the lower 2 floors.
5. A single tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct one larger sign.
6. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line.
7. Allowed in conjunction with television stations only and are allowed only if the building contains a permanent broadcast studio for the television station of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
Mr. Dansie said the City had tried in the past to define “brightness” and it has been very difficult. The statement in the ordinance therefore is not tied to a specific brightness defined by specific lumens. Sound is tied to the City and County Health Standards, which is generally 60 decibels in the daytime, at the property line, and not to be audible more than 50 feet away.
The reason for the restriction to television stations with at least 15,000 square feet is so that there is a bonafide presence on-site before the City will give them an on-premise television sign. Historically, because of economic consideration, that has not been a problem for on-premise businesses. But monitors have a flexibility that normal on-premise signs do not have.
Mr. Chambless asked if this was a new precedent. Mr. Dansie said it was, but that the City had danced around the issue. For example, Salt Lake City does not allow animated signs. Mr. Chambless said that now with advances in pixel resolution we had a very sophisticated bill board. Mr. Dansie said that was one of the issues that resulted in the restriction to content that is generated onsite. It would be easy for the station to just sell time for infomercials and other off-premise advertisements. Mr. Chambless said that each half hour program averaged 6 to 7 minutes of advertising.
Mr. Chambless asked about content and if it was a national programming NBC station. Mr. Dansie said it could apply to any television station, not just NBC, and that not all of the programming would be national. The news would be generated onsite. Mr. Chambless asked if Staff was concerned with national programming (quiz shows, soap operas, etc.) versus community standards. Mr. Dansie said yes, and that was why they had tied the definition to meeting FCC daytime standards. Mr. Chambless said people walking down the sidewalk could not turn off “The Young and the Restless.” Mr. Dansie said that was one of the biggest complaints he had received. The complaints have been concerned about sexual content, violence and politics.
Mr. Chambless said noise pollution was an issue. He wondered if there would be visual pollution as well. Mr. Dansie said that was an issue for the Commission to consider about whether it is an enhancement to the activity level or a distraction. Mr. Chambless felt that the brightly lit Ginza in Tokyo in many ways was neon pollution. Mr. Dansie said in many ways this was a subjective call.
Ms. Seelig asked if the television would be on 24/7. Mr. Dansie said yes. Ms. Seelig asked if an infomercial was shown as regular programming on the station, it would be shown on the street as well. Mr. Dansie said that it would, as long as it met FCC standards. Ms. Seelig asked Mr. Dansie to identify the residential and hotel areas around the proposed television site. She asked what other residential uses occur in D-1 and D-4 districts. Mr. Dansie had mentioned the Hotel Monaco and American Towers. The two zoning districts allow both residential and hotels. The Marriott Hotel is on the Gallivan Center block, as well as the condominiums on top of the Brooks Arcade. KSL has a broadcast house on South Temple and Third West and would have the same opportunity for a television. The closest housing to that would be in Capitol Hill or the Gateway. Mr. Muir said there were residential units in the Lollin and Karrick buildings as well.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification on Note 7. He asked if the studio itself had to be 15,000 square feet. Mr. Dansie said the presence on the site had to be 15,000 square feet. If another station moved into Downtown, set up a studio and had at least 15,000 square feet, they would qualify. Mr. Jonas asked if a company owned both radio and television stations, if they could put a camera in their radio station as long as it was 15,000 square feet and qualify. Mr. Dansie said that was another grey area they had been dealing with. But the authorization in the zoning ordinance only applied to television stations, not radio.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public and invited anyone from the Community Council to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then invited anyone from the general public to speak.
Mr. Steve Sharlian, News Director at KUTV, spoke next. He showed the Commission some site design plans. He hoped to use the programming as a means to generate more people downtown to Main Street. They wish to take a lot of their shows out to the sidewalk and involve the community. They do not intend to use it for commercial purposes and would not sell time specifically. Primarily what they would put there would be community service issues. The do not intend to display anything offensive. They would be able to broadcast some events from the Gallivan Center. They want to invite the community to take part in their morning show and put up their weather forecasts. From an audio standpoint, the majority of the use of the monitor would be without audio. They would use textual subtitles for their news broadcasts. From time to time they would us low audio to meet the City decibel requirements.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Sharlian to go through his site plan. Mr. Lyle Beecher, Beecher, Walker and Associates, 3115 East Lion Lane, Holladay, Utah, responded. He is the architect of record for the project. He showed the Commission design plans for both inside and outside of the station, including where the news station and monitor would be located. The size of the monitor is 4 foot 6 inches by 8 foot 6 inches, so that it falls within the 50 square foot limitation.
Mr. Muir complimented KUTV for making the investment downtown. He hoped for a lot of catalytic spin off and economic development in the neighborhood, and thought KUTV was a great anchor for that block. He asked if KUTV was ok with the conditions imposed by the Planning Staff. Mr. Sharlian said they were fine with the requirements.
Mr. Daniels asked why KUTV wanted to put a television monitor on Main Street. He felt that KUTV had other things in mind rather than just showing Channel 2 shows. He mentioned live shots and people on the street and Gallivan Center concerts. He felt it was going to be more of an attraction than a television show. He wanted to know what kind of programming they could really expect. Mr. Sharlian said he guaranteed seven hours of news programming. Their prime focus is to inform the public. In between, some programming and other times weather live shots. Amber Alerts would be put up for as long as the Amber Alert existed. The television needs to be a part of the community. During the NCAA tournament, he wanted to put the daytime games on the monitor. It will be a mixture of programming. There would be commercials during the newscast. They will not specifically sell commercial time as an electronic billboard.
Mr. Jonas asked if KUTV was not troubled by the language of the ordinance that says the material displayed shall be the television station’s primary broadcast feed, and also that the material displayed must be the same information that is simultaneously broadcast to the general public. Mr. Sharlian interpreted that to mean generated from the television station. If it was a program or a piece of video generated from the program, that was how he interpreted it. Mr. Jonas said that needed to be clarified, because that was not how he read it.
Ms. Seelig expressed confusion about what the public would be seeing on the monitor. Mr. Sharlian said some of the wording needed to be looked at.
Mr. Chambless asked about political ads. He asked if KUTV intended to buy and air political ads on the large screen. Mr. Sharlian said there would be no selling of any time on that specific sign. Mr. Chambless asked if the audio would be inaudible. Mr. Sharlian said there would be an option for audio, but it would not be at a high level. Mr. Chambless said commercials were higher volume. Mr. Sharlian said that would be monitored and it would not be noticeable past a 10 to 20 foot distance. Mr. Chambless asked if the station could blank out political ads. Mr. Sharlian said that would take an entire production crew to control it, and they could not do that type of investment. Mr. Chambless then clarified that the television screen would be 4.5 feet by 8.5 feet. Mr. Beecher said that was the intention.
Ms. Karen Tusher spoke next. She said our children need to come first and there was no way to make sure that inappropriate images on the screen could be averted. There is much in daytime programming that is inappropriate for children.
Ms. Barbara Simmons spoke next. She is a school teacher who believes that children are our most precious commodity in the State and need to be protected at all costs. KUTV ran the Victoria’s Secret program and said they could not change it because it was national programming. Later Ms. Simmons discovered that stations in other communities did not run it. Children need to be protected from vision pollution. She felt the station had did have enough resources to pay for a production crew to run switchers to block out inappropriate images.
Mr. Boyd Hawkins, attorney for Bonneville International Corporation operating KSL radio and television, spoke next. KSL supports the idea of allowing television monitors in the downtown area. The presence of monitors would enliven the shopping, dining and work experience of residents and visitors alike. KSL is concerned that one aspect of the ordinance is overly restrictive – that is the condition that the monitors be limited to a building which contains a permanent television studio of at least 15,000 square feet. That provision will likely only allow one media outlet to place a monitor downtown. The public will only have access to one source of news and information, the City will appear to be favoring one media source and the media outlets not located downtown will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. KSL requests the proposal be amended to allow any newspaper, radio, or television station which has Salt Lake City as its primary market to locate a television monitor downtown in a manner consistent with the ordinance. The content of programming has gotten significantly more risqué over time. Mr. Hawkins suggested that a solution to that would be to limit what is shown on the monitor to news and public affairs programming, or to limit it to locally produced news and information.
Mr. Jonas said Mr. Hawkins wanted on the one hand news or public affairs shows, and on the other hand he was making a call for any newspaper, radio or television station with the Salt Lake market to have monitors. Radio stations and newspapers have nothing to broadcast visually. Mr. Hawkins said the trend over the last ten years in the broadcasting industry has been consolidation. Most television stations are actively seeking to align themselves with other media outlets. He wants monitors that are not limited to the home of the television station.
Mr. Jonas asked why KSL would not fit the criteria. Mr. Hawkins said they fit the criteria of the ordinance, but the station was in the Triad Center, which was not the best location for a monitor.
Ms. McDonough asked if KSL’s facility was over 15,000 square feet. Mr. Hawkins said yes.
Ms. Mary Anne Rice Miner, 710 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, spoke next. She likes to watch CNN at the post office. She thinks it is a great idea to have a monitor downtown to watch the news. It is too bad that KSL did not think of it first, but it is a competitive business. She thought most children are not downtown during the daytime to worry about seeing soap operas. All types of media, except maybe the newspaper are risqué these days.
Mr. Jonas closed the hearing to the public and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Ms. Arnold said she thought it Mr. Hawkins from KSL had a good idea about constant news. She felt that the people who spoke from Channel 2 seemed to be in conflict with what was written in the staff report. Rather than Channel 2 “doing their own thing”, she supported the idea of constant news. The recommendation from staff is that normal programming is required during the day.
Mr. Muir felt that what Channel 2 was proposing was actually an improvement over what is written in the ordinance. In lieu of midday soap opera simultaneous broadcast, Channel 2 would put public service spots or the weather or news. Mr. Muir wondered if the language of the proposed ordinance could be tweaked a bit to incorporate that idea. Mr. Dansie said he understood that the station would be out doing concerts and live interviews on the sidewalk, but if the station is broadcasting a live concert on the Plaza as long as it is the same thing being shown in on television in other locations, it is consistent with the ordinance. The City does not want to get into the “content” business. That is why it required simultaneous broadcasting.
Mr. Muir asked if they could impose a management plan that is reviewed and renewed on an annual basis. It would give the Planning Staff an opportunity to respond to some of the programming that may be sensitive. Mr. Jonas said enforcement people like other television stations and the public at large would be calling the City about any objectionable material. Mr. Jonas also liked the idea of constant news and public affairs programming, as well as sports.
Ms. Seelig was wary of talking about any sort of content. News may be appropriate for some, but to others it is political propaganda. She appreciated Mr. Hawkins’ comments about other media outlets. She felt that if this was a policy that is attempting to enliven and open up the downtown area, it should be opened up to radio and everyone else. If the City does not do that, it is tailor making a decision for one particular corporation and company. She expressed some concern about visual clutter in the downtown area.
Mr. Muir said the Commission needed to look at the issue in context. The media board was viewed as an extension of the glassed in studio to create a more interactive environment. He did not believe it should be viewed as a billboard or advertising issue.
Mr. Dansie addressed the concern about favoring one business over another. As long as it is defined between on premise and off premise signage, where the business is located will inherently favor one location over another.
Mr. Jonas asked how Staff arrived at the 15,000 square foot minimum. Mr. Dansie said it was a moderate size and he knew it would accommodate the existing television stations. They did not want it to be so small that someone could set up a satellite token studio.
Mr. Chambless asked if Staff envisioned any other sites downtown for viewing areas for television stations. Mr. Dansie said this applied to all D-1 and D-4 zoning districts which goes from South Temple to 600 South and from 200 East to 400 West. KSL and KUTV do business in that area. KJAZZ has some production studios in the Delta Center. Originally, Staff discussed the possibility of having television monitors in other zoning districts where televisions were allowed. However, this is an attempt to enliven the downtown area.
Mr. Chambless said during the Olympics entire buildings were covered with images. He wondered if large visual screens could be a possibility in the future. Mr. Dansie said the technology exists. There was a lot of pressure during the Olympics to have commercial content on the images. The City resisted so that it would not be sued by any billboard companies and so that a precedent would not be set. That is why the proposed ordinance is rather “hemmed in”.
Ms. McDonough asked how the ordinance interacted with properties that front State highways such as State Street. Mr. Dansie said it applies to any building in the D-1 or D-4 zoning district. It makes no distinction between road classifications. Ms. McDonough asked if UDOT may have another ordinance that might not allow or trump the ordinance. Mr. Dansie said he did not know of any, but that issue had not been explored fully. Bus benches with advertising are deemed as billboards by the State so they have to meet State law in terms of spacing.
Mr. Jonas said Staff had done a good job in reducing the size of the monitor to 50 square feet. He said that what potentially could happen in the Gateway area may make it as walkable as Main Street.
Mr. Daniels asked if Staff saw anything problematic about deleting the phraseology that limits the television studios to 15,000 square feet. Mr. Dansie said it was admittedly arbitrary, because there are no other standards to directly tie it to but that yes, he did see a problem with eliminating it all together. There is a grey area of what is on premise and what is off premise. Staff wanted a minimum criteria that there needed to be a very bonafide presence on the site before you could apply for a monitor. Mr. Daniels said some very small stations were still very powerful and reputable. Mr. Dansie said that was true, but that even with Broadcast Power a distinction needed to be made between a bonafide television station and a business using the frequency as an exclusive for an electronic off-premise billboard.
Mr. Jonas said the City was trying to create an incentive for television stations to locate in a D-1 downtown district. He felt a size limit of 15,000 square feet was reasonable. Mr. Dansie said the City already differentiates based on use.
Ms. McDonough asked if Mr. Dansie recognized the different interpretations heard tonight on what “simultaneous broadcast” means. She had interpreted it quite literally, and wondered if it needed to be explained further in the ordinance. Mr. Dansie said he understood it to mean that if you were standing on Main Street watching television it should be the same image that you are getting in your living room in any other community in the viewing area simultaneously. That is the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Jonas asked what Mr. Dansie would suggest if the Commission felt more comfortable with restricting programming to news and public affairs or other local programming. Mr. Dansie said again that the City wished to stay away from legislating content as much as possible. It would have to get much more elaborate about explaining what is public service, news, public affairs, etc. There is a lot of grey area around every definition.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved that in the case of Petition 400-03-09 the Commission approve, based upon the findings of fact, a positive recommendation to the City Council for the ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings hosting television stations in the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts, with the adjustment to the language of the ordinance found on paragraph 21A.62.040 entitled “Outdoor Television Monitor”. The second sentence shall be changed to read, “The material displayed shall be the television station’s primary broadcast feed or rebroadcast news, sports, and/or public affairs broadcasts, and shall not be in conflict with Federal Communication’s Commission (FCC) Community Standards that apply to broadcasts from the television station between the hours of 6AM and 12 Midnight (regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor.” The third sentence shall be changed to read, “The material displayed shall be the television station’s primary broadcast feed, and must be the same information that is simultaneously broadcast or rebroadcast to the general public (except between the hours of 12 Midnight and 6 AM, where daytime programming, consistent with Community Standards, may be substituted.) Or rebroadcast news, sports, and/or public affairs broadcasts.”
Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Mr. Diamond asked if that would allow the station to do some of the community things they were describing. Mr. Muir said that was the intent.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Scott voted “Aye”. Ms. Seelig voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments.
F. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Findings: The limited use of television monitors as signs to highlight the activity generated by an active television station is consistent with the general plans of Salt Lake City
G. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Findings: Limited use of television monitors for specialized purposes may add vitality to the Downtown area by encouraging interactive activity in the Downtown area.
H. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Findings: The proposed amendment is written to minimize impact on adjacent properties.
I. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Findings: Any potential impact on overlay districts is minimal or non-existent.
J. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Findings: Not Applicable
This hearing ended at 7:31 p.m.
Petition No. 410-631, by Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett, located at 734 East 200 South requesting Conditional Use and Planned Development approval to reconfigure the previously approved site plan for an existing reception center, and modify the landscape buffer requirements to accommodate a new parking area on a land-locked parcel to the rear of the property. The property is located in a moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45) zoning district.
This hearing began at 7:38 p.m. Ms. Seelig recused herself from this hearing, saying that she has a personal relationship with the applicants and has had discussions concerning this issue prior to this hearing. Ms. Scott said she was a member of the East Central Community Council at the time this project was presented to the Council. She did not see any problem with giving a partial and fair determination, but wished to reveal this information in case there would be a problem with any of the Commission members. Mr. Daniels declared that he is a friend of the applicant, but has no financial or any other interest in the forwarding of the petition. He felt capable of rendering a fair and impartial decision.
Planner Janice Lew presented the petition as written in the staff report. The property owners received conditional use approval to establish a reception center on their property in 1998. They received several extensions for the approval and improvements for the reception center are currently underway. However, the applicants have continued to work through site design issues in an effort to create the best design for their project and optimize the use of their property. Three separate parcels are associated with the use, and two historic homes are located on the property. Parcel A has the historic Freeze home. This parcel was originally proposed to have all the parking on it. Parcel B is the location of the bungalow. Parcel C is located on the southeast corner of the property.
The current proposal is to use Parcel C to extend the parking along the east side of the property and to enhance the landscape area which is on Parcel A between the existing structures. Due to the narrow configuration of the property and the location of the existing structures, the applicants are requesting a relaxation of the perimeter landscape buffer requirements for parking lots. This would help facilitate in the development of Parcel C. If they were required to maintain a seven foot buffer, Parcel C would be too small to accommodate an acceptable parking area.
The intent of the zoning ordinance regarding the flexibility of the plan development process is to encourage a more efficient and creative design than would be possible if strict adherence to the City’s regulations was required. With this in mind, and with the analysis and findings as outlined in the staff report, Staff is recommending approval of this project with the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Lew had received several inquiries regarding this property, however she had not heard any comments in opposition to it.
Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Lew to point out on a site plan where the seven foot buffers would need to be located on Parcel C, and where the parking would abut to Parcel B. Ms. Lew said the buffers would have to be along the east side of Parcel C. The west side of Parcel B has existing landscaping and would be a driveway. Mr. Muir asked Ms. Lew to point out where the driveway was on the south side of Parcel C.
Mr. Diamond asked if the Commission was being asked to make a decision on the buffers or if the other options mentioned in the Staff report were to be considered as well. He wondered if the notice was correct. Mr. Zunguze said that sometimes with noticing they try to capture what is being done in a very succinct way. Ultimately, it is a reconfiguration. What Ms. Lew is indicating in the report is that there are certain options that will be pursued. Mr. Diamond asked if the Commission could recommend that the parcels could be combined based on how it was noticed. Mr. Zunguze said yes.
Mr. Jonas clarified that the applicant does own all three parcels. Ms. Lew said yes. Mr. Jonas said the combining of the parcels will not change the waiver on the seven foot buffers on Parcel C. Ms. Lew said that was correct. Combining the parcels will determine what type of easements will be required.
Ms. Scott asked if it would make any difference in the required number of parking spaces if the parcels were combined or not. Ms. Lew said 23 parking spaces were required based on the square footage of the use.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicants to come forward and speak. Ms. Nancy Saxton and Mr. Jan Bartlett spoke next. Ms. Saxton explained that initially there were four parcels when they bought the property. There was an area that was reconveyed onto the large parcel. At the time, there was no need to reconvey the parcels into one parcel because they did not intend to develop the back two lots. She saw no reason to reconvey the properties because they own them all. The applicants’ intention for the property has always been to preserve the mature trees on the property. They provide more open space, shade, and minimized water use for the garden area. The lot is relatively narrow and creates some problems. They want to move the parking to the back so that they can utilize the area closest to the building for garden space.
Ms. Saxton explained the purpose of the driveway to the south on Parcel C. Parking is an important issue. The applicants have contacted adjoining businesses and property owners about leasing parking space offsite. There are parking lots to the east, south and west of their property. This is one of the reasons the applicants are asking for a relaxing of the setbacks for Parcel C, so that they can accommodate the parking in the back area which is less functional as far as open space, green space or garden space. It will be less obtrusive for parking to be in the back of the area since it will abut a parking lot and driveway to the east, and a parking lot and turnabout to the south. The area to the east is elevated, so the impact is fairly minimal. It is easy to screen them with vines on a fence. The area to the west has a solid fence that is below the applicant’s property.
Mr. Diamond asked about where the garbage dumpsters would be located and if any trees would have to be removed to accommodate them. Ms. Saxton said on the east side there were no trees – only bushes that will have to be removed. There will be some kind of screening for the dumpster. Ms. Saxton said they had been considering whether the east side was the best location and were willing to look at moving it further back and starting up closer. Mr. Diamond said the neighbor to the east might appreciate removing the dumpsters from their present location. Ms. Saxton said they would like to move it to the south, although there are some constraints about getting a garbage truck into the area. She agreed to look into moving the dumpsters elsewhere.
Mr. Jonas asked what the bungalow was used for. Ms. Saxton said the bungalow is a rental house on Parcel B. The bungalow was built about 1912. Parcel C appears never to have had a home or dwelling on it. The same person owned all three parcels when the applicants bought the property. Mr. Jonas recalled that the original plan was to keep the area behind the bungalow as landscaping. Ms. Saxton does not recall that ever being stated, because their intention has always been to move the parking to the back. The bungalow tenants have never used that back area. Landmarks encouraged the applicants to move the parking to the back in order to preserve trees to the south.
Mr. Jonas asked if the home on Parcel B meets all the setback requirements. Mr. Wilde said Parcel B may not meet all of the requirements of the district as a stand alone parcel, but the City has accepted it as legally nonconforming. Mr. Wheelwright said the zoning came into effect in 1927, so the development on Parcel B very likely predates all of the zoning regulations.
Mr. Daniels asked about some vines along a fence on the east side of the property. He wanted to know if the applicants planned to leave those in place or enhance them to create more of a natural buffer. Ms. Saxton said there used to be three sheds by the fence, but they had to be torn down because they were substandard. The vines will be taken down because another fence will need to be replaced or put back. They plan to buffer that with vines.
Mr. Chambless asked if the three sheds were pre 1927 and not of historical merit. Ms. Saxton said it is not clear when the sheds actually went in, but she thought they probably went in sometime in the 1920s.
Mr. Chambless referred to the business Ms. Saxton had contacted about leasing 100 offsite parking spaces and asked if the applicants had negotiated a year or date with the business. Ms. Saxton said no. The business had indicated that they were willing to enter into an agreement, but would need a 30 day notice to get out of the leasing contract should they ever sell their property. There are other properties around, such as a dental office, which they have talked to about staff parking. There is a church across the street and a big lot on the other side of 700 East that could be budgeted in for valet parking. Ms. Saxton has also talked to the owners of Payless and Big Lots, who would be happy to enter into a lease agreement.
Mr. Chambless asked about a Box Elder tree on the property. Ms. Saxton said it was probably over 100 years old. Mr. Chambless asked if it was cruel and unusual punishment to have the neighbors subjected to the critters that come from the Box Elder tree. Ms. Saxton said the critters would find the neighbors no matter where the Box Elder tree was located.
Ms. Scott asked if it would be unreasonable, since the buffer distance will be reduced to 2.5 feet on Parcel C, if some verbiage was added to require the applicants to maintain and mature vegetation buffer vines and trees between them and their neighbors. Ms. Saxton said that was a reasonable request.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing up to the public and asked if anyone from the Community Council wished to speak. Ms. Carol Goode, East Central Community Chair, 823 South 100 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, spoke next. The applicants had come to their executive board meeting on April 16, 2003 to discuss the project. Ms. Goode was concerned that the parking seemed a little narrow for the size of the lot and there was no alternative exit. If there were an emergency, the reception center guests would be stuck. The applicant said the Fire Department had passed off on their proposal. The Council remained neutral about their project, but listed a few concerns in their minutes.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the general public would like to speak. Mr. Ralph Knudsen, 5337 Ferncrest, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84118, spoke next. He owns two properties in the Stansbury Condominium complex to the west of the applicant’s property. He was unaware until recently that the property was going to be a reception center. He was very concerned that visitors to the reception center will park in the Stansbury lot. He thinks the applicant should increase the number of parking spots on their property. He recommended the Commission allow the applicants to reduce their easements and put in the maximum number of parking spots that their property will handle.
Mr. Daniels said no matter how many parking spaces the applicants had, there would still be people who tried to park in the Stansbury lot. Mr. Knudsen hoped the reception center would have some signage directing newcomers to the parking in the rear. Mr. Daniels thought the applicant would probably have signage and notices to the guests, but that there should be the same thing in the Stansbury lot about where not to park. Mr. Knudsen said there were already signs up, but people tend not to read signs.
Mr. Norman Snell, the current President of the Stansbury Homeowners Association, spoke next. At their April 15, 2003 board meeting some of the members expressed concern about the parking. Mr. Snell has met with the applicants and discussed their site plans for parking and access. The applicants indicated that they would have valet parking. Mr. Snell said there was also an agreement that the applicants could take down the fence on the west side and replace it. They have lived up to that agreement, and Mr. Snell trusts their word. He is in favor of keeping the mature trees, rather than put in more parking. He commended the applicants for making the building better than it was and thought the project would be an improvement to the area.
Ms. Mary Anne Rice Miner, 710 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, spoke next. She is in favor of the project. She likes looking down at the improved property from her fifth floor condominium. She is in favor of historic preservation, and saving the mature trees. She believes the completed project will be very beautiful.
Mr. Jonathan and Ms. Vera Morgan, 750 East 200 South, #38, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, spoke next. He owns the Bellaire Gardens to the east of the applicant’s property. He stated the parking situation is horrible on 200 South. He was concerned about the volume of people and noise that will be coming from the reception center. He claimed that the applicant’s had told him when they bought the property that they would be making it a bed and breakfast. The reception center will cause much more traffic. They share a common driveway with the applicants’ property. He requested that the garbage dumpster be moved to the very back of the property. They had already had to ask a portable outhouse used by construction workers to be moved because of the smell. They objected to a reception center.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. and Ms. Morgan understood that the reception center has already been approved. They said they did. They were against any reconfiguring of the parking. They wanted to keep the maximum amount of buffer zone between themselves and the applicants. The Morgans had a petition signed by many of their neighbors against the reception center, and passed it on to the Commission.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicants to rebut any comments. Ms. Saxton said she understood Mr. Morgan’s concern about the buffer. Her parcel would only abut his parking lot. They intend to make the existing chain link fence between the properties a solid one. She thought the idea about moving the garbage back was very good. It would be buffered and enclosed to give it some shielding. Parking that is required for the reception center is provided onsite. They are not allowed to count any of the on street parking. They will honor the idea that local residents need a place to park on the street. They will provide parking onsite and off street. They will be sensitive to noise levels. They will have a valet and a monitoring of guests that come to events so that they will not be parking in the Stansbury parking area. There will be signage. The Bryner Clinic to the south would provide a separate egress off of 300 South. The smell referred to by Mr. Morgan was not the portable outhouse, but a by product of old buildings. They tore out old attic wood, it got wet outside and created the smell. The outhouse had no smell whatsoever.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. He said the question was whether they preferred to see some old trees saved and additional landscaping closer to the building, or create more of a buffer on Parcel C, or create more parking in total.
Ms. McDonough said she felt inclined to approve the petition as presented tonight. Parking is a question of access and it would be more of a detriment to lessen the landscape and to increase the asphalt in the city in general. Sharing parking with other businesses is good and should be done more often. She believed the garbage should be located to the back of the property.
Motion
Ms. McDonough moved that in the matter of Petition No. 410-631 as presented in the staff report and based on the findings of fact and the recommendation by Planning Staff, the Commission approve the request for Conditional Use, Planned Development located at 734 East 200 South subject to the following conditions listed in the staff report:
1. Modification of the perimeter landscape buffer requirement such that there is no net loss in the area of required landscaping.
2. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director.
3. Compliance with all departmental comments and recommendations.
4. The applicants record easements to provide cross access and drainage to the appropriate lots.
5. Conditional Use Approval for off-site parking on Parcel C, if the parcels are to remain separate.
6. The applicants shall meet all other applicable City requirements.
Mr. Daniels asked if Ms. McDonough wished to require moving the dumpsters to the back of the property. Ms. McDonough said yes, and added a requirement to locate the dumpster at the rear or south end of the property to her motion. Mr. Daniels then seconded the motion.
Ms. Scott asked if Ms. McDonough would include a requirement to maintain a mature vegetation buffer as it exists now. Ms. McDonough and Mr. Daniels accepted that amendment to the motion.
Mr. Diamond requested that the Planning Director and Staff analyze the buffering on the east side of the property as it relates to the entrance drive and the building to the east. He believed it was too congested and had too much asphalt. Landscaping between the properties would be nice. He would leave that to the discretion of the Planning Director. Ms. McDonough and Mr. Daniels accepted that amendment to the motion.
Amended Motion
Ms. McDonough moved that in the matter of Petition No. 410-631 as presented in the staff report and based on the findings of fact and the recommendation by Planning Staff, the Commission approve the request for Conditional Use, Planned Development located at 734 East 200 South subject to conditions 1-6 as listed in the staff report and adding three additional conditions:
1. Modification of the perimeter landscape buffer requirement such that there is no net loss in the area of required landscaping.
2. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director.
3. Compliance with all departmental comments and recommendations.
4. The applicants record easements to provide cross access and drainage to the appropriate lots.
5. Conditional Use Approval for off-site parking on Parcel C, if the parcels are to remain separate.
6. The applicants shall meet all other applicable City requirements.
7. The dumpster shall be relocated to the rear or south end of the property.
8. The applicants shall maintain a mature vegetation buffer as it exists now to make up for the loss and distance of the seven foot buffer.
9. The Planning Director and Staff shall work with the applicant to analyze the buffering on the east side of the property as it relates to the entrance drive and the building to the east and see if landscaping could be added to soften the edge. The final decision shall be left to the discretion of the Planning Director.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Scott voted “Aye”. Ms. Seelig was not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses.
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title.
Finding: The site meets the required acreage for Planned Developments in the RMF-45 zoning district.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Finding: The project is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Site development standards may be modified by the Planning Commission through the Planned Development Process in order to create a better design.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
Finding: The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has determined that access is adequate.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Finding: The internal circulation is properly designed.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Finding: Improvements for the reception center are currently underway. Therefore, utility services are or will be adequate for the proposed development and will not have an adverse impact to adjacent land uses or resources.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Finding: Appropriate buffering will be provided.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Finding: This issue was addressed and affirmatively determined, as part of the original conditional use approval.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Finding: The proposed changes enhance the historic character of the site by retaining more mature landscaping. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of this development and meets the intent of the requirements of the zoning district.
I. The proposed development preserves historical architectural and environmental features of the property.
Finding: This issue was addressed and affirmatively determined, as part of the original Conditional Use Approval.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Finding: This issue was addressed and affirmatively determined, as part of the original conditional use approval.
K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Finding: The use was previously found to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and the proposed changes will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as whole.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Finding: Compliance with all other applicable codes will be required prior to the issuance of any building permit.
21A.54.150 Standards for Planned Developments.
As stated in Section 21.54.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, a planned development is a distinct category of conditional use. Its intent is to encourage the efficient use of land and resources, while promoting greater efficiency in public and utility services and encouraging innovative planning and building of all types of development. The following standards are listed in the ordinance for which the City seeks to achieve:
1. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations.
2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities.
3. Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships.
4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features, and the prevention of soil erosion.
5. Preservation of buildings, which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City.
6. Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment.
7. Inclusion of special development amenities.
8. Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation.
Finding: The proposed project complies with objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Section 21A.54.150 noted above.
21A.54.150.E. Other Planned Development Standards.
1. Minimum Area.
Finding: The proposal meets the minimum lot area requirements for planned developments (20,000 sq. ft.) in the RMF-45 zoning district.
1. Density Limitations.
Finding: This standard does not apply because the development is not a residential development.
2. Consideration of Reduced Width Public Street Dedication.
Finding: This standard does not apply because there are no public or private streets proposed on the site plan.
This hearing ended at 8:35 p.m.
Petition No. 400-03-07, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Arla Funk) requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.11c. Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts.
Ms. Seelig returned to the meeting at this point. This hearing began at 8:36 p.m. Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright presented a history of the Foothill regulations in Salt Lake City. In the summer of 1976, a flash flood in the upper Avenues filled some basements with mud. In response to that, the City adopted a six month moratorium on Foothill subdivision approvals above the 5,200 foot contour level. During that moratorium period, some new zoning districts were developed. In the first part of 1977, two new zones were added to the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. The first was the F1 Overlay District. The F1 zone did not change the underlying density of the original zoning, but did require special geologic and soil studies to be conducted as a part of any Foothill subdivision approval. The second zone added was the P1 Foothill Preservation zone. This zone had a 16 acre minimum lot size. It also required the special studies.
At that time, the City also adopted site development regulations or the Site Development ordinance. These regulations included the subdivision standards and requirements, such as street width, blocks and cul-de-sacs, etc. Those ordinances were administered until 1982, when the City Council amended the site development regulations to include a 40 percent slope as undevelopable area. Slope of streets were limited to 12 percent, and the height of cuts and fills were limited relative to road construction. It provided for a 1500 square foot minimum buildable area in a Foothill district. Most of the Foothill subdivisions have been developed under this standard.
In 1994, a petition was filed to amend the site development regulations to change the 40 percent undevelopable slope requirement to 30 percent. That petition passed. Additional building height restrictions were looked at as well.
In 1995, the zoning rewrite project totally revamped the zoning of the City. Instead of an overlay zone that required special studies and one Foothill district that required a 16 acre lot, four Foothill zoning districts were created with a 12,000 square foot lot density, half acre, one acre, and a 16 acre density. The City also developed the Open Space zone that did not allow a house to be built.
In 2001, the City Council amended the site development regulations and adopted a provision that said land that was 30 percent or steeper could not be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size.
Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that these regulations have evolved over a 20 year period and have generally become more restrictive. In considering a project on North Bonneville Drive most recently, the City Attorney advised the Planning Division that he thought there was a problem with the ordinance. The Planning Division responded by having the Planning Commission initiate this petition. Regarding the Council residence, on the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Division proceeded to consider a subdivision approval. The Planning Commission approved that subdivision. Area residents protested the approval to the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB). The LUAB found that the Planning Commission exceeded their authority in considering that subdivision project until the Planning Commission and the City Council had acted on the petition.
Mr. Wheelwright stressed that although some people believed the changes were proposing a change to the 30 percent as unbuildable, that was not correct. Steep slope areas will still be prohibited from development.
Mr. Wheelwright referred the Commission to an email entitled “Statement in Opposition to Petition 400-03-07 Proposed Revision of the Site Development Ordinance”. In Item A, he quoted, “The proposed changes would leave every decision up to the discretion of the Planning Commission”. Mr. Wheelwright said that is currently how the ordinance is written, so it is not a change.
Item B says, “In other words, it is the very language that the City Attorney added to the amendment to which now he objects.” The change made in 2001 said greater than 30 percent slope cannot be counted toward zone required minimum lot area. The City Attorney’s Office, the Planning Commission and City Council were concerned that that was too significant a change. The offer was crafted that the planned development would be the optional approach for the Planning Commission to consider. The City Attorney was not aware of the 5 acre minimum requirement on planned developments. This combination of 30 percent slope and 5 acre minimum is creating a problem.
Item E says, “Excluding parcels from the discretionary approval of the Planning Commission, thus leaving no process by which such parcels can be developed, does not constitute grounds for ‘a taking’. Parcels that were approved as a subdivisions before the 2001 Ordinance took effect would be exempt from the ordinance.” Mr. Wheelwright said that was correct. He quoted from the document further, “When someone purchases a parcel of land that is not and cannot be approved as a subdivision they are knowingly taking a risk that they may never be able to develop the property. Consequently claiming ‘a taking’ is not valid.” Mr. Wheelwright did not follow the logic on that statement. Subdivision approval is a matter of property right, and to say because it has not happened yet that it can never be considered is a regulation that goes too far. There is a property right to be able to enter a subdivision process and receive an approval or denial from the City.
Since the Planning Division received a decision from the Land Use Appeals Board, notices were sent to Community Councils to which there was virtually no response. An open house with the City Staff was held where a number of participants attended. Two different ways to approach the problem were discussed, and then Staff formulated three options contained in the staff report presented to the Commission at this meeting. In addition to the three options, the Planning Division proposes that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they also amend the minimum project size for residential planned developments to reduce the minimum project size for planned developments to a two lot minimum required under the zone. The idea was that at least two lots are needed to be able to do any clustering of buildings.
Mr. Jonas thanked Mr. Wheelwright for his presentation and said it was very helpful. Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright to explain the logic of why they wished to reduce the minimum project size to a two lot equivalent instead of one. Mr. Wheelwright said he felt there was a belief among Staff that a minimum of two lots were needed to provide clustering flexibility. There was concern that going to one lot might conflict with the regulations the City has developed on flag lots, which requires a conditional use process. The Council Staff asked the Planning Division to try to determine how common it is amongst municipalities that a minimum project size is needed to enter a planned development. Staff contacted the American Planning Association, whose research found about 12 zoning ordinances that had some restriction on entering a planned development process that was based on a project size. This would suggest that it is a relatively uncommon practice.
Mr. Chambless referred to a case brought before the Board of Adjustment for property on Devonshire near H Rock, in which there were two unbuildable lots that could be clustered to build a very large home on the two adjacent lots. Mr. Wheelwright said that was a subdivision amendment and that it had gone to the Board of Adjustment because of excess building height.
Planner Ray McCandless then said that the main problem is that there are a number of Foothill properties which have sufficient developable are to build on, but are significantly smaller than the five acre minimum that is required for planned development approval. Under the current ordinance, these lots are prevented from entering any review process, which is a concern to the City Attorney’s Office given the risk of a potential takings claim. Mr. McCandless went through the three options as presented in the staff report:
Option 1: Eliminate Section 18.12.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance (slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size) and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property if appropriate to require larger lot minimums.
Section 18.12.30.B11c. of the Site Development Ordinance would be eliminated as follows:
c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process.
Discussion: This option eliminates Section 18.12.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance, thereby eliminating the conflicting standard and allowing lots that meet the zoning required minimum lot size to enter a review process. This option would effectively reverse the Site Development Ordinance text changes made in 2001. This option does not eliminate the 30% maximum buildable slope requirement as it is a Zoning Ordinance standard, but slopes greater than 30% would be counted toward the zoning minimum lot size provided that the proposed lot contained a minimum buildable area located adjacent to the existing or proposed street, containing at least 1,500 square feet. The remaining potentially developable foothill property could be reevaluated in the future to determine if properties need to be rezoned to require a larger minimum lot size.
Under this option, the Planning Commission is the approval body for foothill subdivisions but any future rezoning decision would be the City Council's. City Council approval is required to amend the Site Development Ordinance.
Option 2. Eliminate the words "through the planned development review process" from Section 18.28.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance and establish review standards for Planning Commission consideration.
Section 18.12.30.B11c. of the Site Development Ordinance would be modified as follows:
c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. unless the Planning Commission finds that the lot:
1. Fronts on either side of an existing dedicated public street,
2. Has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area which shall not include the required zoning setbacks or transition area, and
3. City sewer and water services are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street.
Discussion: This option allows the Planning Commission to count steep slopes toward meeting the required zoning lot minimum provided the lot fronts onto an existing dedicated street, has a minimum net buildable area of 1,500 square feet and has access to city water and sewer services. Planning Commission approval is required for all foothill subdivisions.
Option 3: Attorney triggered escape to a Planning Commission consideration.
Discussion: This option requires that the City Attorney's Office determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not to waive the minimum Planned Development project size based on a determination of a substantial risk of a successful takings claim. Upon completion of the City Attorney's determination, the application would be reviewed under one of the following options:
Option 3a. Under zoning district and subdivision regulations, or
Option 3b. Planned development analysis without meeting the minimum lot size requirement for a planned development.
Following a determination from the City Attorney's Office, the Planning Commission would review either the subdivision using foothill development standards or planned development using conditional use standards.
The problem with this option is that it puts the Attorney's Office in a difficult situation with pressure to forward the item to the Planning Commission.
Amendment to Table 21A.54.150E2 - Minimum Planned Development Size.
Staff had initially discussed amending the minimum planned development project size in the foothill districts (Table 21A.54.150E2) to equal the required lot minimum. However, it was brought up at the open house that all zoning districts should be looked at comprehensively and not just the foothill districts.
Table 21A.54.150E2 specifies the minimum project size needed to enter the planned development process which has been problematic in the past, particularly in the residential zoning districts.
Upon discussing this at the open house and in-house among the Planning Staff, The best solution would be to require a 2-lot minimum project size equivalent to enter the planned development process in all residential zoning districts. Table 21A.54.150E2 is proposed to be amended as follows:
Table 21A.54.150E2 (Partial Table)
District Minimum Planned Development Size
Residential Districts
FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District 5 acres 2 acres
FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 1acre
FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 24,000 square feet
R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 5 acres 24,000 square feet
R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet 14,000 square feet
R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
SR-2 Special Development Pattern Residential District Reserved
SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet 4,000 square feet
R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet 6,000 square feet
RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family District 20,000 square feet 18,000 square feet
RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
RB Residential/Business District 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
R-MU Residential/Mixed Use 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Planning Commission review is required to amend the Site Development Ordinance and / or Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. In its review, the Planning Commission must use the following standards. It is staff's considered opinion that Option 1 best meets the standards for general amendments in this situation.
21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments.
K. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Discussion: The master plans uniformly express concern regarding protection of slopes greater than 30%. Another common goal is to ensure that development is compatible with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood and environmentally sensitive. The proposed options and modifications to Table 21A.54.150E2 of the Zoning Ordinance support these goals.
Findings: The proposed revisions are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable master plans.
L. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Discussion: The proposed amendments will create a more uniform and consistent standard by which proposed developments can enter the development review process. Consistent standards will lead to foothill development that is compatible with both existing development and with the natural environment.
Findings: The proposed amendments are harmonious with the overall character of the foothills.
M. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Discussion: This standard does not apply.
Findings: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
N. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Discussion: The foothills are located in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. Larger lots as characterized by foothill development pose less threat to aquifer recharge areas than smaller lots commonly found throughout the City.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District.
O. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
New foothill development proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as applications are filed and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. This standard does not apply.
Findings: The amended site development and zoning ordinances will not affect roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
RECOMMENDATION: In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted above, Staff recommends approval of Option 1, eliminating Section 18.12.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance (slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size) and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property on an as needed basis for the following reasons:
1. It resolves the conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Site Development Ordinance standards making it cleaner and simpler to administer.
2. It acknowledges that the previous ordinance went too far and returns the standard to how it was administered for 20 years.
3. It provides a means whereby lots that meet the zoning minimum lot area can be processed.
Mr. McCandless said Staff was also recommending adoption of the proposed revisions to the Table 21A.54.150E2, which lists the minimum lot size standards for planned development approval.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Wheelwright to go back to where the ordinance was in 2001 and why at that time the Commission looked at making that change. Mr. Wheelwright said that with each one of the subdivision approvals from 1982 to 2001, each subdivision approval was a lot by lot consideration by the Planning Commission. The slope maps are colored between any two contour lines according to a 10 percent grouping of slopes. There were administrative rules adopted to interpret a slope map to define the build and no-build line. Some contours were as close together as 2 feet and could create an anomaly on the property. A 10 foot rule was adopted which said the City would look groupings of at least 10 feet uninterrupted of slopes that are steeper than 30 or 40 percent. The 10 foot rule was constantly debated by those for and against it. There was a belief that the 10 foot rule had not been administered uniformly throughout the years. A motion was considered to toughen up the site development regulations. The provision to exclude the 30 percent slope from the zone required density was one of the toughening measures. The City also adopted a different way of looking at the 10 foot rule, and some provisions that related to property where grading had occurred before it was annexed into the City. Craig Hinckley was the staff member that led this effort.
Mr. Jonas asked if adopting Option 1 would take the City back to where it was in 1982. Mr. Wheelwright said yes. As long as there was a minimum building size area of 1,500 square feet, located adjacent to a street, which was enough room for a building site. The zoning regulation required the rest of the lot to be counted. The 30 percent slope was still protected, but minimum building size counted towards approving a buildable lot. Mr. Jonas asked if the only time the minimum lot size recommendation of two lots would be in the case of a planned development. Mr. Wheelwright said that was correct.
Mr. Muir referred to Option 1 and asked why it would not reference Table 21A.54.150E2, rather than talk about it being appropriate to require larger lot minimums. He said it was basically indicating some larger lot minimums and some lesser lot minimums. He asked if the table would now become the standard. Mr. Wheelwright said that under the ordinance since 2001, either all minimum lot size required by the zone had to be less than 30 percent, or you had to go to planned development approval for the exception. The Planning Division was suggesting something that would not create that linkage. The two are separated because the Planning Division thinks the Commission should change the project size regardless of which option they might select.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public and invited anyone from the Community Council to come forward and speak. Mr. Wynn Johnson, Greater Avenues Community Council Chair, 1085 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. The Community Council became acquainted with the issue in 2002 when Mr. Cornell brought his subdivision before the Council for approval. The Community Council approved Mr. Cornell’s subdivision. The Council did not get involved in further commentary or the open houses because they thought the question was essentially moot. The Community Council has not discussed the change of ordinance, and were neutral on the issue. The Executive Committee of the Greater Avenues Community Council has discussed it, and hopes that North Bonneville Drive will be able to be completely finished with houses on the north side to keep the grasshoppers, bikers and hikers behind the houses. Mr. Johnson has owned property in the North Bonneville area since 1976 and has seen it get harder to develop as the years went by. He felt that the ordinance adopted in 2001 has affected one building lot and seems almost directed at that parcel to exclude it from development. He thought the 2001 change could be easily construed as a taking by a “feisty” attorney. He does not remember ever getting notice of a public hearing on the 2001 ordinance change.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the general public would care to speak. Mr. Bruce Baird, Counsel for Mr. Amir Cornell, spoke next. He said someone had tried to do something positive for the whole Foothills, and it had unintended consequences that squashed someone’s project. He showed the Commission pictures of Mr. Cornell’s property and a rendering of what the completed house would look like. He also passed out copies for the Commissioners. Houses along a streetscape are the best protection for the Foothills. He asked the Commissioners to choose an option that would cover Mr. Cornell’s situation and allow Mr. Cornell’s house to be approved. Mr. Baird felt the 2001 ordinance change made no sense, and that it was arbitrary and capricious. He said that on pre-existing public streets, the concept of clustering did not make sense. On new subdivisions with new roads, he agreed with Staff that clustering made sense. He agreed with Mr. Pace that this would be a taking of Mr. Cornell’s property if he were not allowed to develop.
Ms. Diane Nielson, 1096 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. She asked the Commission to oppose any of the proposed changes to the ordinance. She understood that the hearing tonight was about the ordinance and not Mr. Cornell’s lot. Land ownership is not a guarantee of developability. There are sizes of buildable area that are too small to adequately develop a property and construct a home without damaging adjacent property. She recommended upholding the decision made in 2001 and to not adopt any of the three options presented.
Mr. Dave Deisley, 1574 Michigan Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84105, spoke next. He represented the landowners appealing the decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to Mr. Cornell’s property. He believed that none of the options presented made logical sense in the context of the zoning ordinance. He felt the ordinance had been reasonably and intelligently developed over the past 20 years. He said the case presented by Staff was notably weak and mischaracterized the situation at hand. He said minimum lot size requirements were enforced because of concerns about density.
Mr. Wayne Petty, 1016 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He spoke in support of the ordinance change. He said if Mr. Cornell’s property meets the lot development standards of the adjoining lot in the zone, it should be allowed to be developed.
Ms. Deb Sawyer spoke next. She lives in the Capitol Hill area and attended the open house. She was confused by the three options and suggested fourth option that would be to change the minimum lot size to the two lot size.
Mr. Len Stillman, 1118 North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He said the statement made that the 2001 ordinance change “went too far” was unsupported. He disagreed with Mr. Baird’s assessment that the 2001 ordinance was arbitrary and capricious. He felt there was a serious problem when one property created so much fury. An individual should not be given license to break a well thought out law. He disagreed with the idea that housing was better than open space.
Ms. Pam McCullough, 674 Saddle Hill Road, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. She felt the reason for the proposed ordinance change came about because of the dispute over Mr. Cornell building on his lot. She spoke in support of Mr. Cornell’s right to build on his lot. He was issued a building permit, and she was under the impression that he had then met the requirements necessary to build.
Mr. Chris Lang, 732 North Richland Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He said the decision to take a single event and use it in retrospect to change ordinances that were carefully thought out is a worrisome trend to initiate. The original decision to grant the building permit was based on faulty premises and a violation of already existing ordinances. The excavation and building process has created problems for the neighbors. He was in support of not changing any ordinances.
Ms. Dona DiSario, 1099 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. She asked if the hearing was to discuss Mr. Cornell’s property or the proposed ordinance change. Mr. Jonas said they were discussing a proposed ordinance change. She said the ordinance did not need to regress to the same standards as was in place before the 2001 ordinance change. There is a middle ground that will protect steep slopes and be a reasonable and legal standard. That would be to increase the current setback requirement of 10 feet with a 20 foot average, and/or increase the size of the minimum building area. The current setbacks combined with the Planning Division’s recommended requirement of only 1,500 square feet of buildable area does not allow enough space to construct a home without the disruption of slopes greater than 30 percent. She requested that the Planning Division to conduct a study to reevaluate and increase the minimum setback requirements and/or minimum buildable area requirements on steep slope lots. Nevertheless, she is in favor of keeping the ordinance as it is now. She said Mr. Cornell’s lot was really a parcel, and according to the ordinances should have been left as open space.
Mr. Richard Smiley, 2002 Chair of the Avenues Community Council, spoke next. He lives about three blocks from the area in question. He said ATVs denuded the lot before Mr. Cornell’s building began. The home has prevented that. He saw no problem with amending the current ordinance. He felt Mr. Cornell should be allowed to continue building his house. He was in support of amending the ordinance.
Mr. James DiSario, 1099 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He presented the Commission with a petition signed by 15 neighbors expressing opposition to the ordinance change.
Mr. Amir Cornell, 1025 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He thanked the Commission for granting him a building permit in January of 2003. His house meets all the zoning requirements asked for by Salt Lake City. He asked the Commission to allow him to finish his house.
Ms. DiSario clarified that the signatures on the petition were from those living in Perry’s Hollow, except for four houses, and one person from Sugar House.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and asked the Planning Division Staff and Mr. Lynn Pace to come forward and take questions from the Commission. Mr. Jonas said he was a member of the Planning Commission in 2001 when the ordinance in question was adopted, and he did not think they were arbitrary and capricious. He also did not believe that he understood at the time the consequences of the two ordinances and how they worked together when they 2001 ordinance was passed. He asked Mr. Pace to comment on what had been heard so far.
Mr. Pace reminded everyone that the matter at issue was not Mr. Cornell’s lot. He believed the issue had been precipitated by the letter he wrote last Fall. The letter was not written with respect to Mr. Cornell’s lot. It was written in response to a general inquiry from the Planning Staff as to what they perceived to be the impact of the two ordinances fitting together. A statement in Ms. DiSario’s letter attributes Mr. Pace as saying that the “language in the current ordinance says that steep slope area will not be included in calculating the lot size except through a planned development process. The word “except” was added by the City Attorney.” Mr. Pace said that was true. He added that word because the City Attorney’s Office has to approve as to form any ordinance that is passed. When the ordinance came before Mr. Pace, that provision jumped out at him because it initially said it would not include steep slope areas in calculating lot size – period. Mr. Pace did not believe that would fly. Therefore, a planned development escape hatch was created. Mr. Pace did not verify what that meant, and approved the language without knowing that it created a five acre minimum lot size. He has concern that the current ordinance could create a constitutional taking in some circumstances.
Mr. Pace said that in approving Mr. Cornell’s lot, the approval was appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB). In Mr. Pace’s opinion, the LUAB acknowledged that there was a conflict in the ordinances, but disagreed with the fact that the City had gone forward in approving a lot without first amending the ordinance.
Mr. Pace referenced the options before the Commission tonight. He did not like the third option to leave it up to the City Attorney on a case-by-case basis. He thought that was similar to what had already been done, and no one was happy with it because there are no standards or approval. There is a precedent for that in the code. In the context of the Historic Landmark Commission there is a provision that says if what the Historic Landmark Commission does could constitute a taking, the Attorney’s Office can say so and that changes the rules. Mr. Pace does not particularly like that, but it is an option that has been used elsewhere in the code.
Mr. Muir referenced Option 3 and said there were only three stand alone lots that would not qualify for plan development process. He felt that was minimal exposure for the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Pace agreed and said it was a viable option. If the Commission felt that was the best course of action, he encouraged them to adopt that option.
Ms. Noda referred to the January 15, 2003 letter Mr. Pace had written to Mr. Wilde and said that it raised the takings issue. The takings issue is significant and is a Constitutional issue. She felt this situation may come down to a legal issue, and if it did constitute a taking, the City would be hard pressed to let the ordinance stand. She asked Mr. Pace what the analysis of the court was regarding a takings in the Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council case referenced in Mr. Pace’s letter. Mr. Pace said that case stood generally for the proposition that if you deny a property owner all economic use of their property, you have a takings issue on the table. Mr. Pace said there are places where the City ordinance does that and it can be justified. For instance, if all of the property is steeper than 30 percent, the owner will not be allowed to build. The decision is based upon empirical information as to why it is not safe to build there. The problem with the existing ordinance is that there is a zoning ordinance that is intended to regulate density, and another site development ordinance that says if it is steep, it is not counted toward the zoning required lot minimum. A court might ask what it is about a steep back yard that means you cannot build in the front yard. He did not believe there was any 16 acre lot in the Foothill area that is all less than 30 percent slope. If there was ten acres of flat space with six acres that are steep, a judge would hard pressed to say that was a reasonable regulation.
Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright for his opinion about what the Commission should do. Mr. Wheelwright said his personal preference was Option 1. He felt that was the best approach by restoring the regulation to what the City has had for the past 20 years. He felt the City had gone too far with the change in 2001. Mr. Diamond asked if he had seen any negative impacts in other developments. Mr. Wheelwright said this was the first subdivision they had considered for initial approval since the 2001 change.
Mr. Wheelwright said someone had once said to him, “You don’t want to let the court be making your land use decisions.” He felt that was significant and that the City should be able to make sound land use decisions.
Ms. McDonough noticed in Option 1 that the FR1 and FR2 zones were the most dramatically reduced in minimum project size requirements. She felt that created a density issue. She asked what the reasoning was in that gross of a reduction compared to the rest of the changes. Mr. Wheelwright said it was five acres across the board except for the FP district, which requires the 16 acre minimum lot size. He did not know where the five acres requirement came from. Ms. McDonough asked how they came up with reducing the size to two acres. Mr. Wheelwright said it was basically the two lot equivalent of the base zone. Staff did not believe a one lot planned development made sense. A two lot planned development would make sense most of the time.
Mr. Jonas said the chronology given regarding the Foothills showed the ordinances becoming more restrictive as time went on. He wondered if Option 1 would still make the planned development slightly more restrictive. Mr. Pace said two things were happening – one was taking a certain amount of property and removing it from the need to have a planned development. The other was reducing the planned development acreage. Lots that currently would either have to have 5 acres or be large enough to meet the minimum lot size without the steep slope could use either of those avenues for development.
Mr. Muir wondered if a two lot minimum qualified for planned development, why not put in the table the minimum lot size that would qualify for planned development. Mr. Muir said the way it was written, you could have one lot that had 50 square feet of developable area, and the adjacent lot could be two acres less 50 square feet and qualify as two lots. Mr. Pace responded that one of the concerns expressed was that a planned development allows the Planning Commission to modify the zoning requirements. Making that available to an individual lot owner was a concern, because it gave them a blank check to do an end run around the ordinance when they only had one lot. If someone wanted to come in and create an artificially small second lot so that they could have the advantage of a planned development, the Planning Commission would probably deny it because the second lot would be fiction. If the second lot were sufficiently large, the land owner would be entitled to go forward under that approach.
Ms. Seelig asked where Staff had come up with 1,500 square feet of buildable area. Mr. Wheelwright said that went back to 1982 and the idea of what the smallest practical size was for a single family home. Ms. Seelig asked if that was an Administrative decision. Mr. Wheelwright said it was an Administrative decision to make that a recommendation which was actually adopted.
Mr. Diamond said for the record that he had voted against Mr. Cornell’s application to build. He wondered how it was allowed to pass given the problems that have arisen since.
Mr. Wheelwright said once Staff had direction from the City Attorney’s to proceed with the staff report, to set aside that provision of the ordinance and operate under the directed methodology, the only thing that did not potentially comply with Mr. Cornell’s application was when an undevelopable area on a lot creates a development limit line. A house built between the street and the undevelopable line has to be built no closer than 10 feet to the undevelopable line. The Cornell house was not. Further, the house has to average 20 feet back from the undevelopable line. Staff had to consider with the Cornell house how to compute that average. The average of 20 feet cannot be delineated – it has to be an activity that occurs at the site plan level because it depends on the shape of the house. Normally, that is never a consideration of the Planning Commission in approving the lot, and it is administered at the permit counter at the time someone comes in for the building permit. Staff made a justification that it was ok to trade land that was not used at the sides of the lot for buildable area to encroach towards the 10 foot line as long as it was still averaged. The Planning Commission agreed with that.
Mr. Wheelwright said Ms. DiSario had suggested that there had perhaps been some excavation past the 30 percent line. He did know if that had occurred. The ordinance requires that the line be staked on the property and shown on the site plan to keep the excavator from doing any damage beyond the line. If Mr. Cornell has excavated beyond the line, he will have to restore and revegetate the area. He will not be allowed to occupy the house until he has done that or posted a bond.
Mr. Diamond was frustrated because there had not been enough clarification as to what Mr. Cornell’s neighbors were upset about. He felt he could not make a decision on the petition until he heard more. Mr. Wheelwright said the issue would be brought up again in front of the City Council, who will make the final decision.
Mr. Jonas said the petition was consistent with the value judgments the Commission had made in a number of cases. It had just been done in the Nancy Saxton petition about reducing a buffer along the side yard. He reminded everyone again that the Commission was not looking at a specific lot, but at an ordinance that has some conflicting issues.
Mr. Pace was under the impression that the neighbors were frustrated with him. To a certain extent, citizens relied on the text of the ordinance and believed it would protect them from the development of the Cornell lot. Without regard to that lot, the City Attorney’s Office issued an opinion that said they felt there was a problem with the ordinance, and by writing a letter Mr. Pace had changed the text of the ordinance. Sometimes the attorneys have to make those tough calls. He appreciated the frustration of the neighbors and regretted that approval of the lot went forward before the ordinance was changed. He said he had never been to a Foothill subdivision hearing that was any less contentious than what was heard tonight. Mr. Pace was not advocating a position that might open up further development in the Foothills. He felt he had an obligation to the City and its citizens to make sure the law is observed.
Ms. Noda did not believe the issues at hand were all on Mr. Pace’s shoulders. The problems were simply unanticipated when the ordinances were passed. No one needs to place blame anywhere. The residents have some frustrations with Mr. Cornell’s house, but others had expressed support for it. Ms. Noda did not believe 100 percent of the neighbors were against Mr. Cornell. Ms. Noda then reiterated that Mr. Cornell’s house was not the issue tonight, but the proposed ordinance changes. She felt Staff had laid out the situation quite well, and Mr. Pace’s legal opinion was a good one.
Motion
Ms. Noda moved that pursuant to Staff’s comments, analysis and findings in the staff report with respect to Petition 400-03-07, that the Commission recommend approval of Option 1 as set forth in the staff report, which eliminates Section 18.12.30B.11C of the Site Development Ordinance (slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size), and consider evaluating rezoning the Foothill property on an as needed basis for the following reasons as set forth in the staff report:
1. It resolves the conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Site Development Ordinance standards making it cleaner and simpler to administer.
2. It Acknowledges that the previous ordinance went too far and returns the standard to how it was administered for 20 years.
3. It provides a means whereby lots that meet the zoning minimum lot area can be processed.
Ms. Noda further moved that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed revisions to Table 21A.54.150E2 as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir voiced his opposition to the motion. He agreed with the position of the Planning Commission and subsequent City Council in 2001. He believed it was consistent with other zoning ordinances in the State to exclude slopes over 30 percent as qualifying as net developable acreage. He is opposed to eliminating that section of the code. He felt it was good policy to preclude steep slopes from qualifying as net developable.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote:
Mr. Daniels, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Scott voted “Aye”. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Muir, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Seelig, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Diamond voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Mr. Jonas asked if the next step was for someone to file a takings lawsuit. Mr. Pace said that was correct, unless someone wanted to make an alternative motion. He asked if the Commissioners did not want to change the ordinance or if they just did not want Option 1.
Mr. Muir thought they could decouple the issues.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved to recommend to the City Council the change in the zoning ordinance effective on Table 21A.54.150E2 that amends minimum planned development size for appropriate zones.
Ms. McDonough wondered if Mr. Muir’s motion would resolve the conflicts between the ordinances. Mr. Muir said no, it would limit the risk of a taking by giving parcels that are comprised of more than two lots the opportunity through a planned development process to have some flexibility to preserve development rights.
Mr. Diamond asked if that would create more density. Mr. Muir said he thought it would give the Commission more flexibility.
Ms. McDonough asked if it would then be appropriate to combine it with Option 3. Mr. Muir said yes and that he would be willing to amend the motion to attach Option 3.
Ms. Noda had no objection to Option 3. She asked for Mr. Pace’s opinion on that. He said it was a legitimate option and he no problem with that. Ms. Noda felt there should be some solution because the takings issue is significant.
Amended Motion
Mr. Muir moved to recommend to the City Council the change in the zoning ordinance effective on Table 21A.54.150E2 that amends minimum plan development size for appropriate zones and forward a recommendation for approval of Option 3 of the staff report.
Ms. Noda seconded the amended motion. Mr. Wheelwright noted that Option 3 had a choice between items A or B.
Mr. Zunguze was concerned that perhaps the Commission was taking some action that would take them back to the drawing board again in a month or two. Staff had looked at the issues in a sequential order, and he was concerned that the “picking and choosing” going on would have a long term negative impact. He suggested that the Commission allow Staff another opportunity to look at how best to incorporate the information heard tonight and come back with something more thoughtful changes.
Mr. Muir withdrew his amended motion based upon the Planning Director’s input.
Motion
Ms. Noda moved to continue Petition 400-03-07 and have the Planning Director and Staff look at the issues raised by the Planning Commission at this meeting and come back with further suggestions and/or options. The continuation of this petition will be heard by the Planning Commission without a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2003. Mr. Muir seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
This hearing ended at 10:24 p.m.
Petition No. 410-634, by the St. Catherine's Newman Center, requesting a Conditional Use/Planned Development approval for an expansion to an existing place of worship at 170 South University Street and 169 South 1300 East. The new addition will include additional worship space and underground parking. The planned development application requests modifications to building setback and grade change requirements for this project. The property is located in a Residential Multi-Family (RMF-45) zoning district.
This hearing began at 10:26 p.m. Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. Places of worship in the RMF-45 zoning district require conditional use, and the petitioner is proposing a large addition to the Newman Center. Mr. Paterson referred to an aerial map as he explained where the petitioner wished to make the modifications to building setback and grade change requirements, as well as the additional worship and underground parking space. 27 additional parking spaces will be added. Surface parking spaces will be eliminated at one area and expanded in another.
The petitioner is asking for two standards in plan development to be modified:
1. Grade Change: The site plan indicates that proposed grade changes on the north, east and south sides of the project exceed the maximum grade change (two feet) allowed by the zoning ordinance. The petitioner proposes grade changes of up to 3.5 feet.
2. Building Setbacks: The Zoning Administrator has determined that although the Newman Center has a University Street address, the front yard actually faces 200 South. Therefore, a corner side yard is located along the University Street frontage, an interior side yard on the west side of the building along the alley and the rear yard is located on the north end of the site. The petitioner requests that the Planning Commission define the University Street frontage (east side) as the front yard. This side of the building has traditionally, and will continue to, function as the front yard and provides the main entrance to the building. The original building, constructed in 1910, predates the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance and was built with building setbacks on the south and west sides of the building that do not conform to the requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district. By recognizing the University Street frontage as the front yard, the proposed addition will meet the setback requirements on the east (25 feet) and north (8 feet) sides of the building. By approving this modification, the Planning Commission will legalize the existing substandard setbacks on the south (12 feet) and the west (4 feet) sides of the Newman Center.
Staff is recommending approval of the plan development and a conditional use, subject to the findings in the staff report.
Mr. Myron Richardson, architect for the petitioner, spoke next. He showed the Commission a large site plan and explained that the slight grade change in the setback area is so that the floor levels can be level with the existing building. The petitioner and Mr. Richardson has approached the East Central Community Council and discussed the project with them. The Council gave them enthusiastic support. The petitioner has also met with City Planning and design review teams. Building and Housing Services have looked at the project as well and are prepared to issue a building permit. After the Planning Commission, the project will come before the Landmarks Commission next week.
Mr. Jonas asked if the front yard facing University Street would resolve the nonconforming issues. Mr. Paterson said the Commission would legalize the nonconforming setbacks of 12 feet on the south and 4 feet on the west. The proposed setbacks for the new addition would meet the zoning ordinance minimums.
Mr. Chambless said the original building was constructed about the same time as the Park buildings, so it would stand to reason that they would more or less face each other.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public and invited anyone from the Community Council to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the general public would like to speak. There being none, Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Motion
Ms. Noda moved that based upon the findings and analysis presented in the staff report the Commission grant:
1. Conditional use approval for the place of worship in the RMF-45 zoning district as requested by Petition 410-634 conditional use; and
2. Planned development approval with the following modifications to the zoning ordinance standards to allow:
A. Grade changes in excess of two feet outside of the buildable area of the lot; and
B. Designation of the University Street frontage as the front yard and the west side of the Newman Center as the rear yard. This approval also legalizes the existing non-conforming setbacks on the west (4 feet) and the south (12 feet) sides of the building.
These recommendations are subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the site in accordance with the site plan and building elevations presented to the Planning Commission.
2. Approval of a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness by the Historic Landmarks Commission.
3. Compliance with all departmental requirements.
Ms. Seelig seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
This hearing ended at 10:36 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Ballet West is requesting an extension of time for conditional use No. 410-587, which granted approval for the construction of a new school and rehearsal facility at 1201 East Wilmington Avenue, in the Sugar House Business District (C-SHBD zone). The Commission granted conditional use planned development approval for development of the new facility on May 16, 2002.
Consideration for this agenda item began at 5:52 p.m. and was heard out of sequence with the agenda.
Mr. Wilde explained the need for an extension of time on The Ballet West conditional use No. 410-587 as outlined in the memorandum from Planner Melissa Anderson to the Planning Commission. Ballet West hopes to begin construction in the Summer of 2003.
Mr. Jonas asked if the merger of the opera and ballet would affect the plans for construction. Mr. Wilde believed it would not. Mr. Jonas asked if everyone was aware that the proposal was for a new practice facility for Ballet West on Wilmington Avenue in Sugar House. Mr. Wilde noted that Commissioner Scott may not have been with the Commission when the petition was first approved. He recommended that the Commission grant Ballet West the extension of time.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Wilde to explain the approval process and length of time it covered before an extension was required. Mr. Wilde said the conditional use approval is good for one year. The applicant must obtain a building permit and commence with construction within a one year period of the granting of the conditional use. The ordinance does enable the Planning Commission to grant an extension of time upon request for an additional year.
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to grant Ballet West’s request for an extension of time for conditional use No. 410-587. Ms. Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
This business was concluded at 5:54 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.