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, Tim Chambless; Vice Chair, Laurie Noda, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Ray McCandless; Senior Planner Joel Paterson; Principal Planner Lex Traughber; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:46 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 minutes from Wednesday, October 27, 2004
This item was heard at 5:46 p.m.
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected on the October 27, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Muir made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond abstained. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted in favor, one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
This item was heard at 5:47 p.m.
Chair Chambless stated that the Chair and Vice Chair had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:48 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he is working with the City Council Office to arrange a meeting to discuss the City’s Housing Policies, and will inform the Commission as soon as a date is set.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures and noted that the Planning Commission will review that document at an upcoming meeting.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he is working to organize a Planning Commission fieldtrip to visit the Gateway housing project.
Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Zunguze regarding the progress of arranging the Salt Palace Expansion and Stakeholders meeting with the Planning Commission Subcommittee. He said that he heard that there was a bit of an overreaction about the Commission tabling the request. He said that he believed that the sooner the issues are worked out the better for everyone involved. He indicated concern with holding up the Salt Palace timeline further.
Mr. Zunguze replied that the Salt Palace is preparing their material and will contact Planning Staff when they are prepared to meet. He said that he believed that any misunderstanding has been cleared up at this point.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-04-30, by Neighborhood Housing Services, requesting to rezone property located at 1003 and 1005 West Euclid Avenue from a Community Business “CB” to a Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential “RMF-35” zoning district and to amend the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan to reflect the proposed zoning.
This item was heard at 5:50 p.m.
Principal Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the agenda and staff report which note that the underlying zone of the site is “CN” Neighborhood Commercial, which is incorrect. The underlying zone is “CB” Community Business. Mr. McCandless noted that the surrounding properties are zoned residential, and it makes sense to rezone the site to be compatible with the neighborhood. The Applicants are proposing to build new single family dwellings on each of the two existing vacant parcels. Single family dwellings are a permitted use in the “RMF-35” zoning district but not in the Community Business “CB” zoning district. Residential dwellings are only allowed above or below a commercial business in the “CB” zoning district.
Mr. McCandless stated that the Community Council submitted a letter in support of the proposal. Staff did not receive any telephone calls regarding this matter. In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted in the staff report, Staff recommends rezoning the property from “CB” to “RMF-35”, as proposed, and amending the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and existing Zoning Map as amended by the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project, from a commercial to a residential land use designation on this property provided that the conditions noted in the staff report are met.
Commissioner Muir suggested modifying condition 1 of the staff report from, “the lots are developed with single family residences as proposed”, to read “the lots are developed in compliance with the “RMF-35” zoning”. He said that he is concerned with precluding the proposed parcels from progressing as the area transforms into what is entitled under that zone.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Ms. Maria Garciaz, Executive Director of the Salt Lake City Neighborhood Housing Services, addressed the Commission. She said that they are proposing 14-units of live work space elsewhere in the area. She said that they are receiving feedback from the community to develop the sites as single family dwellings. She noted that they have submitted two separate plans for the dwellings, and has presented both renderings to the Community Council, and adjacent residents of Euclid Street to get input as to the best plan. She noted that there will be a mix of affordable housing and market rate housing.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the Public Utilities response of the comments, analysis and findings on page 3 of the staff report. He asked if the potential for street flooding has been studied. He indicated concern with the structures being built if there is potential for the streets to flood.
Mr. Zunguze replied that the Commission could require a study as a condition of approval.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-30
Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the comments, analysis and findings noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the request to rezone the property from “CB” to “RMF-35”, as proposed, and amending the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and existing Zoning Map as amended by the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project, from a commercial to a residential land use designation on this property provided that:
1) The lots are developed in compliance with “RMF-35” zoning.
2) Both lots comply with all Salt Lake City departmental requirements including the requirement that no basements be built due to the high ground water table in the area.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 410-702, the Applicant is seeking conditional use approval to change the status of Willies Lounge from a “Class C” beer establishment to a “private club”, located at 1716 S. Main St. Salt Lake City, UT. There is no proposed physical redevelopment of the building or property at this time.
This item was heard at 6:01 p.m.
Principal Planner Lex Traughber presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that the current proposal is nothing more than a license change. He stated that no physical redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time.
Mr. William Willis, the Applicant, addressed the Commission in support of the staff report.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-702
Commissioner Scott made a motion based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, and the Planning Staff recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the requested conditional use to change the status of Willies Lounge, located at 1716 South Main Street, from a “Class C” beer establishment to a “private club”.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner Diamond referred his comment regarding the study of the potential for flooding during the first petition. He asked if there is a safeguard in place when the Applicant files for a building permit to ensure that it is safe to build.
Mr. Zunguze replied that when the Applicant submits plans for approval, Public Utilities conducts a review, and if the flooding issues are not adequately addressed they would not sign off on the plans.
Petition No. 400-02-34, by the Yalecrest Community Council, requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating the “YCI” Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District and to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by mapping the “YCI” to areas zoned “R-1-5000” and “R-1-7000” within the area defined by the intersecting centerlines of 1300 East, 800 South, Sunnyside Avenue (840 South), 1900 East and 1300 South streets.
This item was heard at 6:04 p.m.
Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that the proposed compatible infill ordinance was developed in response to community concerns about the design of new houses and additions in established residential neighborhoods that are out of scale with surrounding homes. Such infill development may adversely impact the character of neighborhoods. The proposed ordinance attempts to encourage infill that is compatible with the neighborhood while not unduly limiting creativity or the design process.
Every year the City receives zoning complaints about new additions or new houses that tower above or overwhelm surrounding houses. However, in most cases, these homes meet all zoning standards. The zoning ordinance may actually permit the construction of new houses that are more than twice the size of the typical house in the neighborhood. Without making these amendments to the zoning ordinance, the City will continue to be powerless in these situations. Adopting the Yalecrest Compatibility Infill (YCI) will provide zoning standards which encourage new construction of homes that are more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. However, the YCI does not regulate demolition of homes.
Mr. Paterson identified the timeline for the petition as noted in the staff report. He noted that the proposed ordinance addresses building height, front yard setback, and location and width of attached garages.
Mr. Paterson stated that based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-02-34 to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by creating the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District and amend the Zoning Map by applying YCI to the Yalecrest Community as proposed.
Commissioner De Lay asked for clarification regarding the proposed garage requirements.
Mr. Paterson replied that a garage would be limited to 50 percent of the front façade of the structure.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Paterson to address the proposal regarding accessory structures.
Mr. Paterson replied that the maximum height of an accessory structure has been reduced from 17-feet to 15-feet for a pitched roof.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the setbacks will be modified relating to accessory structures.
Mr. Paterson replied that the setbacks are not proposed to be modified.
Commissioner Diamond asked if there is a limit on the amount of accessory structures.
Mr. Paterson replied that there is no limit on the amount; however, there is a maximum coverage of 50 percent the rear yard which will not change.
Commissioner Muir noted that there has been a lot of effort put into this process. He cautioned Staff in the use of terminology regarding this proposal. He referred to the term “infill development” which is discussed as an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhoods. He stated that infill has been encouraged in the past regarding the East Central neighborhoods. Commissioner Muir asked if this proposal came about with the intent to preserve the exterior character, without much thought about how rooms are created and the spatial configuration.
Mr. Paterson replied that the proposed ordinance is an attempt to preserve the exterior character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Muir said that he believes that the inside perspective of structures is an important aspect that should be considered as part of this ordinance.
Commissioner Diamond asked if someone has an “R-1,5000” or “R-1,7000” zoned property and they can not build it to its full potential because of the proposed regulations, how would the Commission deal with the argument of hardship regarding these properties. He said that there may be a potential conflict because the zoning is requiring one thing and the proposed overlay is saying another. He asked why the overlay is proposed rather than a zoning amendment.
Mr. Pace replied that the State Code is fairly clear in that you can not claim hardship for the purposes of a variance if it is self imposed or merely economic. Mr. Pace said that perhaps the overlay is proposed because these standards make sense in this community but they might not make sense citywide, which is something that the Commission will have to discuss and decide.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dave Gibson addressed the Commission representing the Yalecrest Compatibility Infill Ordinance Committee. He stated that the ordinance has come to be referred to as the compatible infill ordinance because it is infill in an established area, and compatible because the guiding principal is consistent with the vast majority of the existing structures in the area. Mr. Gibson stated that they have taken into account property owners’ rights in balancing the overall quality of the environment. The approach was to: one, work within the existing established zoning ordinance; two, each proposal was to be a solution to an existing problem within the area; three, no proposal was to create a large or medium number of noncomplying structures for that proposal to be enacted. Mr. Gibson stated that the ordinance proposes to establish the setbacks by averaging the front setback of the existing houses with the smallest front yard setback to preserve the streetscape of the neighborhood. Mr. Gibson stated that the ordinance proposes to drop the allowable height of homes from 30-feet to 27.6-feet to be measured from established grade. He stated that the ordinance proposes that the width of detached garage may not exceed 50 percent of the width of the total house.
Ms. Beth Bauman, Chair of the Wasatch Hollow Community Council, addressed the Commission saying that although the current proposal is specific to the Yalecrest area, there are other areas of the City that have similar concerns with respect to new construction that is not compatible with existing homes. She stated that they are working to create a similar set of guidelines as the YCI for the Wasatch Hollow Community. She said that the Yalecrest Compatibility Infill Ordinance Committee has made great efforts to make sure the entire spectrum of homes in the Yalecrest Community were considered. She said that the Wasatch Hollow Community fully supports the Yalecrest proposal to minimize the impact of new construction.
Mr. Kim Crellin addressed the Commission, as a resident of the community and a contractor who works in the Yalecrest area. He referred to the photograph of the house on Hubbard Avenue, with the three car garage on page 7 of the staff report, saying that it is unfair to characterize the entire neighborhood based on that one house. Mr. Crellin said that there have been errors on the City’s part with regard to the final inspections of that house. He said that he is surprised that so much effort has been spent on a proposal that may leave the City potentially liable. He felt that the percentages of homes that do not meet the requirements in the Yalecrest area are small. He felt that the proposal needs to include some of the best case scenarios that may not meet the criteria if the YCI is approved. He said that it is too early to make a decision on a proposal that will impact this many homes.
Mr. Ed Glashien, a member of the Yalecrest Compatibility Infill Ordinance Subcommittee, addressed the Commission. He noted that through the process of developing the current proposal they studied other City’s models and tested the proposal against existing homes and found that most homes can be remodeled with an additional 10 foot story if a disaster occurred. Mr. Glashien said that he has received overwhelming support from the community regarding this proposal.
Ms. Jan Hemming, a resident of the Yalecrest Community, addressed the Commission. She noted that the recently completed residential community called Daybreak in South Jordan has patterned their architectural style after Yalecrest. She said that the developers noted that Yalecrest has a distinctive character and charm. Ms. Hemming said that she, has received overwhelming telephone calls and messages regarding the communities concern and alarm with respect to how the charming homes in the area are being replaced with monster houses that do not add to the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Hemming submitted transcribed telephone messages for the Commission’s review and the public record.
Ms. Virginia Hylton, a resident of the Yalecrest Community, and a member of the YCI Subcommittee, addressed the Commission. She said that the YCI Subcommittee has found that since 1978, 26 percent of the homes in the Yalecrest neighborhood have been given building permits specifically for expansion. She also noted that since 1995 the number of three and four bedroom homes sold have increased while the number of two bedroom homes sold has decrease. Ms. Hylton noted that the average number of bedrooms per home has increased in the Yalecrest area.
Mr. Robert Mansfield, a resident of the Yalecrest Community, addressed the Commission. He said that he did not believe that the proposed ordinance achieves the goal to maintain the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. A home completely inconsistent with the goals could still be built. Mr. Mansfield stated that along Harvard Avenue there are 38 homes between 1300-1500 East and 76 percent of those homes could not be rebuilt if disaster struck in the area under the proposed regulations.
Mr. McKay Edwards, a resident of the Yalecrest Neighborhood, addressed the Commission saying that the proposed ordinance does not work below 1500 East, it was crafted for the rhythm and scale of homes above 1500 East and in one story home neighborhoods. He felt that the community needs more time to explore the issues. He said that the proposal has been poorly presented to the community and they are unaware as to how this will affect their properties. Mr. Edwards felt that the boundary line for this proposal should be drawn at 1500 East, where the character changes regarding the scale of the neighborhoods. He asked that the Commission not forward a positive recommendation to the City Council this evening.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Edwards where he proposes that the north and south boundaries be drawn.
Mr. Edwards replied that he cannot speak for the other neighborhoods regarding their feeling of whether or not this ordinance is reasonable.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Edwards if he believed that this proposal would have a negative effect on his property.
Mr. Edwards replied that he believed that the affect would be negative. He stated that he added a two car garage to his home which takes about 66 percent of the front of his home. He gave an example saying that most of the homes in the area are 30 feet wide, and 50 percent of that would only allow a one car garage. He said that he believed that his addition is tasteful; it added to his property value, while allowing his family to utilize the home. He added that he believed that the proposal would discourage investments in the homes.
Mr. John Dewey, Vice Chair of the Yalecrest Community Council, addressed the Commission. He presented a letter from the previous Chair of the Yalecrest Community Council, Tom Bonacci, indicating that there was a presentation of the YCI ordinance to the Community Council on Tuesday, February 24, 2004. The Community Council passed a motion in support of the proposal at that meeting. Mr. Dewey stated that as a resident of the community he is in support of the proposed ordinance because it attempts to maintain the character of the neighborhood. He noted that some residents of the community do not regard the character of the neighborhood above the option to use the maximum lot space.
Ms. Lisette Gibson, member of the YCI Subcommittee, addressed the Commission. She reiterated that the previously mentioned house on Hubbard Street currently meets the City zoning requirements; however, it is obviously out of character with the neighborhood. Ms. Gibson stated that there have been several demolitions of existing homes to be replaced by larger out of place homes that compromise the character of the neighborhood. She said that they are not requesting that demolitions stop completely, they are simply requesting that there be guidelines in place to ensure that the homes to be constructed to fit with the scale of the neighborhood. Ms. Gibson said that they feel it is a reasonable and fair ordinance and they believe that it is time to take a stand and put guidelines in place to preserve this neighborhood.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Yalecrest is listed as a historic site.
Ms. Gibson replied that the Yalecrest neighborhood is not on the City or National Historic Registers; however, she believed that Planning Staff is working to get that accomplished. She noted that that process takes a substantial amount of time and the Yalecrest Community Council felt that this is a good start to protect the area.
Ms. Lisa Nichols, a resident of the Yalecrest neighborhood, addressed the Commission. She said that she wholeheartedly agrees with the comment expressed by Mr. Edwards. She felt that the proposed requirements would decrease the potential for her property. She believed that this ordinance proposes putting restrictions on a community in which it is not compatible. She disputed the statements that the community is aware of the proposal, saying that she spoke to many people within the community who were not aware of the proposal. Ms. Nichols stated that when she went to the Yalecrest Community Council and expressed her concerns they indicated to her that she could get a variance to increase the size of her garage. Ms. Nichols indicated that she did not believe that her home would fall under the special exception portion of the proposal because her garage is built into the hillside.
Commissioner Scott read the special exception category of the proposal, “a garage built into the hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed as a special exception. Commissioner Scott stated that without seeing Ms. Nichols’ homes she cannot be sure; however, her home may fall under the special exception category.
Mr. John Hill, a new resident of the Yalecrest Community, addressed the Commission. He applauded the efforts made to maintain the character of the community. He said that he is concerned with the restrictions because he does not want to see the restrictions imposed so quickly and affect his enjoyment of the neighborhood. He indicated that he may want to make changes to his home in the future and he did not want to be restricted. He agreed with Commissioner Muir’s comment that the inside perspective of the homes is an important aspect.
Ms. Helen Peter’s, Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Chair, addressed the Commission. She stated that the Sugar House Community Council is in support of the proposal; however, they would go one step further and suggest a set of design guidelines. She said that she believed that many of the remodels or additions will comply with the letter of the ordinance and not the intent. She noted that in neighborhoods with such an eclectic design it is important to keep the spirit of the neighborhood in mind.
Mr. Warren Lloyd, a resident of the Yalecrest Community, addressed the Commission. He noted that he submitted a letter of support of the YCI. He stated that he has been at Board of Adjustment meetings where there have been contentious disputes regarding additions to homes in the Yalecrest area. He said that he believed that the YCI is an attempt to give guidelines as to how the City and community can deal with the issues associated with the additions and remodels of homes.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Lloyd as to the percentage of the citizen involvement in this process. She indicated concern with the comments that the proposal is moving too fast.
Mr. Lloyd stated that the notification of this process has been as extensive as he has seen with respect to a citizen driven initiative. He said that there have been several meetings where there have been over 100 people in attendance; however, in the neighborhood of over 1,300 residents, 100 people is a small percentage. He stated that there has been a repeated request for neighborhood involvement. Mr. Lloyd stated that perhaps when the neighborhood received the public hearing notice for a final decision they get worried. Mr. Lloyd stated that he believed that anyone who attended a Yalecrest Community Council meeting in the past thee years would have heard about the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the height restrictions were eliminated would the YCI Subcommittee still support it.
Mr. Lloyd stated that the height restrictions were the starting point and it is a quantitative way to make a difference.
Mr. Jim Webster, Chair of the Yalecrest Community Council, addressed the Commission. He referred to the question of notification of the neighborhood. He noted that he hand delivered 200 copies of an announcement regarding the YCI because he was concerns about the impacts it would have on the community, of the 200 only two people attended the meeting. He said that that may be indicative of how the community perceives the rush. He stated that he is in favor of the proposal simply because he thinks that time is a critical issue. He encouraged the Planning Commission to go forward with the proposal, with the idea of this a guideline with perhaps some flexibility.
Commissioner De Lay asked why the Board of Adjustment has been referred to tonight.
Mr. Wilde replied that often time people will apply for a variance for additions, and the Board of Adjustment has expresses concern with not having a tool to guide them in working with those issues.
Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Webster if he felt that in addition to the proposed ordinance if the community would benefit from a narrative of performance zoning. He stated that that would be a statement of intent as to what is excluded and encouraged.
Mr. Webster replied that he agreed that it would be helpful to give guidelines with respect to that.
Mr. Kirk Huffaker addressed the Commission representing the Utah Heritage Foundation, in support of the petition. He noted that the proposal will encourage the preservation of the neighborhood and stop the development that will jeopardize the character.
Mr. Les Brown, a resident of the Community, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is concerned that the ordinance falls short by not addressing the architectural integrity as well as the technical issues. He suggested that the ordinance include guidelines that would help to regulate good taste. He agreed with the comments that a project may meet the technical requirements; however, not the character.
Mr. Jim Defe, a resident of the community, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal because the neighborhood is deteriorating everyday. He said that this proposal has been discussed for the past three years, and it is time to act.
Mr. Ben Attridge, a resident of the community, addressed the Commission. He indicated concern with the garage restrictions. He has submitted plans to the City for his garage addition and he believed that under the current requirements he will be able to complete the addition; however, under the proposed restrictions he could not.
Mr. Gibson addressed the commission saying that the YCI Subcommittee has studied the height limits and there are no restrictions on the functionality of the space. He stated that the whole purpose of the proposal was to impose limits that affected as few houses as possible. He referred to the garages of homes in the 1500 East and 900 South circle, specifically noting Mr. Attridge and Ms. Nichols’ homes which are all below grade garages and have been accommodated by the proposal. Mr. Gibson noted that the intent was to implement guidelines to preserve the character of the neighborhood, and they would never try to regulate good taste. Mr. Gibson referred to the question of whether the ordinance would be supported without the height restrictions, saying that he did not see reason to exclude that portion because it virtually affects no houses in the area.
Mr. Paterson stated that over 2,400 public notices were sent out for the public hearing this evening, as well as the open house notices.
Commissioner Scott referred to the comments that the ordinance is a good starting point but should extend further. She asked if Mr. Gibson agreed with that comment and that design guidelines should be implemented later.
Mr. Gibson stated that it is a good starting point, and will not limit a person’s property rights. He stated that when design guidelines were discussed it was difficult to make a decision as to the appropriate design which was why it was not included in this petition.
Mr. Wilde added that when the City discussed options for this proposal, one of the discussions was to implement design guidelines. Staff found that they could not create discretionary requirements without having a discretionary review body. The Administration directed Staff to develop standards that were quantitative and could be processed through an over the counter permit. Staff did not ever intend to provide assurance of the quality of a home; the basic intent was to define the size of the box and treatment on the front façade.
Mr. Paterson referred to the garage discussion of the homes along 900 South and 1300 East. He stated that the special exception process that is noted in the staff report is based upon the Applicant meeting the front yard setback. He noted that the ordinance does not currently allow a garage to encroach on the front setback. He noted that due to variation of the neighborhood and the lots, it would be impossible to develop standards that would fit all situations.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-34
Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report and positive comments presented this evening, that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-02-34 to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by creating the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District and amend the Zoning Map by applying “YCI” to the Yalecrest Community as proposed.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Muir stated that he believed that the area needs an overlay district, and that the intent behind the current proposal was right. He said that he believed that Planning Commission and City Council need to carefully consider the proposed document because it will become a template for other communities. Commissioner Muir said that he believed that to some degree, community investment has been discouraged. He said that the City needs to be careful in accommodating investment in our communities which implies a certain amount of transformation. Commissioner Muir stated that he believed that the Commission has an obligation to create opportunities for the transformation of our communities and lifestyles. He suggested tabling the petition and remanding it back to the Planning Commission Subcommittee to further analyze the following criteria: maximum height limits; mansard and gable roof definitions; front yard setbacks; width of the attached garages; and accessory structures. Commissioner Muir stated that he did not think that the criteria for defining structural height vis-à-vis slope have been clearly identified. He said that he interpreted the proposal to mandate 8 foot ceilings and lower slopes in roof types. Commissioner Muir said that the proposal did not clearly define mansard and flat roof designs as well as the point at which they would be measured from. He stated that the proposal excludes gable roofs with the exception of one story homes. He wondered if the intent is to discourage gable roofs which he felt may be appropriate in this neighborhood. Commissioner Muir stated that he believed that it is problematic to apply one solution to the entire neighborhood in terms of the front yard set back. He said that there needs to be another formula for those areas that are greatly impacted by topography. Commissioner Muir stated that he believed that the restrictions on attached garages located in the front of a house should be more restrictive. He suggested that the ordinance require that garages be at least three feet back from the front of the house, deemphasized from the house. He said that he did not understand the intent behind the 8.5 foot door height requirement of accessory structures. He noted that 9.5 foot would be more accommodating to various things that one may want to park in the back of their home such as: a sailboat or a motor home. Commissioner Muir said that he is not convinced that the same criteria for the front of the home should be applied to the back yard. He referred to the attached garage requirement saying that he is not convince that the proposed 50 percent rule should be applied to garages that are below the main level of the house. Commissioner Muir suggested that the ordinance encourage homes with attached garages or garages that face the street to explore tandem parking solutions. Commissioner Muir suggested that the ordinance include different models of the ordinance showing what it will mandate as well as an amplified narrative defining the intent of the proposal to guide people as they develop their properties.
Chair Chambless called for the question.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted in favor. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Seelig voted against.
Chair Chambless suggested further discussion before casting his vote.
Commissioner Diamond encouraged the Commission to consider Commissioner Muir’s comments, saying that as an Architect he also feels that the proposal warrants more definition, and it would be improved by further dialogue with the Planning Commission Subcommittee.
Commissioner De Lay stated that she is in favor of the current proposal because there has been a lot of research and many Architects have worked to develop the proposal. She said that she believed that the proposal works for the Yalecrest neighborhood.
Commissioner Diamond stated he agreed with that; however, there are fine-tuning issues such as the roof heights that need further definition before it moves forward. He felt that the current ordinance may be problematic.
Commissioner Noda stated that she agreed that there has been a substantial amount of community input, and the proposal needs to move forward. She felt that if there are issues that arise then the ordinance may be modified later.
Commissioner Scott stated that she agreed with the Commissioners who approve of the proposal. She said that she feels strongly that the proposal should move forward and there seems to be energy in the community so that they will pursue design features in the future.
Chair Chambless called for the question regarding the motion on the table to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the request. He stated that he understands the concerns and need to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Nay”. Chair Chambless voted “Aye”. Four Commissioners voted in favor, three Commissioners voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 410-665, by Harper Contracting, represented by Bruce Parker, requesting to construct a concrete batch plant at approximately 2401 North Redwood Road (rear) in a light industrial “M-1” zoning district.
This item was heard at 8:27 p.m.
Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey presented the petition as written in the staff report. She referred to an aerial photo and identified the site. Ms. Coffey noted that several City Department’s and governmental agencies were contacted regarding the proposal. Ms. Coffey noted that the following were opposed to the project: Public Services Department, including the Parks Department; Policy and Budget Department, including the Environmental Advisor; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; State Wildlife Resources; and the State Parks Department. Ms. Coffey read the comments of the said agencies as noted in the staff report. Ms. Coffey stated that according to the Army Corps. Of Engineers, there are wetlands on the proposed site, and to develop the site the Applicant would have to work them. Ms. .Coffey noted that other departments that responded either had no objections or they will monitor the site as it proceeds to ensure that the project does not violate any regulations.
Ms. Coffey noted that the Rose Park Community Council submitted a letter of support which was included in the staff report. Council Member Carlton Christensen submitted a letter in opposition and suggested that the west side of Redwood Road be rezoned to Business Park “BP” in this area. Ms. Coffey noted that Staff received letters from various members of the community which were forwarded to the Commission and are retained in the public record. She noted that those letters indicate support for the proposal and that they are opposed to the possibility of rezoning the site.
Ms. Coffey stated Staff’s opinion is that the proposal meets the following criteria for conditional use: the minimum site requirements for the “M-1” zone; access to the property; internal circulation is appropriate; adequacy of public utilities; and the consistency of architectural and building materials.
Ms. Coffey stated that in Staff’s opinion the proposal does not comply with the following regulations: The Master Plan policies: The future land use map identifies this area for business park uses to protect the environment and improve the Redwood Road Gateway into the City. The plan also includes a policy to protect existing wetlands from development. The proposed industrial use on the property is not compatible with adopted policies of the City including the future land use of Business Park, protection of the Jordan River Parkway environment for wildlife open space and recreational uses, protection of existing wetlands on the site and beautifying the gateway into the City. As noted by various governmental entities, the use is not compatible with the wildlife environment and will negatively impact properties purchased with public funding for use by the public for open space, recreational enjoyment and environmental protection. She added that Staff is of the opinion that the proposal does not meet the requirement for appropriate buffering. Although the Applicant is proposing to provide the minimum required landscaped setback as well as place the operations of the facility as far east on the property as possible, the impacts to the river and its environment, including wildlife habitat, will not be adequately buffered. Ms. Coffey stated that Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use will have a net cumulative adverse impact on the immediate area due to its negative impacts to the river environment and the public investment in the Jordan River Parkway and proposed regional recreational facility planned for the property immediately west of the river.
Ms. Coffey stated that based on the findings of fact noted in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the conditional use request for the proposed concrete batch plant at 2401 North Redwood Road (rear- parcel #08-15-100-012). Specifically, the proposal should be denied because it is not consistent with the adopted policies of the City, adverse impacts to the Jordan River and its environs cannot be adequately mitigated and the use will have a net cumulative adverse impact on the immediate area as well as the City as a whole.
Ms. Coffey stated the Staff further recommends the Planning Commission request the City’s Economic Development Department work with the Applicant to identify an appropriate location within the City to locate the proposed batch plant. Furthermore, Staff recommends the Planning Commission initiate a petition to rezone properties along the western side of Redwood Road from approximately 1700 North to the northern City Boundary from Manufacturing “M-1” to Business Park “BP” in keeping with the 2001 Rose Park Small Area Master Plan, as requested by Councilmember Christensen.
Mr. Bruce Parker, Principal of Planning and Development Services, addressed the Commission. He noted that the Commission received two additional booklets which include photos of the site as well as a summary of and response to the environmental issues. A copy has been retained for the public record. Mr. Parker noted that the site was previously used as an auto wrecking yard, which has lead to the unpleasant existing state. Mr. Parker referred to the site plan and stated that no water used on the site will affect the City’s storm drains or the river. He stated that they will implement a water reclamation process. He said that they are proposing to improve the state of the site by the proposal for paving, lighting, landscaping, and additional security. He stated that the proposed development is an allowed use in the “M-1” zone. Mr. Parker said that they feel that they comply with the purpose and intent of the master plans. He said that they feel that it is necessary for the City to go through the appropriate process and engage in a rezone before imposing the new zone on the property. He said that they believe that they can achieve the goals of the master plans by implementing the proposed project.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Ms. Kadee Neilson, Westpoint Community Council Chair, addressed the Commission. She noted that she submitted a letter to the Commission. She noted that there are properties located two blocks away from the site with great concerns regarding the amount of noise that the proposed plant may generate. She stated that the community is opposed to the project. She felt that the proposal is out of place and not what the community has envisioned for this site. Ms. Neilson stated that there is great concern with the protection of the wetlands. She mentioned concern with the acid that will be use to wash the trucks which may be carried to the adjacent properties. She asked that the Commission deny the proposal.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the photos and asked if the community is working to clean up the site.
Ms. Neilson stated that they have worked to clean up the roadway along Redwood Road.
Mr. Mike McKee, a representative of TNT Auction Property, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposal. He said that they believe that the proposal will be a great improvement to the area. He indicated that they are opposed to rezoning the property to Business Park.
Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee, addressed the Commission. She noted that the request does not comply with the Open Space Master Plan, and MOSAC is requesting that the Commission deny the request. She said that they support the Staff recommendation that the Community Development Director be contacted to work with the Applicant to find a more suitable location for the proposed batch plant. She said that MOSAC is in support of rezoning the site to Business Park.
Ms. Eileen Hall, an adjacent resident, addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal. She felt that the impacts of this proposal will be substantial on the adjacent Jr. High School. She stated that she is concerned with the values of the homes, neighborhood, and the expense that has been put into the area. She said that she is concerned with the additional dust and noise that may be produced by the plant. Ms. Hall indicated support to rezone the property Business Park which would allow a more appropriate use for the site.
Mr. Michael Liska, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He stated that the property has been blighted for a while, and the proposal will be a great improvement. He stated that the current status of the property is unsafe, if the proposal is approved it be improved and policed. He stated that he opposes the rezoning of the site to Business Park.
Mr. Lawnie Mayhew, representative of Harper Contracting, addressed the Commission. He noted that Harper has always conducted business safely. He stated that he has been involved in a multitude of environmental projects including the current proposal. He stated that the environmental protection is a priority to Harper. He asked for the Commission’s support in allowing the Applicant to proceed with the project.
Ms. Cindy Kovene, a Westpoint resident, addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal. She reiterated that the proposal is not the use envisioned for the proposed site. She felt that the proposal would dramatically stunt the efforts to create more retail in the area.
Mr. David Billings, an adjacent property owner of the affected area, addressed the Commission stating he represented the majority of the business owners of the west side of Redwood Road near the site. He stated that the proposal would help improve the area and is in complete compliance with the current adjacent uses. Mr. Billings stated that he did not believe that the proposed site would be an ideal location for retail, and a rezone would be strongly opposed.
Chair Chambless noted that the following people were in attendance but did not wish to speak:
Mr. Jim Cortese, an adjacent resident who is in support of the request.
Ms. Jennifer Mahina, an adjacent resident who is in opposition of the proposal due to the proximity in relation to the two schools.
Ms. Kelly Anderson, an adjacent resident who is in opposition to the proposal due to the potential for an increase in traffic in a residential area, and because the use may limit the possibility for retail.
Mr. Brian Buck, Vice-President of JBR Environmental Consultants of Sandy Utah, addressed the Commission. He urged the Commission to review the document submitted this evening which responds to the environmental issues. He stated that the impacts of the noise, light, dust, and environmental impacts have been studied and mitigated. He stated that the County Health Department has provided a letter indicating that they do not believe that the noise will be an issue. He stated that they have processes in place to mitigate to dust issues. Mr. Buck stated that the site will be cleaned and used as a viable business which will improve the area. He stated that Harper has addressed all of the environmental concerns expressed; they have also committed to improving the natural habitat of the wetlands, and recreational potential of the Jordan River Parkway.
Mr. Doug Griffiths, Attorney representing Harper Contracting, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Commission’s responsibility is to evaluate the proposal based on “M1” standards. He noted that in reviewing a petition for a conditional use permit the Commission must determine as to whether there is substantial evidence to deny the petition. The Commission cannot legally deny the petition without such evidence. He stated that if the Commission reviewed the information submitted this evening they would find that there is substantial evidence to grant the request.
Commissioner Scott inquired how many batch plants does Harper currently have.
Ms. Dawn Whaley, Environmental Analyst and Project Manager of JBR Environment Consultants, addressed the Commission. She stated that there are three plants in operation, one; at 5400 South and 6200 West, at that location there is also a temporary plant which is comparable to the proposed plant. There is a plant in Tooele at the Envirocare facility. A plant is also located at the Daybreak, subdivision project in Sandy.
Commissioner Scott asked if the trucks are washed at the locations of the plants. She indicated concern with the acidic wash for the trucks.
Ms. Whaley stated that the wash is slightly acidic. The proposed site has a truck wash out area, and the wash will not be tracked out into the roadway. She stated that they will be recycling the water in compliance with the national environmental regulations.
Commissioner De Lay asked what area the proposed site is expected to service.
Mr. Parker replied that the proposed location is central to all of the other plants as well as the freeway.
Commissioner Muir asked if the Applicant owned the property when the Master Plan was created in 2001.
Mr. Parker replied that they did not own the property at that time. He stated that they do not believe that the master plan applies to the proposal because the business park designation has long since expired.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scott stated that she appreciates what Harper contributes to the community. She stated that she could not with certainty say that the proposed use will not have a negative impact on the community.
Motion for Petition No. 410-665
Commissioner Scott made a motion based on the finding of fact noted in the staff report, and discussion this evening, that the Planning Commission deny the conditional use request for the proposed concrete batch plant at 2401 North Redwood Road (rear- parcel #08-15-100-012). Specifically, highlighting item K of the findings of fact, because the requested action is not consistent with the adopted policies of the City, adverse impacts to the Jordan River and its environment cannot be adequately mitigated and the use will have a net cumulative adverse impact on the immediate area as well as the City as a whole.
Commissioner Scott made a strong recommendation that the City’s Economic Development Department work with the Applicant to identify an appropriate location within the City to locate the proposed batch plant.
Commissioner Seelig noted finding B as well, in support of denying the request. She stated that the Commission has an obligation to look to the future development of the surrounding area. She felt that the community has contributed to the process to formally outline their vision for the area in the master plans.
Commissioner Muir stated that he is hesitant to couple a rezone request with this petition due to the lack of infrastructure improvement to support that type of development in the area.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 490-04-15, by Harper Contracting, represented by Bruce Parker, requesting preliminary subdivision approval for a proposed one lot minor subdivision which will reconfigure three existing property parcels in order to obtain frontage for an existing land locked parcel at approximately 2401 North Redwood Road (rear).
This item was heard at 9:50 p.m.
Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey presented the petitions as written in the staff report. She stated that the Applicant is seeking approval of a one lot minor subdivision which would reconfigure three existing parcels in order to obtain access to an existing landlocked property located directly west of the SM Foreign Auto Salvage Yard located at 2401 N. Redwood Road. She noted that the relevant City Departments did not have objections of the proposed subdivision, and their comments are included in the staff report.
Ms. Coffey stated that Staff is of the opinion that although the site is not appropriate for a batch plant use the subdivision is necessary to provide frontage on Redwood Road to allow the site to become a developable lot.
Ms. Coffey stated that based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant preliminary minor subdivision approval for the reconfiguration of 3 parcels into one lot, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bruce Parker, representative of Harper Contracting, addressed the Commission. He stated that they are requesting to assemble three lots under one property description. He said that they agree to comply with the conditions set forth in the staff report. He stated that, consistent to the previous discussion, the Applicant objects to the specific policies relating to the property in the Master Plan.
Ms. Kadee Neilson, Westpoint Community Council Chair addressed the Commission. She stated that she does not have objections or concerns with the Subdivision request.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 490-14-15
Commissioner Scott made a motion based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission grant preliminary minor subdivision approval for the reconfiguration of 3 parcels into one lot, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with and satisfaction of all departmental comments and requirements as noted in the attached documentation in Exhibit 1.
2. Final Plat or final “notice of minor subdivision” approval and development approval authority shall be granted to the Planning Director or his designee.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Diamond asked to strike the language in the staff report which relates to the concrete batch plant.
Commissioner Scott accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Noda accepted the amendment as well.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m.