SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Diana Kirk, Richard J. Howa, Kimball Young, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gilbert Iker and Aria Funk. Jim McRea was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Craig Hinckley, Doug Dansie and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Becker. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that the Staker/Hughes issue on the agenda for this meeting could likely end up in litigation and suggested the Planning Commission enter into Executive Session in order to be briefed by the City Attorney's Office on this matter. Mr. Wright stated that in order to enter into Executive Session, a two-thirds vote in favor of such action would be needed.
Mr. Iker moved to have the Planning Commission enter into Executive Session. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Ms. Funk voted “ Aye." Mr. Howa and Ms. Kirk declared conflicts of interest and did not vote on the matter. Mr. McRea was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed and the Planning Commission went into Executive Session.
Present from the Planning Commission during the Executive Session were Ralph Becker, Gilbert Iker, Ann Roberts, Judi Short, Kimball Young, Aria Funk. Richard J. Howa and Diana Kirk were present but did not participate in the discussion or the vote.
Also present were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Sandra Marler, City Attorney Roger Cutler, Assistant City Attorney Bruce Baird, Staff Planners Craig Hinckley, Doug Dansie, Doug Wheelwright, Director of Community & Economic Development Michael Danielson and Janice Jardine of the City Council
Staff. A tape of the Executive Session is on file in the Planning Office to be reviewed only with approval from the City Attorney's Office.
Following the discussion with Mr. Bruce Baird, Mr. Young moved to end the Planning Commission's Executive Session and to convene the regular Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Ms. Funk voted “Aye." Mr. Howa and Ms. Kirk did not vote on the matter. Mr. McRea was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Howa moved to approve the minutes of November 2, 1995 as presented. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted “Aye”. Mr. McRea was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-82 by Beckstrand and Associates requesting Salt Lake City to vacate Block 1. View City Subdivision and grant preliminary plat approval for two lot minor subdivision located at approximately 2120 South 1300 East in the Commercial Sugar House Business District “CSH BD" zoning district.
This item was canceled by the petitioner and was not heard by the Planning Commission at this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-81 Robin Anderson for Salt Lake City Engineering requesting Salt Lake City to close and declare surplus a portion of 800 West Street at approximately 1350 South to allow realignment of 800 West in order to combine the surplus property with the Glendale Youth Center site. to zone the property Public Lands “PL": and to grant preliminary plat approval for the Glendale Youth Center site.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. David Crowley, an abutting property owner, stated that one of their west accesses to their property was now about two feet below street level and in an attempt to deal with that, a load of dirt had been dumped there and compacted. Mr. Crowley stated that they were not able to use this access and requested remediation occur to free up this access point. He stated that they were concerned about additional blockage to their access points due to construction of this project. Mr. Crowley added that their property was at the low end of this street and often experienced flooding problems and requested a better drainage solution be established in order to prevent damage to their property.
Mr. Becker asked if the issues raised by Mr. Crowley had been addressed.
Mr. Wheelwright responded that the curb and gutter would be installed on both sides of 800 West from California Avenue north 660 feet but added that that was the limit of the funding this year.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that Mr. Crowley's property was located beyond the point where the construction funding was guaranteed for this year. Mr. Wheelwright suggested Mr. Crowley work with the project engineer and the City Engineer to resolve his access problems.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission could require these issues be addressed as part of the plat approval process.
Upon receiving no additional requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 400-95-81 based on the analysis contained in the staff report and directed the Planning Staff to get together with Mr. David Crowley to address the drainage and access issues.
Mr. Young seconded the motion.
Ms. Funk asked if it would be appropriate to set a time frame for the issues raised by Mr. Crowley to be addressed.
Mr. Howa said he would welcome an amendment to the motion stating that the drainage and access issues be addressed during this construction season.
Ms. Funk suggested an amendment to the motion that the drainage and access issues raised by Mr. Crowley be addressed during this construction season.
Mr. Howa and Mr. Young accepted the amendment to the motion and the second. Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted “ Aye". Mr. McRea was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 400-95-78 by Spectrum Development Corporation requesting Salt Lake City to amend Lots 49 and 50 of the Benchmark Subdivision located at 2383 Scenic Drive in a Foothill Residential “FR-3" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Kent Burningham, representing Spectrum Development Corporation, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lorin Brown, representing the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Community Council, stated that they were in support of this project. Mr. Brown stated that they felt this was a self-imposed hardship and they hoped variances would not be sought for this property.
Mr. Craig Mariger, an abutting property owner, stated that he was in support of this request in order to properly subdivide the lots in question. He stated that he was not in favor of any variances being granted for the new lot but wanted to make his own property line legal.
Mr. Becker read a letter from Mr. Paul Drecksel, an abutting property owner, stating that he vigorously opposed this request unless no variances would be granted with respect to zoning and construction ordinances and unless the change in lot lines would not affect the maximum building height. The letter also expressed concern that a change in lot lines would allow the owner to build its home or driveway closer to Mr. Drecksel's property than would normally be allowed. A copy of this letter is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker said it was his understanding that the height restrictions would not be changed.
Mr. Wilde stated that the remaining lot would be in compliance with current standards in terms of lot area and street frontage. Mr. Wilde stated that there was no expectation that the creation of this lot would create a hardship or necessitate a variance. He explained that no future property owner would be precluded from applying for a variance, however.
Mr. Sial, a resident in the area, stated that he did not understand what the proposal entailed.
Mr. Becker gave a brief outline of the proposal to Mr. Sial.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 400-95-78 based on the analysis contained in the staff report. Mr. Howa seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted "Aye". Mr. McRea was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Consider a recommendation for rezoning and reclamation plan approval of the Staker/Hughes property from Open Space “0S" to Extractive Industries “EI" zoning districts pursuant to a City Council Motion of Intent and the Transitional Regulations passed as part of the Zoning Rewrite Project on April 4. 1995. Subject property is located east of the current Beck Street gravel operations. within the west half of Section 13. T.I.S. RIW. SL B&M.
Mr. Howa and Ms. Kirk declared conflicts of interest relative to this matter and left the meeting at this time. They did not participate in the vote or the discussion.
Mr. Becker stated that he had been interested in this matter for a long period of time and turned the position of Chair over to Mr. Young for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Wright gave a brief history of the property in question and stated that this issue had come to the City's attention during the completion of the Zoning Rewrite process. Mr. Wright stated that representatives of Staker/Hughes had come to the final hearings on the Zoning Rewrite and informed the City that they had purchased additional property in the area with the intent to extract gravel products from the property. He stated that the staff had not been aware of their purchase of the property and had recommended zoning this property Open Space “OS". Mr. Wright stated that the City Council had given this matter extensive consideration and had decided to withhold a final decision on this property and place a temporary zoning classification of Open Space for a period of six months. Mr. Wright stated that the staff had been directed to study this matter during the six month period and make a recommendation upon the completion of their analysis. He stated that the staff had requested an extension to that six month time frame and had been given until the end of December/ 1995. He explained that the City Council would be making their decision on this matter at their December 21, 1995 meeting. Mr. Wright stated that this was a very complex planning issue involving a balance between environment and economic development issues, between property rights/ case law, preservation of the foothills, and transportation corridor issues.
Mr. Wheelwright gave a slide presentation demonstrating several different views of the property in question and the surrounding properties.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation. Mr. Hinckley stated that the staff report had indicated that the City did not have an official position on the proposed Bountiful Boulevard. He said that statement needed to be corrected, that the City did have an official position on that matter. Mr. Hinckley said the City would prefer to concentrate its efforts on the western transportation corridor rather than on Bountiful Boulevard. Mr. Hinckley said the City felt it would be more cost effective to do so and would also serve a greater number of people. He added that the City understood the interests of the people of Bountiful and North Salt Lake and did not want to eliminate Alternative #2 of the Bountiful Boulevard proposal if those two jurisdictions and/or the developers could obtain the financing for that road. Mr. Hinckley stated that the staff would recommend that the reclamation plan be modified so that excavation did not take place within the projected Alignment #2 for the proposed Bountiful Boulevard. He stated that in fairness to the property owner, the staff did not feel this condition should be left open-ended but rather, should be reevaluated in about five years. Mr. Hinckley stated that if it should be determined not to construct Bountiful Boulevard, the condition should be waived at that time.
Mr. Young asked how the bonding requirements compared to State Division of Oil, Gas and Mining requirements. Mr. Wright explained that that division did not regulate the reclamation of sand and gravel operations. Mr. Wright stated that the fact that the state did not regulate sand and gravel was somewhat at the heart of this issue of the City wanting to gain control over ensuring reclamation plans for these kinds of properties.
Ms. Funk asked what would happen if technology changed and the mining of this property were not necessary. She expressed concern that there was no language in the reclamation plan that set a deadline for that reclamation to commence if the mining were to cease for some reason. Ms. Funk stated that the assumption
seemed to be that excavation would take the next forty to fifty years and had not taken technological advances into consideration.
Mr. Hinckley stated that the Lakeview site would probably commence on its reclamation plan during the next ten years starting at the top of the mountain and working down.
Mr. Wright responded that some declaration of closure language could be added to the reclamation plan dealing with the chance that excavation of the mountain might not take as long as anticipated.
Mr. Becker asked what the current master plan called for in this area.
Mr. Wright responded that the Capitol Hill Master Plan was in the process of being updated. Mr. Wright stated that the approved master plan made some references to the gravel operations along Beck Street in recognizing their existence. Mr. Wright stated that the master plan goals related to reclamation efforts that once excavation ended, the sites should be reclaimed. Mr. Wright stated that the zoning map for this area recognized it for industrial uses and the Beck Street Visionary Gateway Plan, although not an adopted document, addressed this area and recognized that a high bench reclamation plan would probably be the only feasible reclamation possibility for this area.
Mr. Becker asked how this property had been zoned prior to the temporary designation as Open Space in the Zoning Rewrite process. Mr. Wheelwright stated that from 1 977 until 1995 the area from Beck Street to approximately 1 000 feet east of Beck Street had been zoned Industrial “M-1 " and then the property became Residential “R-1/F-1" until the boundary of the publicly owned land which was zoned Preservation “P-1". Mr. Wheelwright stated that the land proposed for expansion had been zoned Residential “R-1/F-1" from 1977 until 1995, that none of the expansion area had been in the industrially zoned property.
Mr. Becker asked if the Site Development Ordinance applied to this area.
Mr. Wheelwright responded that the Site Development Ordinance had been adopted in 1977 and imposed a requirement for special studies prior to subdivision approval and had established the foothill overlay zone. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Site Development Ordinance had been amended in 1981 by the City Council and at that time the 40% slopes, cut and fill requirements and geometric street design requirements were imposed. Mr. Wheelwright added that the Site Development Ordinance had been expanded to address independent building sites that were not subdivisions and were under the control of the Chief Building Official. Mr. Wheelwright stated that Chapter 5 dealt with regulation of quarries and engineering surcharges under the jurisdiction of the City Engineer, creating a fragmenting of responsibilities relative to jurisdiction of quarries. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the triggers for the special studies requirements were tied to foothill or preservation zoning classifications which did not exist in the newly adopted Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wheelwright stated that, therefore, it was questionable whether the Site Development Ordinance would apply to this type of activity. He stated that the Site Development Ordinance would have to be amended and brought into conformity with the new Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Becker stated that the Site Development Ordinance would still be in effect even though it needed to be amended. Mr. Becker asked if the majority of the slopes in this area exceeded 40%.
Mr. Wheelwright responded in the affirmative but added that there were some benches that were relatively flat.
Mr. Becker asked what the height of the high wall was at this time.
Mr. Hinckley stated that the highest point at this time was about 600 feet and that it would reach about 1000 feet at the highest point, if the expansion were approved, after excavation was completed.
Mr. Becker asked how wide the bench was that was currently being requested to be included in the excavation site and how much of that bench would be consumed in the excavation process.
Mr. Hinckley stated that the bench was about 600-700 feet wide and that approximately half of it would be taken by the excavation.
Mr. Becker asked if the bench looked like it might be suitable for residential development if that were a preferred use. Mr. Hinckley stated that if utilities and other public services could be provided, it would likely be suitable for residential development. Mr. Becker stated that the staff report had not addressed impacts on the area from Beck Street and asked if any information was available on what those impacts might be relative to traffic and accidents.
Mr. Wright responded that the Beck Street Visionary Gateway Plan addressed those issues and raised the issue of trying to control ingress/egress issues of trucks onto Beck Street. Mr. Wright stated that the staff would support a direction from the Planning Commission to study this matter in greater detail. In answer to Mr. Becker's question relative to the zoning history of this area, Mr. Wright stated that the zoning of this area prior to 1977 had been industrial to about 1000 feet back and residential on the upper bench areas.
Mr. Val Staker, one of the petitioners, gave a brief history of their involvement with the Zoning Rewrite process and the temporary designation of Open Space for this area until it could be studied further. Mr. Staker stated that the strategy agreed upon had been to work with the City to develop a reclamation plan in exchange for favorable consideration for the property to be zoned Extractive Industries “EI". He stated that the reclamation plan had been completed and they were requesting approval of that plan at this time. Mr. Staker stated that a reclamation plan was not required under the Extractive Industries classification but they had agreed to develop one in the spirit of being a good neighbor. He reminded everyone that the Open Space designation had been intended to be temporary until an agreement had been reached relative to a responsible reclamation plan.
Mr. Sterling Stoddard, representing Reclamation Projects, the company retained by Staker/Hughes to prepare the reclamation plan, outlined the points in the reclamation plan. Mr. Stoddard covered the issues of land ownership, historical and future land use, safety issues, geotechnical studies, hydrology issues, soils configurations, vegetation, wildlife, a demonstration of the bench development and the reclamation plan. The reclamation plan outlined by Mr. Stoddard calls for the development of the bench configuration, six inches of topsoil with seeding and plantings on benches and slopes including and above the 4,980 foot level and the final reclamation activities such as removal of the quarry facilities, regrading the pit floor and covering it with gravel and the development of a drainage basin.
Mr. Bill Gordon, representing Agra Earth and Environmental, stated that they had been retained to provide geotechnical information to the petitioners and recommendations on the high wall slopes and benching development. Mr. Gordon stated that they had provided information to the reclamation company on the types of bedrock in the area, the faulting locations and the most optimum headwall slope. He stated that the information they had provided the reclamation company had been utilized in the reclamation plan. He stated the information gathered indicated that as excavation proceeded to the east, the rock became more and more competent and that rock conditions should stay the same or even improve.
Mr. Joseph Rust, attorney for the petitioners, stated that they were in agreement with the staff report.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Elliott Lips, an engineering geologist, stated that he had reviewed the reclamation plan, the staff report and the high wall stability study conducted by Agra and that he had some questions and comments. Mr. Lips stated that the reclamation plan contained several inconsistencies such as the text on the soil discussion stated that approximately 20,000 cubic yards of soil would be salvaged but in the cost estimate section it stated that 10,300 tons of soil would be used and the conversion factor for these figures was off. Mr. Lips stated that if the 20,000 cubic yards were converted, it would actually be 45,000 tons which meant that their cost estimate was off by about $100,000. Mr. Lips stated that he had concerns that topsoil could be placed on a 1.5:1 slope and the plan did not discuss how this could be accomplished or what the likelihood for success of the plan would be if they were not able to place the topsoil on those slopes. Mr. Lips suggested the reclamation plan be reviewed by an independent reviewer who would be capable of assessing the potential for success of these components. He suggested the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining be consulted due to their experience with reclamation plans. Mr. Lips stated that it was unclear How AGRA had used the data they had obtained to determine the safety factors they had generated in the stability modeling. He stated that the overall modeling had determined an overall slope average of 50% over a 1000 foot distance but the overall slope had not been broken down into different segments. Mr. Lips stated that the safety factors would differ if those slopes were broken down. Mr. Lips stated that no evaluation had been done on the stability of the unconsolidated material in the transition zone at the top of the high wall. He stated that these unconsolidated materials might be unstable during seismic conditions. Mr. Lips stated that if Agra had considered site specific sources, relative to seismic issues such as the Warm Springs fault, their safety factors might be less than what they had indicated. Mr. Lips stated that several items from the Utah State Geological Survey review letter had been omitted from the staff report that he felt were pertinent to include: 1) information was insufficient to accurately evaluate slope stability and the Agra assumptions were optimistic and represented the best case scenario, and 2) the safety factors for the slope design reported by Agra at 1 .3 for static conditions and 1 .0 for seismic conditions were not adequate to imply long term slope stability. Mr. Lips said he did not feel the Planning Commission had adequate information relative to the health, safety and welfare of the public to approve this request. He asked if the Division of Air Quality had been informed of the intentions of the petitioners to expand and whether or not they had granted changes to the existing approval order that Staker was currently operating under. He asked if there would be new sources of emissions due to the expansion of this project and suggested this information be available before a decision was made to approve this request. Mr. Lips said the operations along Beck Street were not currently regulated by the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining because they fell under the exemption for the extraction of sand, gravel and rock aggregate. He stated that this was not a sand and gravel operation, but rather a mining operation that called for operations that would normally be considered to constitute mining such as the stripping of unconsolidated materials, drilling, blasting, loading, conveying, crushing and screening of hard rock. He stated that unfortunately no definition of rock aggregate had been provided in the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining rules but added that there was a proposed rule that stated that “Rock aggregate means unconsolidated material such as sand, gravel, slag or stone used for mixing with a cementation or bituminous material to form concrete, mortar, plaster or used alone as a construction material such as railroad ballast or graded fill. It does not include consolidated rock units mined and processed to obtain rock aggregate material. Mr. Lips stated that the key points in the proposed rule were the method of mining and the distinction between unconsolidated versus consolidated materials, not on the end use of the product. Mr. Lips stated that the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining had determined that the drilling, blasting and excavating of limestone to create rock aggregate by Larsen Limestone in Utah County constituted mining and had ordered them to submit a notice of intent to commence a large mining operation and a reclamation plan. Mr. Lips stated that Larsen Limestone had claimed they were exempt under the rock aggregate exemption but the Division on Oil, Gas and Mining Board had ruled that the exemptions had only been intended for operations extracting unconsolidated sand and gravel and associated larger rocks and that any mining operations such as drilling or blasting of any solid rock or bedrock would not be exempt from the provisions of the Utah Mining and Reclamation Act. He stated that this case had gone to the Utah Supreme Court on June 14, 1995 and on September 25, 1995 they had ruled in favor of the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining against Larsen Limestone. Mr. Lips stated that this might now mean the operations along Beck Street would have to submit notices of intent to commence large mining operations and reclamation plans.
Mr. Mike Danielson, Director of Community and Economic Development for Salt Lake City Corporation, stated that the economic potential for the petitioners relative to this request was in the tens of millions of dollars range and the City was concerned about a "takings" issue. Mr. Danielson stated that the City wanted to find the best solution to this problem and he believed the reclamation plan and the staff recommendation were very responsible responses to a very difficult issue.
Mr. C.D. Larsen, representing the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, stated that when the operations on Beck Street were in full operation, there was an extensive amount of dirt and soot raised. Mr. Larsen expressed concern about air quality levels and asked if the Division of Air Quality or the Salt Lake County Health Department had given their approvals for this expansion. He stated that they were also concerned about the preservation of foothill land in the area. Mr. Larsen stated that this northern gateway into our City was one of the largest and ugliest disasters he had ever seen in any city. He concluded by stating that they had been informed years ago that the current boundary would be the final boundary for the excavation plants and now the public was being informed of a new final boundary.
Mr. Walter Plumb, a concerned citizen representing property owners who owned approximately 200 acres of the bench land next to the area proposed for excavation expansion, stated that he had single-handedly led the fight against Kennecott Copper Company on the sulfur dioxide in the Valley in conjunction with the Environmental Protect Agency. Mr. Plumb stated that Kennecott had been denied a clean air permit four years ago which had resulted in a $900 million expenditure which had benefited the entire Valley. He stated that he had spent $10,000 of his own money to fight the tailings pond expansion. He said he was probably the only attorney in the room who had actually reclaimed two gravel pits. Mr. Plumb asked the staff what their hurry was to rezone this property. He stated that the same staff who had worked to produce the foothill preservation ordinances was now embracing the largest cut into a foothill in the Valley. Mr. Plumb stated that there were many other gravel sources in the Valley. He asked what gave the Planning Staff the authority or the ability to monitor a mine plan. He added that since September 25, 1995 any disturbances over five acres would now be monitored by the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. Mr. Plumb offered to place an air quality monitor on the existing Staker property for four months at his own expense in order to determine how many days they were out of compliance. He questioned why such an enormous impact on the Wasatch Front would be considered without even an air quality monitor to see if their existing operation was in compliance. Mr. Plumb stated that the reason this matter was being heard was because the attorney for the Staker/Hughes operations had contacted the City Attorney and threatened to sue the City if this request was not granted. Mr. Plumb said this was a major mine impact to the Wasatch Front. He stated that this bench was probably the single, most beautiful bench on the whole Wasatch Front and it didn't make sense to turn the finest piece of residential property left in the City into a gravel pit. Mr. Plumb stated that when this matter had originally been scheduled before the Planning Commission but had been canceled due to a quorum problem, the reclamation bond had been $250,000 and suddenly tonight, that figure had grown to $500,000. He stated that the real truth was that the reclamation amount should be closer to $20 million because it was a huge impact on the Wasatch Front. He stated that the Copper site was the only uglier site in the Valley and there simply had not been enough study on this matter to grant an approval.
Mr. Jack Balling, the Bountiful City Engineer, stated that they were concerned about the corridor for the Bountiful Boulevard or the Ensign Peak Parkway. He stated that the staff report recommended this corridor be preserved for five years until financing had been worked out and added that they were in support of that recommendation.
Mr. Stan Porter, a member of the North Salt Lake City Council, stated that he was in opposition to this request. He stated that he did not believe the existing bike path in front of Staker Paving had been imposed on this plan. Mr. Porter said he felt the City should hold out for more and was concerned the plant might basically close but due to the possibility of occasional use, the reclamation would never really occur. He stated that the air quality issue was probably one of the largest issues that had not been addressed.
Mr. Iker asked why North Salt Lake had sold this property to Staker Paving if they did not want this to happen.
Mr. Porter responded that they had been promised by Val Staker that this land would only be used as a buffer zone and they had not expected Salt Lake City to “roll over" on zoning that had been in place throughout history and change the zoning. Mr. Porter stated that North Salt Lake had maintained the rights to the existing springs on the property and he did not believe Staker could maintain those springs if this proposal was approved.
Mr. Iker stated that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission would not be hearing this matter if North Salt Lake had properly safeguarded this property to begin with.
Mr. Porter reiterated that they had been promised by Val Staker that this land would be used as a buffer and he believed Salt Lake City would be giving the petitioners too much if they did not zone this property out of the proposal and keep it as a buffer zone. Mr. Porter stated that if the land were zoned as a buffer zone, it could not be mined.
Mr. Britt Reed, a concerned citizen, stated that he had recently attended a growth summit at the Capitol Building and one of the issues they were currently investigating was how to fund and maintain open space for the future in the State of Utah. He stated that this was a piece of property already zoned as open space was being considered for a rezoning while the government was trying to figure out how to preserve open space.
Mr. Forrest McBride, a concerned citizen, stated that other than the ugliness of this area, his major concern was the air quality. Mr. McBride stated that there were days that the flying dust was so bad you could not see the vehicles causing the dust storm through the dust. He stated that the existing environmental laws were not being complied with at this time and questioned future compliance. He suggested the Planning Commission give this proposal a long, hard look.
Ms. Terry Carlson, a member of the North Salt Lake City Council, stated that the gravel pits were an appropriate use of this land many years ago but not any longer. She said the land in question was ready for development now and if we waited forty or fifty years until reclamation occurred it would constitute a wasting of valuable land which in itself would be a “taking" of property rights to develop that area. Ms. Carlson stated that just because North Salt Lake had sold this property to Staker it did not necessarily make it a gate to allow this rezoning petition. She stated that the rezoning could have been requested of North Salt Lake by Staker Paving when North Salt Lake had still owned the property. Ms. Carlson pointed out that the city of North Salt Lake had never owned the mineral rights on this property, only the land and the water rights. She stated that the sale of this property was not bearing on this issue. Ms. Carlson stated that two wrongs did not make a right and if it had been wrong for North Salt Lake to sell this land to Staker, Salt Lake City approving a rezoning was wrong and would not correct their mistake. She stated that if provision of utilities would make this land developable, then it should be considered developable because utility services were possible. Ms. Carlson stated that she also had concerns about air quality and did not believe Staker Paving had acted responsibly in their dealings. She stated that their loads reached above the tops of the beds, the trucks traveled at 60-70 miles per hour, and dirt swirled all over the place. She stated that the responses she received when she complained to them was that it cost them too much money to remedy these problems. Ms. Carlson stated that there were costs involved for the citizens of the surrounding communities, too, not just for Staker. She stated that a closer look needed to be taken relative to air quality. Ms. Carlson stated that their loads were never covered, even when they were working on government projects. Ms. Carlson stated that she was very concerned about water problems in the area. She stated that North Salt Lake owned the water rights on this land but expressed concern about the preservation of the amount and quality of this water. She stated that it wouldn't help them to have to settle this matter in court if their water supply was damaged or destroyed. She requested this project be denied.
Ms. Patricia Jeys, a concerned citizen, stated that they already had to live with a lot of dirt and dust and particulate matter in the air whenever the wind blew. She stated that on a daily basis she drove past the visual decimation of this land with no reclamation and added that she was skeptical that it ever would really occur. Ms. Jeys expressed concern about the traffic on Beck Street. She added that the residents of this area felt they had not been well represented on this matter and pointed out that this was their end of the valley and it was ugly. She stated that they did not need more of that ugliness. Ms. Jeys requested the Planning Commission deny this request and retain this land as open space.
Mr. Joseph Rust, attorney for Staker/Hughes, stated that there had been a lot of emotion and untruths expressed and that he hoped he could redirect the issues on this matter. Mr. Rust reminded the Planning Commission that there was already an existing situation, that the gravel pits already existed on Beck Street and Staker/Hughes was not the only gravel pit operation in the area. Mr. Rust stated that without the rezoning, there would be no reclamation. He stated that many people had addressed the issue of how ugly the area was and that was the very issue they would be addressing if the rezoning was approved. He stated that without the rezoning, there was no requirement for a reclamation plan in the Extractive Industries “EI" zoning classification. He said other operations in the area were already zoned “EI" and could continue to operate without any reclamation plan. Mr. Rust stated that the reclamation plan and the rezoning made this whole matter a responsible action, that would put this well-thought out and studied effort into effect. Mr. Rust stated that it was important to remember that the Open Space “OS" zoning had been placed on this property on a temporary basis with the specific purpose that if an appropriate plan could be worked out, they would change the zoning to an extraction industries area. He said we were not talking about property that had had a long history of being zoned for open space. Mr. Rust pointed out that they had shared the same zoning throughout history with the Monroe operation whose zoning had recently been changed to the Extractive Industries “EI" zoning classification. He explained, however, that for Staker/Hughes, the zoning had been changed on a temporary basis while the reclamation plan was being worked out. He added that the plan had now been worked out and it was a responsible plan. He said it covered all of the issues that had been raised tonight, that it gave interim steps and did address the water seepage and the ground water issues; it did address the issues of seismic concerns and faults. Mr. Rust suggested the concerns raised about regulatory agencies were “red herrings". He stated that Mr. Lips had stated that under a recent case of the Supreme Court that the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining had jurisdiction over this pit. Mr. Rust stated that he was the attorney who had handled this case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Associated General Contractors and the decision had been exactly opposite to what Mr. Lips had claimed. Mr. Rust said the decision had stated that there was no distinction between consolidated and unconsolidated materials. He explained that the ruling against Larsen Limestone had been on a five acre exemption ruling and had had nothing to do with the hard rock alluvial materials distinction. He said Mr. Lips had made a very serious misrepresentation and there was an exemption for sand, gravel and rock and the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining had never attempted to regulate the sand and gravel industries and had no authority to do so. He added that under the Supreme Court ruling that had just been handed down, it was very clear that they had no future authority unless the laws were changed.
Mr. Rust addressed the issue of air quality and read a letter from the Department of Environmental Quality to Staker Paving thanking them for their initiative and cooperation in dealing with the Beck Street sand and gravel operations. The letter thanked them for complying with State rules and regulations and added that Staker Paving had responded to air quality concerns in an exemplary manner and expressed hope that their competitors would use Staker as a role model in the industry. Mr. Rust stated that Staker/Hughes were leaders and went above and beyond their duties relative to air quality. He explained that this operation would not be an over night expansion but the same kind of process continuing at a steady rate as had been done in the past. He stated that there would not be ten times as much equipment and the equipment would actually be moving away from the Beck Street area. Mr. Rust stated that the reclamation plan addressed flexibility and the serious concerns that the citizens and Staker/Hughes shared relative to this matter. He said he found it interesting that the residents didn't want this operation to expand yet were willing to allow the land to be developed for homes. He stated that they were concerned for safety and aesthetics and suggested that it was through this reclamation plan that those issues would most appropriately addressed.
Mr. Kent Christiansen, the City Attorney for the City of North Salt Lake, stated that on September 5, 1995 he had written a letter to the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission outlining their concerns relative to this matter. A copy of that letter is filed in the staff report with the minutes of this case. Mr. Christiansen stated that they owned 80 acres of land in Salt Lake City and they were concerned about the impact this petition would have on that property. He pointed out that they were the largest property owner, other than the petitioners, who would be affected by this petition. Mr. Christiansen stated that they had never owned the mineral rights to this land and if they had owned them, they would have restricted the extraction of those minerals. He stated that they had reserved the water rights on the property they had sold to Staker Paving and read that agreement to the Planning Commission. Mr. Christiansen stated that through inadvertence, one of the spring lines had already been severed and added that if this rezoning occurred, their water rights would be significantly impacted. Mr. Christiansen stated that the historical zoning of this land had not been for extractive industries. He added that they had petitioned Salt Lake City in the past to disconnect their 80 acres from Salt Lake City. The response from Salt Lake City, in opposition to that request, had been that the City wanted to preserve the aesthetic skyline of the Salt Lake City jurisdictional limits and did not want any development there that would impact or impair the aesthetics of that foothill area. He stated that another reason given in opposition of that disconnection had been the preservation of the watershed. He expressed concern that mining of this area would cause those watershed protections to be lost and the aquifer would be impacted if not totally destroyed. Mr. Christiansen stated that it was the position of North Salt Lake to urge the denial of this request for a rezone and to urge the denial of this reclamation plan. He stated that the petitioners were saying that they did not have to do any reclamation and unless they were forced to do it, they would not do it; that if they were granted this rezoning they might do something in forty or fifty years that might appease some of the citizens. Mr. Christiansen stated that he felt there were too many risks involved to count on that gamble of putting a reclamation plan in place versus further expanding or moving of the gravel pit operation.
Mr. Steve Mercer, a concerned citizen, addressed the statements that had been made at this meeting that there may be an unconstitutional lltaking" that would require compensation to Staker/Hughes if a rezoning did not occur. Mr. Mercer said that claim was ludicrous and stated that if property owners were entitled to do what they chose with their properties, less there be a “taking", this Planning Commission would not exist. He explained that property owners were entitled under zoning regulations to develop their land according to those zoning regulations. He stated that his interest in this area was of an aesthetic nature and that from this bench, none of the area's development was visible. He stated that he would hate to lose this pristine atmosphere and would be no happier with the development of houses on this land. He stated that the petitioners were simply not entitled to dig away several hundred feet of the bench toward the next slope under the zoning that had existed when they had purchased this land and they did not have the right to come to the Planning Commission and demand that this occur. Mr. Mercer said he doubted that reclamation would ever really occur and that the reclamation the petitioners claimed they would be willing to do in forty or fifty years was just a pittance in relation to what they were taking away.
Ms. Robin Groeth, a concerned citizen, stated that this was a highly emotional issue for her. She stated that this bench was the only beautiful place between North Salt Lake and Salt Lake City, that the area along Beck Street was not pretty at all. She said she agreed with the other people who had spoken against this petition. Ms. Groeth stated that even though another industry had already excavated further to the east than Staker/Hughes, it had been mentioned that they were also planning to initiate their reclamation plan within the next ten years, so maybe there was hope for what they had already taken. She stated that she did not understand how the Planning Commission could allow this in the name of corporations or profit to destroy what was left of that beautiful mountainside. She requested the Planning Commission go up on that bench before they even thought about approving this request.
Speaker cards had been filled out by Mr. Robert Anderson and Mr. Russell Reed expressing their opposition to this project, though they were not present at the time they were called upon to speak. Upon ascertaining that everyone who wished to address the Planning Commission had had the opportunity to do so, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Becker asked if the springs on the property had been addressed by the staff.
Mr. Sterling Stoddard stated that he was not aware of any springs or water rights inside of the Staker property.
Ms. Funk asked the staff to respond to the State's letter on the stability of the slopes.
Mr. Hinckley stated that a copy of the letter from the Utah Geological Survey had been included in the staff report and it did express some concerns and they had recommended that there be an on-going evaluation of the slope as it was exposed. Mr. Hinckley stated that that recommendation had been included as a condition of approval for this petition.
Mr. Iker asked if the staff had addressed the issue of air quality. Mr. Hinckley stated that the staff had accepted the letter ·from the Division of Air Quality that Mr. Rust had read to the Planning Commission and had not pursued the issue any further.
Mr. Wright stated that none of the regulatory requirements would be waived or lessened in any way by an action the City might take on its land use zoning.
Mr. Becker acknowledged the amount of effort and cooperation involved in the development of the reclamation plan and added that Staker Paving had been a leader in terms of dealing with the community impacts associated with their operations and were to be commended for their willingness to step forward and exercise the kind of community spirit they had shown through this process. Findings by Mr. Ralph Becker:
Mr. Becker stated that there was a new requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that zoning should be consistent with the master plans. He stated that in this case, the Capitol Hill Master Plan was a little bit “fuzzy" relative to boundary lines between industrial and residential uses, but added that taking into account the Zoning Ordinance at the time and the lack of any recommendation to change those lines as it related to the Zoning Ordinance, and that is basically the 1 000 foot set back from Beck Street, he believed the Industrial zone had not been intended to be moved as far east as had been proposed in this effort. He said he had a serious question about whether or not a rezoning, as had been proposed by the staff, would be consistent with the master plan. Mr. Becker said he also had questions about the Site Development standards and that in the course of all of the recent changes during the Zoning Rewrite process, the clarity of how the Site Development Ordinance applied to all of the new zones remained up in the air. He said he thought it was pretty clear that the Site Development Ordinance was intended to control activities dealing with steep slopes and had been in existence since 1 981 and its intentions were pretty clear. He added that he believed they were intended to apply to corridors and we needed to pay attention to those steep slope requirements as they related to this development. Mr. Becker stated that we had heard a lot tonight about the values of the communities that we all placed on the foothills and the beauty they have and how meaningful they are for all of the communities in the region. He said that was evidenced in our master plans, in our new zoning, the open space plan and in the foothill preservation ordinance. Mr. Becker stated that a tremendous amount of effort had been expended by the City to try to address foothill development issues and while this was an industrial operation involved in this matter, he said we needed to look at it in terms of its effect on the foothills, where the greatest aesthetic impacts would occur. And the impacts affect not only the immediate vicinity but the valley and region. Mr. Becker stated that we were talking about decades of development at this site before we would experience any major mitigation of the impacts. He stated that by cutting into this slope, the sand and gravel operations would cut deeply into the bench impacting the topography more than the operations to the south. He expressed concern over the public safety issues associated with the on-going operations of the sand and gravel as someone who traveled Beck Street and experienced the high traffic hazards there. He stated that he knew transportation plans for the area were being developed by the Transportation Division and said he hoped they would be developed quickly.
Mr. Becker addressed the air quality issues that had been raised. There is a tremendous amount of soot and dirt produced by these operations, affecting road conditions and neighboring residential properties. These effects occur regardless of the strict emission controls required by air quality regulations. Mr. Becker expressed concern for “nuisance" problems that went beyond the protection provided by the air quality regulations. He said he recognized this was a delicate issue ·from the perspective of the rights and desires and business operations of Staker and Hughes and nearby property owners, but added that it was also important to nearby neighbors. Mr. Becker stated that the Utah Supreme Court case that had been mentioned earlier tonight had occurred about 30 years ago and he believed circumstances had changed significantly since that time. He stated that there was now residential property nearby and moving closer from the north and we had a different set of values and policies in place at the state and local levels that were much more oriented toward the kinds of concerns that had been raised tonight that we would not have heard about 30 years ago. Mr. Becker stated that if this development were stopped at the existing property line in terms of whether or not the rezoning request was approved, we would have a minimum of a 600-foot vertical cut in the mountain, whereas, if the rezoning occurs, the cut would be about 1 000 feet high and the visual impact from that difference would be very substantial. He stated that the reclamation plan may be close to as good a reclamation plan as we might get today in 1995. The proposal to review the reclamation plan every five years should be included in any reclamation policy. Mr. Becker stated that he was not comfortable enough with all of the technical points in these issues to be able to claim to know that anything other than what the staff had presented, in cooperation with Staker/Hughes, wasn't the best that we could come up with today. Mr. Becker stated that there were alternative sand and gravel operations in this area and throughout the Valley and region. If this operation did not realize its full potential it did not mean the Valley would run out of sand and gravel for on-going development activities. Mr. Becker stated that a number of statements had been made relative to the “takings" issue and whether or not proposed uses might involve a “takings". Mr. Becker said he was concerned that under the existing City Open Space “OS" zoning ordinance that the property owner may not be left with an economically viable use of the property and he believed this issue needed to be addressed. He said he was convinced that the proposed development and the major long term development proposal would have a tremendous impact on us and our kids long after we are gone. He said most of the people in attendance were not likely to see the reclamation and the benefits of that reclamation. Mr. Becker said the Planning Commission needed to take into account what a long-term commitment they would be making with the approval of the reclamation plan and the change in zoning.
Motion on Staker/Hughes Issue:
Mr. Becker moved, based on the findings listed above, to deny the requested zoning change from Open Space “0S" to Extractive Industries ''EI" and that as an alternative that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, a rezoning of this property to a Foothill Residential "FR-1 /43,560" zoning district. Mr. Becker said that would be consistent with the zoning that had been in place before the Zoning Rewrite Project had occurred and would allow one unit per acre. Mr. Becker stated that if his reading of the zoning map was inaccurate, the boundaries be tailored to be consistent with what the zoning had been leading up to the time of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. Mr. Becker further moved that the appropriate application of the Site Development Ordinance be applied to this property as well. Mr. Becker stated that he realized we were dealing with a piece of property that had not been thoroughly studied, not just this property but the surrounding properties, and further moved that the staff initiate a small area master plan for this area as well as the bench above this area and consider as part of that small area master plan, the appropriate boundaries and the most appropriate uses for these properties. Mr. Becker stated that he sympathized with people and shared with them the sensitivity of the undeveloped foothills and added that it was a magnificent parcel and, if possible, the City should look into acquiring this property. As part of the small area plan, Mr. Becker further moved to address the traffic issues and bike routing along Beck Street. The City should also look at how best to address the proposed Bountiful Boulevard and its connection to the City either through 1-1 5 or Beck Street, consistent with the Salt Lake City Council policy avoiding a southerly connection. Mr. Becker also moved to have the City pursue a reclamation plan, using the reclamation plan that had been presented at this meeting, to be instituted through business licensing or some other appropriate procedure. Mr. Becker addressed the recommendations that had been made to have the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining provide additional analysis of these properties and suggested that recommendation be pursued. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion.
Mr. Iker expressed concern about the ability to provide utility services to the property Mr. Becker's motion was proposing for residential zoning classification.
Mr. Iker stated that it appeared that services might be available through North Salt Lake and asked if that would involve an annexation of property.
Mr. Wright said that would have to result in a de-annexation and a disincorporation.
Mr. Becker stated that provision for utilities was one of many of the issues the small area plan would have to address.
Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Becker, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed. Mr. Young turned the position of Chairperson back over to Mr. Becker at this time for the remainder of the Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Receive public comment and consider adopting revisions to the Zoning Ordinance that was adopted in April. 1 995. Revisions include corrections of errors. minor clarifications and additions and a few minor zoning map adjustments.
Mr. Wilde stated that the first draft on the revisions to the ordinance had been circulated on October 19, 1995 and on November 2nd the draft had included the comments made by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Wilde stated that a public briefing meeting had been held on November 8, 1995 and the issues from that briefing had been included in the Planning Commission packet information. He stated that tonight they had been given an additional document detailing issues that had been raised since the November 8th briefing. Mr. Wilde stated that at this time the Planning Commission needed to deal with the few remaining sign issues, a few mapping issues, the text issues that needed minor correction and to accept the public comment.
Mr. Becker stated that he did not believe the Planning Commission needed a full briefing on the issues but suggested the staff concentrate on what had occurred since their last meeting and the Planning Commission could then ask any questions they might have from their review of the materials with which they had been presented.
Mr. Doug Dansie stated that the first issue relative to signs that needed to be addressed was the need for a maximum size on pole signs. He stated that the staff was proposing a 200 square foot maximum pole sign for a single tenant and 300 square feet maximum for multiple tenants. He stated that the second issue was freeway signs and the staff was recommending that freeways could be considered as street frontage for the placement of signs but only signs three-quarters of the maximum size allowance would be permitted for additional street frontage signs. Mr. Dansie stated that the third issue had been the length of time allowed for electronic message centers. He said the staff recommended that messages would have to come into complete view within three seconds. Mr. Dansie said the last issue that needed to be resolved was the definition of a roof sign. He stated that historically, some roof signs were actually flat signs. He said the staff proposed that on buildings higher than 1 00 feet, six square feet per lineal foot would be allowed and on buildings lower than 1 00 feet, four square feet per lineal foot.
Mr. Everett Joyce briefed the Planning Commission on the mapping issues needing to be resolved and stated that they had received a copy of the proposed mapping changes. A copy of those proposed changes is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Wilde briefed the Planning Commission on the text changes that needed to be dealt with and stated that they had received a copy of the proposed text changes. A copy of those text changes is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kirk Brimley, representing the sign industry, stated that they had worked a long time with the staff on the sign ordinance and he felt the staff had done an outstanding job. He stated that freeway signs needed to be two to three times the size of a normal pole sign in order to be read while operating a vehicle on the freeway and while trying to locate the proper address upon exiting the freeway. He recommended the freeway signs be larger than the staff recommendation. Mr. Brimley stated that they understood that as concerns came up in the future they wanted to work with the staff to resolve those issues and looked forward to the opportunity to do that.
A letter from Ms. Hermoine Jex on Capitol Hill issues was handed out to each of the Planning Commission members, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Wally Wright, a concerned citizen, stated that for over 20 years plans to construct a hotel on the Trolley Square site had been part of the master plan and the zoning was in accordance with those plans. Mr. Wally Wright stated that the hotel zoning for that site that had existed for more than 50 years no longer existed. He stated that he had been informed at one of the Zoning Rewrite briefings that that was a significant issue that would have to go through the laborious rezoning process. Mr. Wally Wright stated that in contradiction to that statement about a laborious process, within five minutes the staff had just recommended that hotel use be allowed as a text change in the industrial zone. He said he had been informed that that change had been made because hotels already existed in that zone. He stated that although no hotels existed in the Commercial Shopping “CS" zone, the Residence Inn existed within one block of Trolley Square. Mr. Wally Wright stated that with the new Salt Palace Convention Center opening within the next few months and the Olympics coming, hotels were needed in the Salt Lake area. He stated that the City would lose the taxes and benefits if the hotels located outside the jurisdiction of the City because of zoning limitations. He asked if the Planning Commission believed a hotel should be precluded from Trolley Square or if it had been an oversight. He requested the zoning be corrected to allow the hotel at Trolley Square.
Mr. Wilde stated that hotels could be allowed in the “cs" zone as permitted or conditional uses or that the Trolley Square site could be rezoned if the Planning Commission so desired. Mr. Wilde stated that not all “CS" zoning districts would be good choices for the location of hotels. Mr. Wilde stated that the staff would be working on a much shorter list of “fine tuning" items in the future and the staff could bring this matter back at that time after careful analysis of the issues involved.
Mr. Dan Woodhead, a concerned citizen, stated that his mother-in-law wanted to sell her home located at 629 North 300 West but discovered that no one would lend money on the property since it was nonconforming under the new zoning. He stated that they had taken the proposed text changes to the lender who then stated that they would be willing to lend on the property if those changes were approved by the City. Mr. Woodhead stated that they were in support of the proposed changes relative to nonconforming properties.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission had received a letter from Aspen Mortgage expressing the same sentiments relative to nonconforming properties which needed to be included in the record. A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Wilde stated that the staff had included provisions in the “CN" and “CB" zones to put single family homes into a legal, conforming status.
Mr. Darrin Ladell, a concerned citizen, stated that he had purchased the property across the street from his own in order to control the maintenance of the structure since it had become nonconforming and the previous property owner was not willing to put the money needed for maintenance into the property. He stated that the City needed to allow triplexes and fourplexes the opportunity to be maintained and fixed up by removing the nonconforming status from existing structures.
Mr. Mark Buntz, a concerned citizen, stated that he disagreed with the proposal to make triplexes and fourplexes legal, conforming uses. He stated that if the proposed zoning changes were approved, the City would have made a mockery of the “R-2" zoning and this spot zoning would lead to destruction of neighborhoods. Mr. Buntz stated that replacement of triplex and fourplex structures could increase bedroom units without increasing the parking stalls, causing future parking problems in an already parking-congested area. Mr. Buntz stated that he disagreed with the statement that lenders would not lend money on nonconforming structures. He said he had contacted five lenders who had said that would not be a problem. He added that four of those five lenders had said there would have to be a 30% down payment and one said the down payment rate might be slightly higher than 30% but they would lend on a nonconforming property. Mr. Buntz stated that he did not want the unit legalization notification process to be limited to 85 feet from the subject property since property values further away than 85 feet could be affected by such legalizations. Mr. Becker stated that the appropriate community council would also be notified of unit legalization issues.
Mr. Buntz said the proposal was to remove the community council from that process. Mr. Wilde stated that community council notification was being retained in the proposed changes.
Mr. John Anderson, a concerned citizen, expressed concern that parking requirements were too high for some areas such as Central City where the buildings had been constructed prior to the time when most people had cars. Mr. Anderson stated that property owners should be able to rebuild a triplex or a fourplex if they owned such an existing building and it were to burn down. He stated that he had lost value in several buildings he owned through down zonings and he was very unhappy about it. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like the existing triplex and fourplex buildings to be allowed to become legal, conforming structures.
Mr. Allen Parsons, a concerned citizen, expressed concern about new buildings having to meet all other zoning regulations if an existing building were to be rebuilt since side yard requirements would wipe out the property. He stated that he had owned a building before which had burned down and he had not been allowed to rebuild it and the loss had been disastrous. Mr. Parsons stated that bank notes did not go away just because a property burned down.
Mr. Becker stated that it was his understanding that property owners would not be precluded from using their property if they had a nonconforming structure destroyed, and that if the zoning was “R-1" a single family dwelling unit could be constructed as a replacement structure.
Mr. Wilde said that was correct and that if a building with a three foot side yard was destroyed, a new building with a three foot side yard could be constructed as long as the number of units within the building met the zoning regulations. Mr. Wilde stated that maybe the language in the ordinance needed to be clarified to make it understood that the footprint could be duplicated.
Mr. Wilde addressed the issue of parking requirements and stated that if a structure was destroyed that had never provided parking, the City could only go so far in guaranteeing a replacement.
Mr. Doug Jackson, representing the State Fairpark Community Council and the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils, stated that they appreciated the efforts expended by the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission during the Zoning Rewrite Project. He stated that they supported the inclusion of community council involvement in rezoning petitions.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Short moved to support the staff recommendations of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as presented in the documents dated November 16, 1995 with the exception of two issues which needed further study: 1) the Trolley Square issue and 2) Section 19-11, Illegal Conforming Two Family Dwellings, Twin Homes, and Three of Four Unit Apartments". Ms. Short said she felt the Trolley Square issue needed further study relative to how to handle the hotel issue and she was not comfortable making a decision on Section 19-11 without further study on the parking issues. Copies of the documents referred to in this motion are filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker asked if the alternative parking process was an option to solve the parking issues relative to Section 19-11.
Mr. Wilde stated that alternative parking was now handled by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Wilde stated that if the Planning Commission's recommendation was to exclude three and four unit buildings from the legal, conforming ordinance, they did not need to take action because the existing, adopted ordinance would work well for duplexes.
Mr. Wright stated that if someone tried to replace a fourplex unit and they could not provide the parking requirements, that property would have the right to go through the alternative parking process as the ordinance now stood.
Mr. Wilde said there were two issues that needed to be dealt with: 1) what would be allowed if a unit were destroyed relative to replacement, and 2) what would be allowed if a unit were demolished, though not destroyed, relative to replacement.
Ms. Funk expressed concern at the point raised by Mr. Mark Buntz that a one bedroom unit might be replaced by a two bedroom unit which would increase the need for parking but not necessarily the ability to provide the parking.
Mr. Becker asked if that statement was an accurate interpretation of the ordinance.
Mr. Wilde stated that there was no provision to limit the new square footage. Mr. Wilde explained that a fourplex consisting of one bedroom units could be replaced with a fourplex consisting of two or more bedroom units.
Mr. Becker stated that an increase in the square footage still could not encroach beyond the existing structure.
Mr. Wilde said that was correct.
Ms. Funk said they would be limited by height regulations but added that if a one story building were destroyed, a new building with more stories could be constructed.
Mr. Wilde also stated that a small building on a large lot would offer more potential for expansion. Mr. Wilde stated that encroachment could not occur into the required yard areas but explained that if no encroachment had previously existed, the new structure could be built to the new yard area requirements.
Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Becker as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Proposed Pedestrian Bridge by American Stores
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that American Stores was proposing to design and construct a pedestrian bridge across Plaza Drive on Block 57 in order to accommodate the transport of their employees from their parking structure to their office building. Mr. Wright explained said he was confident the approval of this pedestrian bridge would not set any precedents for other pedestrian bridge proposals due to the unique circumstances of this situation. Mr. Wright explained that Plaza Drive was not a publicly dedicated street and therefore, this matter would not come before the Planning Commission for their recommendation. He stated that representatives from American Stores were present at this meeting as a courtesy to the Planning Commission to explain the design of their proposal.
Mr. Becker stated that he had discussed this matter thoroughly with the Planning Staff and felt confident the approval of this particular pedestrian bridge would not be setting any precedents. He informed the Planning Commission that this project would be reviewed and possibly approved by the Redevelopment Agency Board.
Mr. Jack Yardley, the project architect, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and gave a brief description of the proposed pedestrian bridge project using briefing boards and a three dimensional model.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.