SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Max Smith, Ralph Becker, Jim McRea, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Gilbert Iker, Aria Funk, Fred Fife and Carlton Christensen.
Present "from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Everett Joyce, Joel Paterson and Ray McCandless.
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. Young. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, November 7, 1 996 as presented. Mr. Becker seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-243 by Brian Jessop requesting a conditional use for a flag lot and preliminary subdivision approval at 1683 East Atkin Avenue in a Residential “R-1/7000" zoning district.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Brian Jessop, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff report. Mr. Jessop stated that he had received letters from each of the abutting property owners in the area who were in support of this request. Those letters are filed with the minutes.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Christensen said he considered the support of the abutting property owners as a positive factor.
Mr. Paterson explained that the community council vote on this matter had been close, that many of them were concerned about traffic impacts and setting a precedent by approving this request.
Mr. Smith moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-243 and to grant preliminary subdivision approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Ms. Short voted “Nay”. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-1 02 by Salt Lake City Planning Division to declare City owned property located generally east of 272 to 282 North Canyon Road as surplus property.
Mr. Ralph Becker declared a conflict of interest on this item and left the room. He did not participate in the discussion or the vote.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Wright stated that he believed declaring this property surplus would solve the last of the problems with this subdivision.
Mr. Fife asked if there would be any kind of eminent domain or adverse effects involved in this matter.
Mr. Wright responded that he did not believe so and added that the staff believed this would clear up all of the title reports for this area.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Christensen asked if this property could only be sold to the abutting property owners.
Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-1 02, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Becker was not present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-1 03 by D. L. Rasmussen requesting an exception to the location requirements for a Class ''C" beer establishment dba "Fiddler's Elbow" located at 1063 1/2 East 2100 South in the Commercial Sugar House Business District IJCSHBD" zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case the staff recommendation.
Mr. D.L. Rasmussen, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. William Campbell, a resident of the Sugar House area, stated that he was very much in favor of this request. Mr. Campbell stated that most of the patrons would be going to this establishment for food, not just beer, and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Ms. Betsy Campbell, a resident of the Sugar House area, stated that she worked for Westminster College and added that Mr. Rasmussen was a big supporter of the College. Ms. Campbell stated that as a community, they supported this project.
Ms. Jan Haug, Chairperson of the Southeast Community Association, stated that their executive committee had met before they had received the Planning Commission agenda on this matter and they had not had a chance to review this project. Ms. Haug stated that they were very concerned about crime in this area and she was not sure this project would be as advantageous to the community as had been presented. She suggested the Planning Commission send this matter to the community councils and give the public more time to respond to the issues. Ms. Haug said this project appeared to be attractive but added that they would like to have a closer look at it.
Mr. McRea asked Ms. Haug to define their concerns and delineate what they believed the negative impacts would be.
Ms. Haug responded that they were concerned about parking, that the entrance was located in an alley, and a possible increase in crime.
Mr. McRea asked why they felt this project would contribute to those problems.
Ms. Haug stated that this area already had a tavern and some members of the community did not see this use as a positive restaurant because it would attract adults only, rather than families, since no one under the age of 21 could go into the restaurant. She said they were interested in attracting families to the businesses in this area and this project would not be compatible with that goal.
Mr. McRea requested clarification on the various beer/liquor license requirements.
Mr. Wright outlined which establishments could serve beer when minors were present and which could not.
Mr. Wright explained that
Ms. Haug was correct in that no one under the age of 21 could be served in this restaurant.
Ms. Kirk pointed out, however, that people under 21 could be served in the pizza establishment that fronted on 21 00 South which was connected to this project by the kitchen facilities.
Mr. Rasmussen stated that he had contacted Mr. Scott Kisling, the Chairperson the Sugar House Community Council, and had informed him of this request. Mr. Rasmussen said Mr. Kisling had informed him he did not think this project would be of major concern to the community council members.
Mr. Smith asked Ms. Haug if she was objecting on behalf of the community council or personally.
Ms. Haug reiterated that they had not had the opportunity to review this matter at their meeting and that she was objecting personally.
Mr. Fife asked if the community council would be able make their recommendation to the Mayor since the Planning Commission was only a recommending body on this matter.
Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative and explained that a hearing officer would hold a hearing on this matter which would be advertised in the newspaper. Mr. Wright added that the date for that hearing had not yet been set.
Mr. Fife stated that he frequented establishments of this nature on a regular basis and he did not believe it would have negative impacts on the surrounding Community. He said he did not believe the type of clientele who frequented these establishments were the kind responsible for crime in the area.
Mr. Iker pointed out that the Pinecone establishment, which was very similar to the proposed use, had existed in this area for many years and had not created problems for the community.
Mr. Dale Brewster, representing the East Valley Chamber of Commerce, stated that they worked hard to encourage property owners to improve their properties. Mr. Brewster stated that Mr. Rasmussen had greatly improved this property. He said he believed this proposal and the property improvements made could actually help lessen the kinds of crime this area was experiencing.
Mr. Brent Mabey, a resident of the Sugar House area, stated that this area definitely needed improvements but said they needed to be cautious improvements. Mr. Mabey said he had concerns about this project and felt it needed to be studied before it was approved. He requested the Planning Commission hold off on their recommendation until the residents of the area had studied this matter in greater detail.
Mr. McRea asked what he felt the residents' concerns were.
Mr. Mabey explained that he was an emergency physician and he had concerns about any establishments serving alcohol and the alcohol induced kinds of accidents that occurred on a regular basis. Mr. Mabey said there was a risk involved in this matter and it needed to be studied.
Mr. McRea asked how those risks would be evaluated. Mr. Mabey said the number of similar establishments in the area should be studied as well as traffic accidents and fights.
Mr. Mabey stated that if there was an already existing problem in any of those areas, this establishment would add to that problem.
Mr. Fife pointed out the findings of fact contained in the staff report and said he believed the kind of studies suggested by Mr. Mabey had already been done.
Mr. Mabey said he was not suggesting either approval or denial of this request, but rather, that it be studied further. He stated that once approval was given, if problems existed, it would be too late to deal with them.
Mr. Young pointed out that extensive process the City had undergone during the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project and the update of the Sugar House Business District Plan and explained that the studies done during those processes had indicated the type of studies suggested had already been done.
Mr. Mabey said he understood the Sugar House Master Plan was currently being reconsidered.
Mr. Wright explained that the updates had already been done to the business portions of Sugar House and that the ongoing studies involved the other areas of Sugar House. Mr. Wright stated that the Police Department had extensively reviewed this request and approved it.
Ms. Mary Mabey, a resident of the Sugar House area, stated that she was concerned about the amount of alcohol consumption already in existence and she did not want to see any more. She stated that even though the public would have an opportunity to address the Mayor's hearing officer on this matter, she stated that her voice would not have the same impact as the voice of the Planning Commission. She requested the Planning Commission help stop alcoholic consumption.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Petition No. 400-96-1 03:
Ms. Kirk stated that she believed the property improvements, particularly the lighting improvements, would make a significant difference to this area and moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-103 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report and to forward a favorable recommendation to the Mayor. Mr. McRea seconded the motion and added that he believed the matter had already been studied thoroughly, that the problem was not the amount of alcohol consumed, but rather, how people treated alcohol.
Ms. Funk said she was concerned any time a community council did not have an opportunity to review the proposals for their neighborhoods. She recommended the hearing before the Mayor's hearing officer not be held until the community council had had the chance to review this matter.
Ms. Kirk said she did not want that delay to be part of her motion and pointed out that the petitioner had contacted Mr. Kisling who had not been concerned about this issue and had chosen not to schedule this item for their meeting. Ms. Kirk also expressed concern that there were times the community councils did not meet for two month periods.
Mr. Wright stated that the Sugar House Community Council had a meeting scheduled for December 4th but advised that the motion not recommend the hearing be postponed until this matter had been reviewed by the community council since they had the option not to hear this matter. Mr. Joyce stated that the community council's December agenda had already been set and they could not hear this matter until January. Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission could recommend the Mayor's hearing not be held until after December 5th and the community council could then either amend their agenda or discuss this matter under “Other Business" if they were to choose to do that. Mr. Fife stated that the community councils always had the option of conducting extra meetings if they felt the need.
Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Funk said she believed the City needed to establish a policy that these kinds of issues needed to be presented to the community councils like conditional use issues were.
Mr. Wright said the staff could look at requiring community council review prior to applications of this nature being filed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-248 by AT&T Wireless Services requesting a conditional use for a cellular antenna to be located on the roof of the office building located at 675 East 500 South in a Commercial 11CS" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Maurine Bachman, representing the petitioner was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. She requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-248 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Briefing on status of Light Rail
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that the City Council had approved the Main Street location for light rail as well as the Memorandum of Understanding and all of the agreements that needed to be concluded between the City and the Utah Transit Authority. Mr. Wright stated that the UTA Board had tabled this matter until the middle of December. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission might want to participate in the dissemination of information on why Main Street was the best location for light rail.
Mr. Becker informed the Planning Commission that he was not currently involved in working with the UTA Board, though he had in the past on this project, and suggested a letter be sent to the UTA Board, from the Planning Commission, outlining the process the City had been involved in over the past seven or eight years before determining the Main Street location was the best location for the light rail project. Mr. Becker suggested the letter express that the Planning Commission had been offended that the UTA Board was attempting to supplant its hasty review of something the City had extensively studied for years. Mr. Becker added that the letter should encourage the UTA Board to support the City's recommendation.
Mr. McRea pointed out that the UTA Board had promised they would support the City's recommendation.
Mr. Becker requested the Planning Commission be provided the names and phone numbers of the UTA Board members so that those who were interested could contact them regarding this matter.
Mr. Wright stated that part of the reason the UTA Board had tabled their hearings on this matter until the middle of December had been to provide them with enough time to study the Memorandum of Understanding.
Mr. Becker moved to send a letter from the Planning Commission detailing the above comments. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Fife requested the Planning Commission be furnished copies of the letter.
Mr. Wright agreed and said those would be provided.
Update on telecommunications issue:
Mr. Wilde stated that the staff had requested the telecommunications industry not advance applications for towers and monopoles until the larger picture of impacts from the industry as a whole could be reviewed. Mr. Wilde stated that the industry had been slower in responding with their long term plans than the staff had anticipated and added that as soon as the information was made available, this matter would be studied by the subcommittee and then presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fife stated that he had attended a County Planning Commission meeting and had learned that they were opposed to colocation of uses. Mr. Wilde said it was not the answer to every situation but added that there were some circumstances where the Planning Staff believed it made good sense.
Mr. Wilde stated that the pressure in the field of telecommunications would be
shifting from the Valley to the mountains in the near future.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.