SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Acting Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey, and Planners Joel Paterson, Jackie Gasparik, and Greg Mikolash.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:42 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 Thursday, October 17, 2002
John Diamond referred to page 3, first paragraph, second sentence, and requested that the word people be replaced with Staff for clarification. The corrected sentence would read, “Mr. Diamond asked if, at the administrative hearing, the Staff would make the decision on how extreme a petition might be.” He referred to page 5, second sentence regarding the change in noticing requirements and questioned whether the noticing requirement should read 660 feet or 600 feet. He referred to the last sentence on page 5 which states that he agreed that requiring notification within 660 feet from the property line would identify the impact.” He stated that his suggestion was 300 feet, and while he did not agree to 660 feet, he did agree to notification beginning where the property line ends for owners of multiple properties. Referring to page 6, last paragraph, second sentence, he asked Mr. Daniels if he intended to say that, “the area for noticing was too shallow,” and stated that he did not believe the wording made sense. Mr. Wilde suggested amending the sentence to read, “.the area for noticing did not extend far enough.” Ms. Seelig felt the tape should be referred to and suggested that language in the tape would clarify the intent. She felt the language in the minutes should match the tape. Mr. Jonas remarked that the minutes should reflect the intent of the person speaking, even if the person mis-spoke. Mr. Daniels believed he had said shallow, but he agreed that could be confusing and accepted the revision suggested by Mr. Wilde. Referring to page 8, first paragraph and the sentencing beginning, “When the City designed 500 West .Mr. Diamond suggested that 500 West be changed to 500 West Street for clarification.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to approve the minutes of October 17 as corrected. Kay Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless and Mr. Muir abstained from the vote. Mr. Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-12, by Linda Cordova, Salt Lake City Property Manager, requesting the City to declare a portion of the 500 West right-of-way, and adjacent land, surplus and to dispose of it through a future sale. The land disposal and sale, if approved, will also require an amendment to the Gateway Land Use and Development Master Plan and Gateway Specific Plan. The site is located on the Northeast corner of 500 West and 200 South, near the Utah Power & Light power substation.
Cheri Coffey reviewed the petition in the Staff report. She explained that the master plan was originally developed with the idea of reconfiguring the substation. The substation is built in the right-of-way, and the northern portion of the north parcel was purchased with the intent of reconfiguring the substation, with the south parcel proposed for widening the street right-of-way. The southern parcel is before the Planning Commission for a street closure, and the northern parcel is requested to be declared surplus. Ms. Coffey stated that, although these matters are not required to be taken to Community Councils, the Peoples Freeway and Rio Grande Community Councils reviewed this petition. Both opposed the sale because they felt it would limit implementation of the master plan in the future. The master plan calls for the Gateway to have housing along 500 West, and the park blocks are the open space amenity for that housing. Ms. Coffey noted that the master plan specifically calls for preserving the right-of-way for the park blocks and for future subterranean commuter rail. It states that the City should acquire additional land on the east side of 500 West to accommodate development of the greenway and reserve adequate right-of-way to allow for a future underground transit corridor. Ms. Coffey noted that one purpose of the greenway is to accommodate festivals and activities on the corridor. She explained that the staff report outlines four items the City Council considers when looking at a street closure, and the Staff did not believe this request would meet items 3 and 4. Closing the subject property is contrary to the master plan, so the sale of the street would require a master plan amendment. Ms. Coffey reported that the applicable City departments reviewed this petition and there were no technical objections to the sale of the street or the surplus property. The RDA comments and Staff responses are included in the staff report. The Staff finds that the street closure is inconsistent with the Gateway master plan, the proposal harms long-term implementation strategies of the master plan, there is no technical reason to prohibit the sale, and the applicable departments have no objection to the sale. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission not declare the public property adjacent to the power substation or the portion of the 500 West right-of-way as surplus and not transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close a portion of the street. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to forward a favorable recommendation, the motion should include amending the Gateway Master Plan.
Mr. Chambless asked how many Community Council members opposed the petition. Ms. Coffey stated that she did not have that information from the Peoples Freeway Council and referred to a letter from the Rio Grande Community Council indicating that the vote was unanimous in opposition.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Dan Mule, Salt Lake City Treasurer, stated that he has an interest from a bonding standpoint through the municipal building authority. He asked if it would be possible to get back the money paid for the two parcels. When the RDA purchased the McDonald properties for the purpose of reconfiguring the substation, it immediately deeded the properties to the Municipal Building Authority. When it was determined that they were not needed for the project but that the RDA needed to bury the transmission lines in the area, the Municipal Building Authority paid bond proceeds to the RDA of nearly $500,000. The City Council and RDA Board approved in their budget last year reimbursement of the $500,000 to the Municipal Building Authority. He was unsure how a decision made by the Planning Commission this evening would impact reimbursing that money.
Chair Jonas did not believe the reimbursement of money should impact the Planning Commission’s decision. Mr. Mule remarked that the RDA cannot reimburse the money until Linda Cordova provides them with a deed to the property, and Ms. Cordova cannot provide the deed until the property is declared surplus.
Mr. Wilde explained that the Staff went to the City Attorney to see if this was something the Planning Commission needed to address. He was told that the Planning Commission needs to address this sale the same as any other. However, the City Council will make the final decision due to the financial issues involved. The Planning Commission need only advance a recommendation as to whether these properties should be retained. Chair Jonas clarified that the Planning Commission only addresses land use issues and not financial issues.
Ms. Funk asked if it would be possible to make a recommendation to sell part of the property so they could retain the right-of-way. Mr. Wilde explained that, in order to free up the right-of-way, the substation portion would have to be relocated. Ms. Coffey stated that she did not believe they could sell off part of the property and still reconfigure the substation in the future.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Funk felt the property should be retained and that they should not do anything to cut off options for the future. One reason this was reconfigured was to save money, and she favored denying the request.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-12
Arla Funk moved that Petition No. 400-02-12 for a street closure and declaration of surplus property at 500 West and 200 South be denied based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and that the best land use for this parcel would be as initially planned, which was to move the substation and widen the median on 500 West.
Chair Jonas noted that the Planning Commission is only being asked to make a recommendation. Ms. Funk clarified that the Planning Commission needs to declare surplus property and make a recommendation to the Mayor not to close a portion of 500 West.
Ms. Funk rephrased her motion.
In the matter of Petition 400-02-12, Arla Funk moved that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Mayor to deny the request that the property adjacent to the power substation on 500 West be declared surplus. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
In the matter of Petition 400-02-12, Arla Funk moved to forward a recommendation to the City Council not to close a portion of 500 West with the findings of fact outlined in the staff report. Jennifer Seelig seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
1. The proposal would not deny access to any other nearby parcel.
2. The property would be transferred to the Redevelopment Agency to sell as a development site. Part of the purpose of the sale is to generate revenue to construct the 200 South to 400 South portion of the 500 West blocks.
3. Closing the subject property is contrary to the Master Plan policies for the areas, as identified in the Gateway Master Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan. A sale of the street would necessitate a change in adopted policy.
4. Public policy does not support the closure. Any closure should be accompanied by a corresponding amendment of the master plan.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Wilde clarified that the first motion was a recommendation to the Mayor, so the Planning Commission is not the final decision maker. The second motion is a recommendation to the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING - Preliminary Foothill Subdivision, requested by Amir S. Cornell, for a preliminary subdivision approval of a one-lot foothill subdivision, located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive. This property is located within the Foothill Residential “FR-3" zoning district.
This item was postponed.
Lynn Pace, representing the City Attorney’s Office, explained that this matter was postponed due to a conflict with the ordinance, and Mr. Pace was prepared to discuss solutions. He explained that the ordinance arises out of re-codification of the site development ordinance from March 2000. It was previously incorporated by reference. Then the City adopted a slope restrictions ordinance which was later codified in the ordinance. The site development ordinance deals with developable slopes and undevelopable slopes in excess of 30%, and that concept is integrated throughout the ordinance. Historically, people have been allowed to include undevelopable slopes within a lot area if the area they intended to build on was developable.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the Foothill Subdivision in the past could have a buildable area as small as 1,500 square feet located adjacent to the street. If the zone required a half acre, the steep portion of the property could be included in the lot for the lot size calculation. The change purposely made a year and a half ago did not allow the steep slope to count toward the lot area minimum. In a half-acre zone, a half acre is needed excluding the 30% slope or the lot cannot be approved.
Mr. Pace read from Subsection C of the ordinance: “Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process.” He used examples explaining how the language applies. There is serious concern that this provision, applied with the planned development minimum standards, would mean that a perfectly flat buildable area could not be built on because there is not a large enough piece of ground for a planned development. He believes this could subject the City to a claim that it has taken away the value of the property. He stated that this provision in the site development ordinance as drafted is not enforceable in all settings. Either the Planning Commission or City Council can initiate a petition to amend the ordinance, and he recommended that they do so. He explained that this petition was postponed due to this issue. Once a petition is initiated and the matter is resolved, they will return with this item at a later date.
Mr. Jonas recalled that the reason for initiating the change was to review these things, and they did not anticipate an overriding chart that required five acres. Mr. Wheelwright stated that it was a purposeful change to toughen the requirement, but it resulted in an arbitrary decision on how large the lot should be.
Mr. Pace explained that, if a petition to amend the ordinance is brought forward, the Planning Commission would have a chance to look at it again. He believed there was a legal problem with the ordinance and was prepared to say that the petition postponed this evening needs to be processed notwithstanding the legal problem.
Arla Funk moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to change this ordinance and for Staff to return with a recommendation as to what should be done.
Time permitted the Planning Commission to discuss agenda items under Other Business before discussing the next petition.
Chair Jonas reported that he and Ms. Funk had an opportunity to meet with Dave Buhler and Carlton Christensen in a step toward creating better relations between the City Council and Planning Commission. The meeting was productive, and they will continue to meet on the fourth Thursday of every month. Chair Jonas encouraged the Commissioners to let him know of items they would like to have discussed at these meetings.
Fine Tuning Discussion
Planner Joel Paterson reported that at the last Planning Commission meeting the East Central Community Council raised issues that they wanted to have considered under the fine tuning process. The Planning Commission asked the Staff to summarize those issues and recommend whether to include them in the fine tuning process or as a separate petition. The first item was public hearing noticing requirements. The East Central Community Council would like to see the distance for sending notices extended to 660 feet. The Staff has discussed making noticing requirements easier to administer, but they believed that should be initiated as a separate petition. The second issue was the structure of zoning violation fees. Currently, the zoning ordinance charges fees of $25/day in residential zones and $100/day in commercial zones. This does not take into account the type of use in the zone, and he cited examples of commercial uses being charged only $25/day. That was why the East Central Community Council suggested that the fee be based on the land use rather than the zone. The Staff believed that could be addressed through the fine tuning process. The third issue is prohibiting off-premise signs, and the Staff recommended that discussion be a separate petition. Currently, the only off-premise signs allowed by the zoning ordinance are billboards. In the mid-1990's, the City amended the billboard ordinance to put an absolute cap on the number of billboards allowed in the City, which was set at the number of existing billboards at the time. The only new boards that can be installed are replacements for ones that have been removed. They have tried to prioritize removal of non-conforming billboards in residential zones and along certain gateway streets. If the Planning Commission chooses to initiate a petition to ban off-premise signs, it would be a controversial issue, and the Staff recommended that be done as a separate petition. The fourth issue is a clear definition for “material net cumulative adverse impact.” There is no definition of the term in the zoning ordinance and this has caused confusion in the past. The Staff believed that could be reviewed as a fine tuning issue. The last issue was minimum lot size for planned developments, referring to the institutional district. The table in the zoning ordinance defining how large lots must be before going through a planned development process ranges from 9,000 square feet to 40 acres in certain agricultural districts. The Staff believed they could address this issue through the fine tuning process, review lot sizes in the institutional zones, and propose a reasonable solution. Mr. Paterson requested feedback from the Planning Commission regarding these recommendations.
Chair Jonas asked for consensus on each item. The Commissioners concurred on increasing the noticing requirement and addressing it as a separate petition. The zoning violation free structure was agreed to be handled as a fine tuning item.
Regarding billboards and off-premise signs, Ms. Arnold asked if they could address signage, such as real estate signs, as well as billboards. Mr. Wilde stated that the City has sign regulations and offered to provide a copy of the ordinance. Mr. Chambless commented on states where billboard signs are not allowed and asked if this could be envisioned for the City. Mr. Paterson replied that non-conforming billboards in Utah are the best protected land use under State code. Ms. Funk felt it would be impossible to take on this issue due to heavy lobbying and State law. Mr. Wilde suggested that the Staff provide an overview of State law and City regulations to help the Commissioners understand how billboards are regulated. Ms. Seelig asked if the Planning Commission would be willing to widen the scope and request information on other types of off-site signs. She felt it would help to understand billboards in the context of real estate and political signs. Mr. Wilde offered to provide information on both.
The Planning Commissioners concurred on the recommendations for addressing the definition of “material net cumulative adverse impact” and minimum planned development size in the Institutional District as fine tuning issues.
Staff response to Planning Commission Retreat
Mr. Wilde stated that the Staff has not completed the response to the retreat, but it will be coming soon.
Petitions Initiated by Planning Commission
The packet contained a matrix showing the status of Planning Commission initiated petitions which Mr. Jonas felt would be helpful in their discussions with the City Council. He requested that these updates be provided to the Planning Commission the first meeting of every month.
Mr. Wilde reported that Tamara Wharton, representing a neighborhood council, has appealed the private club conditional use approval which the Planning Commission granted at 1492 South State Street. Ms. Coffey noted that the Staff will address the issues raised in the appeal and give them to the Land Use Appeals coordinator by next Friday. Ms. Funk stated that she understood the church had claimed that they are within 600 feet, which would prohibit the club from opening. Mr. Wilde replied that proximity of the church was not an issue before the Planning Commission for the conditional use and, therefore, the Land Use Appeals Board cannot look at that as part of the appeal. That issue went before a hearing officer appointed by the Mayor. The officer took testimony and ruled that there was no impact on the church. The issue of proximity to the Church has been resolved unless that issue is appealed.
Mr. Wilde referred to the first petition discussed this evening and stated that he felt he had not provided clear direction to the Planning Commission. For the record, Mr. Wheelwright read from State Code, Section 109305, “Before accepting, widening, removing, extending, relocating, narrowing, vacating, abandoning, changing the use, acquiring land for or selling or leasing any street or other public ground, a legislative body shall submit the proposal to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation.” He explained that this language was written for cities not of our class. It becomes complicated because property matters have been ruled under their form of government to be an administrative function. This provision in the State law causes them to bring property decisions, particularly disposal decisions, before the Planning Commission. The Code was amended substantially in 1991, and before that the wording was considerably different. Mr. Wheelwright read from the Disposition of Real Property section of the City Code, 2.58, which refers to department heads identifying surplus property that is reported to the Chief Procurement Officer and a number of methods for disposing of the property and receiving compensation. Mr. Wheelwright felt this section was structured for the requirement of receiving compensation for land and how it is accomplished. It requires the City Council to receive notice of the Mayor’s intent to dispose of real property. The City Council can have a hearing before the Mayor to give their reasons for why it should or should not be done. But it becomes all twisted together, because there is no corresponding State law or City ordinance to address this. The Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the Mayor for disposing of property. The question of whether the Mayor can proceed if the Planning Commission does not declare it surplus is a question that needs to be answered by the Legal Department. Mr. Wilde clarified that the motion made by Ms. Funk is adequate, but he was not sure if the action was final or advisory. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council on the street closure.
Ms. Coffey requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition for a small area plan around the new Intermodal hub. Once the Intermodal hub is in operation, there may be development pressure. A consultant was hired to do a study but the study is not a plan.
Arla Funk initiated a petition for a small area plan around the new Intermodal hub.
Mr. Muir voiced concern about why a study was done without the guidance of a plan.
Ms. Coffey reported on two projects coming before the Planning Commission. One is re-development of the Smith’s store in Sugar House, and the other is a pad site in the Brickyard Plaza. The Staff asked if the Planning Commission wished to form a subcommittee for either project. Chair Jonas stated that he definitely wanted a subcommittee for the Smith’s store. Mr. Wilde stated that the pad site in Brickyard is a minor issue, and he did not think it required a subcommittee.
Mr. Wilde reported that the Ken Holman project will come back to the Planning Commission and noted that the Landmarks Commission overturned the economic hardship recommendation. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to form a subcommittee or bring it forward. Mr. Daniels suggested that it be brought forward. The Commissioners concurred.
Ms. Coffey stated that in 2000, as part of the proposed Prowswood Development north of North Temple along the railroad tracks, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council adoption of two new mixed-use zoning districts, RMF-35 mixed-use and RMF-45 mixed use. They were not transmitted because the Prowswood proposal did not occur, but there are many areas where the lower density mixed-use zones could be helpful. She asked if the Planning Commission would like to see it again or whether it should be transmitted to the City Council. Since there are no changes, Mr. Wilde suggested that they move it forward to the City Council and provide information to the Planning Commission prior to that.
PUBLIC HEARING - View City Plat A Amendment, by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting to modify the property lines of Lots 8, 9, & 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B located at 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East. The properties are zoned Residential/Office RO. The existing duplex at 1977 South 1300 East will have a reduction in lot size, and the Highland Dental Center Building will gain the area currently used as a parking lot.
Second Amendment Highland Park Plaza Condominium Plat, by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting an amendment to the First Amended Highland Park Plaza Condominium Plat for the purpose of expanding office unit #7 on level 2 of an existing office structure located at 1955 South 1300 East.
The Planning Commission discussed these two items separately beginning with the subdivision.
Mr. Wilde introduced Kevin Young from the Division of Transportation who has been helping the Staff on this petition.
Ms. Funk disclosed that she frequents a dentist in the Highland Park Plaza and offered to recuse herself if the Commissioners had any concerns about her voting on this matter. Brent Wilde also acknowledged that he frequents a dentist in this building. Ms. Arnold stated that she understood several of the Commissioners and/or Staff visited dentists in the building.
Planner Jackie Gasparik reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She noted that the property has a long history, and the Staff included background in the staff report, including the date when the building was built and Board of Adjustment cases. The issue started on September 19, 1996, with a conditional use for off-site parking for the Highland Dental Plaza to use the rear yard of the duplex located at 1955 and 1973 South and 1300 East. At that time, the Planning Commission closed a portion of an alley when they approved the off-site parking. One condition of the conditional use was that the applicants could not connect this parking lot to the alley. However, when the alley closure was approved by the City Council in 1996, it was done without conditions. The neighbors believed that when the dental office connected to the alley, they violated the Planning Commission decision. After discussions among Staff and City departments, it was decided that this should be brought back to the Planning Commission to determine whether the petitioner can connect to the alley. On behalf of the Transportation Department, the Staff recommended that the alley connection remain with the conditions that the driveway to the parking lot alley be revised to better accommodate the grade change and turning radius through the public way permit process and that a 10' x 10' clear sight zone be met to help with safety concerns expressed by the Transportation Division.
Mr. Wheelwright clarified that the alley to which the parking lot attaches is on the south, not the alley on the east. The intent of the original decision was that the parking lot not connect to the alley on the south.
Mr. Muir asked if there was documentation explaining why the sitting Planning Commission did not want access. Ms. Gasparik stated that she included the minutes from the 1996 meeting, but they did not reflect any discussion regarding the decision. She assumed it was based on concerns expressed by neighbors.
Ms. Seelig noted that the minutes from 1996 state that the Sugar House Master Plan supports prohibiting access to alleyways for commercial development when such access would put traffic onto the local residential streets and neighborhoods. She understood that the Sugar House Master Plan had been revised since 1996 and asked if that portion of the master plan was carried forward. Staff was not prepared to answer her question. Ms. Seelig felt that, if it is part of the current master plan, it might have some bearing on their discussion.
Mr. Young stated that, when the Transportation Department reviewed this petition and the initial intent of having two lots, they saw no change in the circulation that would occur with what is requested. Transportation was not aware of what was going on with the alley based on past history, but the issue of public alleyways and who has rights always seems to be there. It becomes complicated when there are conflicts of abutting commercial and residential. He stated that the traffic count shows that the majority of traffic uses 1300 East. Regarding traffic on View Street, it is difficult to determine that it is due to access to this property, because there are so many other businesses in the area. He remarked that, if the access remains, it should be adjusted due to the difference in grades. He commented on the amount of traffic along 1300 East and the difficulty of getting onto that street. He mentioned options for easier access but noted that it would be up to UDOT to implement them.
Ms. Funk asked what Mr. Young would do for reconfiguration if the access were to remain. Mr. Young replied that a grade change back into the parking lot would be necessary and probably a little widening. Ms. Funk referred to an area in the parking lot where traffic cannot continue through and has to turn around to get out. She asked if that was an acceptable configuration. Mr. Young stated that he was not familiar enough with the parking to know and commented that many times what initially works for a parking lot changes over time to better maximize parking. Ms. Funk asked if the Transportation Department would look at changing that configuration through this process. Mr. Young replied that on a new development they would be sure the standards were met, but they do not look at existing lots. Ms. Funk asked if the Planning Commission could request that it be looked at. Ms. Gasparik stated that could be requested as part of an approval, but the Transportation Department does not typically look at reconfiguring existing parking lots.
Ms. Seelig asked about the methodology of the traffic study and it’s thoroughness. It was noted that it was an independent study done by the applicant. After further discussion, it was noted that the applicant re-opened the connection to the alley without a permit, and no traffic studies were done, prior to connection to the alley, so there is no way to know or compare whether the impacts have increased.
Steven Burton, the applicant, stated that he would be happy to follow all of Staff’s recommendations. He explained that he hired a high school student to count cars as they came in and out. She had no connection to the clinic, so the figures are real and not skewed. The count was done on Tuesday, October 8, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Burton noted that he works from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and is usually the last one out. He explained that the alley was out in the middle of nowhere, and they asked to purchase it. The City Council told them they could buy the alley, but they would also have to purchase it for the neighbor and share it. They bought both sides of the alley and gave one half. Ms. Gasparik clarified that Mr. Burton was referring to the alley to the south. Mr. Burton stated that originally they did not own the property next door, but later they purchased it and opened up the area behind. He was informed that, since they owned the contiguous piece of property, they did not need approval to open up the property. However, it has not been a huge success, and people use it far less than hoped. He noted that the neighbors are concerned about traffic going in and out. However, from that point south, there are other businesses that also have use of the alleyway. He understood that he had use of the alleyway, but if that is in error, he would be willing to do whatever is necessary to meet the recommendations.
Mr. Wheelwright obtained a copy of the Sugar House Master Plan and read regarding alleyways. “In Sugar House, alleys have traditionally been incorporated into development patterns, and many alleyways currently serve both residential and commercial uses. This is one of the factors that contributes to the pedestrian orientation that many of the well established neighborhoods embody; however, due to maintenance issues, the abutting property owners to an alley frequently request that the City vacate the property. It has been the practice of the City that, if approved, the alley is divided equally, and the ownership is transferred to the adjacent property owners. Transferring ownership of property that was once a City right-of-way has been a source of concern for the community, although expedient. If the City’s responsibility for maintenance is relieved, the long-term loss of resources creates a cumulative impact upon the public access route. Given these complex issues, the City Council is developing revisions to the existing alley vacation policy.” Mr. Wheelwright noted that this policy change requires the Planning Commission to review alleys, which they did not previously do. He read further, “This policy will be used to evaluate each request for alley vacations in the future.” He read three policies from the text: 1) Incorporate alleys into new residential development projects wherever feasible; 2) Discourage the use of alleyways for commercial access if the alleyway abuts residential property; 3) Encourage dedicated public streets in new developments. He felt the policies were maintained from the old master plan to the new master plan, particularly regarding the second policy.
Mr. Burton stated that he was amenable to closing off the alley going east and just have access to the alley going toward Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Rich Bennett, a member of the Sugar House Community Council and a neighbor to the dental plaza, stated that he was involved with the discussions when the alleyway from the dental clinic parking lot was closed. When they first recommended closing the alleyway, the dental clinic needed to expand their parking. Mr. Bennett referred to a number of tall trees which used to be on the alleyway and noted that the east/west alleyway was originally a dirt road. Even with the bumpy dirt road, a lot of traffic seemed to come through, and they were willing to give up the trees to close the alleyway. The neighbors agreed to closure of the alleyway and the loss of trees. Mr. Bennett disagreed with the applicants’ traffic study that only two or three cars use the alleyway. Mr. Bennett stated that he spent 10 minutes counting parking stalls, and during that time, he saw four cars use the alley. He found it hard to believe that, with 81 parking stalls for the dental clinic plus the apartment complex to the north, the only access is through the parking area. He stated that he sees constant traffic through the alleyway and has had to back down the alley as people came out of the dental clinic area. Mr. Bennett stated that he lives on View Street, and when he first bought his house, there was a lot of traffic. When the alleyway was closed off, there was a significant drop in the number of cars using the alleyway. He asked why the applicant doesn’t close the alley again and give the neighbors back their neighborhood if they claim that the alleyway is not used much. He stated that Barbara Bruno, a resident immediately east of the parking structure, could not attend this evening but has expressed concern many times because she was nearly run over by cars when taking care of her property on the other side of the fence. Mr. Bennett remarked that in the 12 years he has lived in his home, he has never seen anyone leave Kentucky Fried Chicken and use the alleyway heading north. The other dental clinics to the south have much smaller parking areas, so they do not have many people who would use the alleyway.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Bennett if he had much contact with the owners of the dental clinic regarding this manner. Mr. Bennett replied that he was out of town for the previous meeting, but his wife attended. The only communication he has had was through Everett Joyce when they first closed the alleyway.
Gayen Wharton, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the Council has a long record of helping residents protect themselves from commercial encroachment, and she cited examples to support her comment. In this case, they support Mr. Bennett in asking that the alley the residents agreed to have closed stay closed and that the office traffic be made to access through the existing entrances. Even with the small number of cars using the alley as reported in the survey, she could not believe the Transportation Department was not worried about the alley access so close to where 1300 East narrows from four lanes to two. She commented that people in Sugar House walk a tightrope balancing commercial viability and residential stability. She believed the Planning Commission could help by letting the plaza owners have their access and closing the alley where suggested to keep the residents viable.
Eric Strain, a resident in the house next to Mr. Bennett, stated that he purchased his house last September, at which time the parking lot to the dental office was blocked off. A short time after that, the blockade was taken down, and he did not know why. He stated that his bedroom faces the back next to the alleyway, and from 7:00 a.m. until the dental plaza closes, he can count over 50 cars coming and going all day. He stated that he could not let his pets out of the house for fear they would be run over, and he worried about his nieces and nephews who come to play in his backyard. He stated that he had been in the alley twice clipping rose bushes when an employee from the dental plaza nearly ran him over driving too fast. He commented on the increased traffic on View Street with the opening of L’Avenue and the positive communication between the neighbors and the restaurant. He felt it was important to co-exist together, and if the dental plaza owners wanted to divert commercial traffic into a residential neighborhood, the Planning Commission should not allow it, because there are children in the neighborhood and people who have lived there a long time and have invested much in their homes. He believed if someone from the Transportation Department sat in front of his house with a counter, they would count 200 vehicles coming and going into a residential neighborhood on a daily basis. Mr. Strain stated that, if the alley remains open, he would hate to think what it would do to the value of some of the homes. He did not believe it was right to divert that much commercial traffic into a beautiful residential neighborhood.
Michele Hutchins stated that Rich Bennett is her husband, and she reiterated that they have lived in their home for 12 years. She stated that her concern goes back to 1996 when the neighbors agreed to give up the alley. They agreed to the vacation because they thought the alley would be closed forever and that the parking lot would not come into the alley. She later heard that, because the applicant now owns the property, the conditional use can go away and the condition does not apply. She was concerned that conditional uses could disappear without neighbors knowing about it. She referred to earlier comments about walkable communities and noted that having that much traffic on their street does not lend itself to a walkable community. She understood that some of the traffic comes from 1300 East, because people get stuck in traffic and cut through their neighborhood to save time, but the traffic coming through the alley every day comes from the dental plaza. She noted that the number of handicapped parking spaces is less than the ADA requirement. There are only two handicapped spaces, and with 81 parking stalls, there should be four. Ms. Hutchins reiterated that, as neighbors and residents, they would like to have their neighborhood back without businesses encroaching on it. She was also bothered by the fact that the applicants bought and sold property illegally, and she wanted to be sure they would be fined.
Ms. Arnold asked Ms. Hutchins if the neighbors had ever considered closing the alley between them and Barbara Bruno. Ms. Hutchins replied that they have not because there was not a problem with the dental clinic accessing onto it until they re-opened it.
Carl Timm, a resident across the street from Mr. Bennett, stated that his property adjoins the alley on the opposite side of the street. He was concerned with the amount of traffic coming up the alley and entering onto View Street. Cars do not stop at the sidewalk, which is a danger to children and pedestrians. He stated that he was concerned with safety issues. He commented on the number of residents with “no trespassing” signs on their property to keep people from walking down their driveway to the alley. Mr. Timm stated that he understood that any time a commercial property adjoins a residential property there can be problems, but consideration should be given to the neighbors on View Street.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas remarked that public comments focused on the alleyway, but the item before them is a two-lot subdivision. The alleyway relates to this issue but is not the only issue in this matter.
Ms. Seelig stated that, if the subdivision is approved and the parcel behind the duplex is united into one piece of property, the parking area will abut the alley in question. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the parcel was subdivided without approval. There was a connection of the parking lot, which has existed since 1996, to the alley on the south without a public way permit. Ms. Seelig asked if someone owning property which abuts the alley has the right to use the alley. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the Traffic Engineer mentions in his letter that anyone abutting the alley has the same right as anyone else to use it. However, the policy in the current master plan and the previous master plan would say that is not absolute. He noted that two possible solutions were offered. One was by the homeowners to close the connection to the south alley as prohibited by the conditional use. The other solution offered by the applicant was to close the alley between the two houses out to View Street. He stated that the City has never received an application to close that alley, but one could be filed and processed. Chair Jonas noted that a third option was offered to force the traffic to turn south.
Mr. Muir noted that a condition of the original approval was an adequate barrier between commercial and residential, but it does not appear that condition was met. He asked if it would be appropriate to add that to this approval.
Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Young if the Transportation Department had looked into closing the alley completely on the south side of the property where it connects into 1300 East. Mr. Young replied that the Department leaves alleys as they are unless there is a request by property owners to close it. Mr. Diamond asked if they could close the alley off of 1300 East and have cars come in off the street to the east to limit traffic from 1300 East through the neighborhood. He believed this was a global issue and that all the traffic cutting through the neighborhood did not come from the dental plaza.
Ms. Funk felt the Planning Commission had inadequate information regarding the transportation portion of the issue. She believed they should look at the parking lot and whether there is adequate ingress and egress. Ms. Gasparik stated that Greg Mikolash was prepared to cover these issues in the condominium portion of the petition. The Planning Commission agreed that it was important to hear Mr. Mikolash’s report before continuing their discussion.
Mr. Mikolash stated that he looked into the building permit and the Board of Adjustment records. Outside of what happened in 1996, the parking for the whole structure comes under the 1970 parking lot calculations. By today’s standards, 2 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area would be required. The structure meets the 1970 standards because that is when the structure was built, but he was unsure whether it would meet current standards.
Mr. Diamond questioned whether the structure is safe and whether the circulation makes sense for the property. Ms. Funk noted that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve an additional 650 square feet for which there may not be parking. Mr. Mikolash stated that the applicants have already applied for a building permit, and parking was addressed at that time. To require increased parking, the expansion must exceed 25% of the entire building. Therefore, the 650-square-foot addition does not require additional parking.
Ms. Funk informed Dr. Burton that the Planning Commission does not look favorably on anything done illegally without going through the City process. While they will not penalize him for what has happened, she felt he was educated enough to know that there is a process he was expected to follow. She felt that what Dr. Burton had done without building permits was inappropriate.
After further discussion, Chair Jonas remarked that this matter is one contributor to an issue for the neighborhood but is not the sole contributor. He believed there was a safety issue related to all the traffic going onto 1300 East. He felt the Planning Commission had the latitude to approve or disapprove this subdivision and put whatever conditions they want on it. He believed they should be realistic about the situation and try to find a viable solution to solve the problem for all the parties.
Ms. McDonough stated that she was convinced that this parcel was a bigger contributor to alley access than the other commercial parcels, because the direction of traffic is logical to seek the main arteries. People will not go north through the neighborhood from Kentucky Fried Chicken, because there is a viable outlet from the south end. She saw the issue of traffic from the parking lot exiting onto 1300 East as being separate from separating residential traffic and access from commercial. Safety is a separate issue that should be resolved on the 1300 East side, and the alley should not be obligated to take that impact.
Ms. Gasparik commented that, after hearing the discussion, she could see shortcomings in her staff report. She explained that she had looked at it from the point of view expressed by Chair Jonas.
Ms. Seelig agreed that a contributor could be the commercial activity going on in the area, but because of changes made without permits, they will never know legitimately what happened before and what happened after. Without hard data they, could not come to a conclusion.
Motion for View City Plat A Amendment, by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting to modify the property lines of Lots 8, 9, & 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B located at 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East
Prescott Muir moved to approve the amendments of Lots 8, 9, & 10 of Block 2 of the View City Plat B subdivision based on the seven findings of fact, with the exception of Finding 5 which was revised to read, “All public way improvements have been installed and are adequate,” and with Conditions of Approval 1, 2, and 3, excluding Condition 4, accepting Condition 5, and imposing an additional condition that the conditions of item 3 on the original approval which impose adequate screening between the commercial and residential by either fencing or vegetation around the parking lot be completed, as well as the re-closure of the connection to the alley as was originally part of that same condition.
Ms. Funk asked for clarification on the location of the screening. Mr. Muir stated that screening should occur where the parking lot adjoins all residential properties.
Kay Arnold seconded the motion.
Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Muir if he would consider making the screening subject to CPTED approval and the Planning Director. Mr. Muir accepted the addition.
Findings of Fact
1. The amendment will create lots, which will best reflect the usage of the property as currently developed.
2. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Sugarhouse Community Master Plan.
3. The proposed lots are well over the required minimum square footage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot #1 is proposed to be 43,800 sq. ft. The ordinance requires 20,000 sq. ft. and 100' of frontage. Lot #2 is proposed to be 9,286 sq. ft., and the ordinance requires 8,000 sq. ft. and 50' of frontage.
4. The proposed lots of this subdivision will meet all Site Development & Zoning Ordinance Requirements.
5. All public way improvements have been installed and are adequate.
6. All City Departments/Divisions have reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in this staff report and attached letters and memos.
7. There is no material injury to the public nor any person in that the parking generated traffic is approximately being directed to 1300 East Street with only minimal impact to the alley and View Street.
Conditions of Approval
1. Subject to any fines as required by SLC Engineering for doing work in the public way without getting a permit.
2. The applicant must apply for final plat process and prepare an amended plat for recording.
3. Public Utility requirements. (See attached letter).
4. Subject to all other conditions of Divisions/Departments and relevant Codes and ordinances.
The issue of closing the alley was raised by Mr. Diamond, and Mr. Muir and Ms. Arnold preferred to address it as a separate issue. Ms. Funk felt it was made clear that the Transportation Department does not close alleys unless an application to do so is submitted by the neighbors. She believed that after tonight, the neighbors are well aware of their ability to file that application.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. Funk left the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
The Planning Commission discussed the condominium amendment. Mr. Mikolash stated that these matters are typically handled administratively, and they did go through the administrative process. The Staff decided to forward this to the Planning Commission because of the alley issues. He reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. The request is to add 650 square feet to Unit 7 which is the floor above the parking structure. When the building permit was issued in 1982, the condo was never amended, and they are bringing it back so the Planning Commission can fix it. Based on the findings in the staff report, the departmental comments are similar to the comments on the subdivision. Mr. Mikolash noted that the building permit issued in 1982 would have taken care of any building permit issues at that time, and there should not be any changes now. Based on the findings, the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the condominium amendment, because it would in the best interest not to leave the area as common space. Mr. Mikolash read the reasons for the recommendation and the condition of approval outlined in the staff report.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Rich Bennett indicated a drain pipe on the down slope that empties onto the parking lot. He asked if that was from this construction. He believed it was a hazard to traffic in icy weather.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Arnold asked about the number of owners and units. Mr. Burton replied that there are 13 units and 27 owners. Ms. Arnold stated that she assumed all 27 owners were given notice, and that was confirmed.
Motion for a Second Amendment Highland Park Plaza Condominium Plat, by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting an amendment to the First Amended Highland Park Plaza Condominium Plat for the purpose of expanding office Unit #7 on Level 2 of an existing office structure.
Laurie Noda moved to grant final approval for the second amendment to the Highland Park Plaza Condominium based upon the Staff recommendations and findings as set forth in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir asked for clarification of why the staff report contains findings, orders, reasons, and conditions. Mr. Mikolash explained that he combined an administrative staff report with a Planning Commission staff report. He puts orders in administrative hearings, and they were carried over into this staff report. Mr. Muir felt everything should be included in the motion.
Ms. Noda amended the motion to include the findings of fact, the order, the reasons for recommendation, and the conditions of approval. Mr. Daniels accepted the amendment in his second.
Findings of Fact
1. The Building Official must obtain the zoning compliance review from the Zoning Administrator and shall review the plans for new construction to determine if such plans conform to all applicable building codes.
2. The Planning Official has reviewed the Condominium Conversion proposal with regard to the requirements of the Utah Condominium Ownership Act. The proposal and official drawings have been submitted to all pertinent City departments. All departmental comments are subject to compliance.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the Utah Condominium Ownership Act.
4. The Condominium Plat as prepared appears to be consistent with State Law, and the tentative final plat review process will justify that the plat is ready for recording.
5. All City Departments have returned their comments regarding this amendment.
6. It is in the best interest of the City and property owner that the amendment be granted due to the 650-square-foot area being assumed as private ownership area.
Order
1. All departmental comments and recommendations are subject to compliance.
2. No condominium shall have final approval, nor shall said units be sold, until the final plat is recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorders Office.
3. The Building Official shall conduct a final inspection of the building and shall approve the final plat.
4. The City Attorney shall advise the Mayor as to the form of the final plat and recordable documents, and both the Mayor and City Attorney shall approve and sign the plat.
Reasons for Staff Recommendation
1. The structure is in compliance with the provisions of the International Building Code, and ongoing inspections will ensure all standards are met.
2. All applicable City Departments have consented to Condominium approval for this project.
3. The issuance of building permits for past and future tenant improvements shall serve as evidence for Condominium approval.
4. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions set forth the required mechanisms to manage the Condominium.
Conditions of Approval
1. That future building permits only be issued once an amended plat for the Subdivision is recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorders Office.
2. That the applicant complies with all City Departmental comments and recommendations.
3. That this Condominium Amendment be approved by the Planning Commission only upon the approval of the Subdivision Amendment congruently being presented.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Funk was not present for the vote. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Cannon Farms #3 Subdivision, amending lot C, and extending Cannon Farms #1. Dave Woodside is requesting a preliminary subdivision amendment approval for two single-family dwelling lots. Lot #1 is for the existing home, addressed at 1540 South 1000 West. Shaw Homes will be purchasing lot 2 and is proposing the housing. The property is located in an R-1-5000 single family zoning district.
Ms. Gasparik stated that the Staff is recommending approval of this minor subdivision amendment. The lots meet all zoning standards. The issue before the Planning Commission this evening is item 6 on page 3 of the staff report which states that the amendment does not materially injure the public or any person, and there is good cause for the amendment. She remarked that the concern is housing compatibility. The Staff has approved many of these amendments administratively and would like to receive Planning Commission input on whether they should look at housing compatibility in the area when new housing is approved as infill.
Mr. Jonas clarified that the Planning Commission is looking at a subdivision approval which does not look at the issue of the final structure of a building. Ms. Gasparik believed that was part of the subdivision approval. The amendment portion of the ordinance says amendments can only be approved if they meet certain requirements, and the Staff believes the issues is whether they should be looking at architectural compatibility of the housing as it goes into the neighborhood.
Mr. Muir asked if the process gives license to do that. It was confirmed that it does. Mr. Wheelwright explained that they have more latitude with an amendment than they would with a new subdivision approval. Ms. Gasparik clarified that the Staff is asking for direction as to what level they should look at architectural compatibility when doing an administrative review. The input this evening will set a precedent for reviewing amendments administratively.
Mr. Muir asked if it made sense to discuss the two issues separately. Mr. Jonas agreed that the request by Staff and the request by the petitioner are two separate items. Mr. Diamond asked if the subdivision could work without an answer to Staff’s question. Mr. Muir felt the decision by the Planning Commission could impose some restrictions on the applicant. He felt they should act upon Staff’s interpretation of the code first and then address the subdivision. Ms. Gasparik noted that in the past, Shaw Homes has been very willing to work with Staff, particularly on subdivisions approved by the Planning Commission, as an amendment to make sure the housing is compatible. Mr. Shaw wants to continue doing business on the west side, but he wants the community to feel that his infill housing is generally accepted, because there has been controversy about his housing in the past.
Mr. Muir supported the Staff’s efforts in looking at architectural compatibility. The Commissioners concurred.
Dave Woodside, the applicant, stated that he purchased this lot in June 2002, and his analysis of the property was that it made sense to provide two reasonably priced houses by subdividing the west portion. It is a long metes and bounds parcel, and this would be the best thing to do because the west lot fits in nicely with the surrounding existing subdivision. He believed this was a good use for that lot. He believed he could help the community by providing two units of affordable housing.
John Francis, the project engineer, commented on the design of the houses in the surrounding neighborhood. He believed the houses proposed would fit the majority of characteristic in the neighborhood. They may not fit the houses on the street, but architectural diversity leads to a better community because not every house looks the same.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Mark Smedley, representing the Poplar Grove Community Council, asked the Planning Commission to remember that the builder is proposing modular housing. Much of the housing in the area has brick facades, so whether this fits is open to interpretation. He referred to modular housing installed by Mr. Shaw in the past on 400 South and Emery Street and noted that it does not fit with the neighborhood. He stated that they are trying to improve housing in the neighborhood, and the first goal is to re-establish and stabilize middle income neighborhoods with new housing. If modular housing can do that, it would be acceptable. If it does not, they would rather not have it.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Arnold agreed with Mr. Smedley that it is questionable whether modular housing can be an improvement and add to the neighborhood. Chair Jonas felt that modular or any kind of housing can be additive or not, and the Staff is asking for input and guidelines from the Planning Commission on how to make any type of housing more compatible. Ms. Arnold noted that when residential property is for sale, modular housing is separated in the multiple listings. Mr. Muir asked if modular housing diminishes the valuation in the neighborhood. Ms. Arnold replied that it does. Mr. Wilde advised the Planning Commission that the basis for their decision should not be modular housing. The focus of the decision should be the design of the structure and whether the structure proposed is proper for the area.
Chair Jonas clarified that the Planning Commission is not being asked to approve the structure. They are being asked to approve an amendment to a subdivision with added criteria because it is an amendment. Mr. Diamond asked if the Planning Commission could request that the builder come back to the Planning Department with a final design to determine whether it is compatible. Chair Jonas noted that the first condition of approval includes items suggested by Staff, and that condition addresses Mr. Diamond’s question. Ms. Gasparik noted that the house included in the staff report is the design proposed for this site.
Ms. McDonough commented that, since the Planning Commission has had only one short field trip to the site, it is difficult to propose logical design review conditions. She felt it would be helpful if the Planning Staff could provide factual data on the context of the neighborhood such as roof pitches, proportionate relationships, number of attached versus detached garages, etc. She believed they all had an opinion they could voice this evening, but it would be more logical to impose conditions based on fact. Mr. Diamond suggested that Staff submit photos for visual understanding. Mr. Muir felt the basic improvements they were looking for were quality and not necessarily character. He was nervous about imposing any uniform style on the neighborhood. The materials should be quality materials, but the structure should have an enclosed garage, windows, and a break in form to create light shadows. Chair Jonas agreed with Mr. Muir and felt they could provide Staff with direction without dictating a specific style. Ms. Seelig agreed that diversity adds uniqueness to a neighborhood, but she felt the Planning Commission was charged with making sure the design is compatible with the neighborhood. She also agreed that it is hard to get a feel for the character of the neighborhood on one drive through. She felt it would be helpful to have a way to communicate what is happening structurally in the neighborhood.
The Commissioners discussed character, quality, and design, and Ms. McDonough asked how they could achieve the appropriate level of compatible quality. She felt it would be difficult to impose requirements that do not inherently contradict the nature of the product. After further discussion, Mr. Daniels felt they could trust the Staff to look over the final design and take into consideration the things discussed this evening, such as windows and roof pitch. Unless the Planning Commission has specific recommendations or suggestions, he felt Staff should have the final review. Mr. Muir asked if there are CC&R’s in effect for the Cannon Farms subdivision which would provide some guidelines. Mr. Wheelwright was unsure if there are CC&R’s. Ms. Seelig was comfortable with Mr. Daniels’ recommendations based on the assurance that the builder will continue to work with the Staff. Chair Jonas stated that an owner or builder can do whatever he wants if it fits within the requirements of what can be developed on the lot. They do not have much control if the owner or builder can build within the guidelines. Mr. Wheelwright reiterated that an amendment provides the Planning Commission with more latitude than a regular subdivision.
Motion for Cannon Farms #3 subdivision, amending lot C and extending Cannon Farms #1
Prescott Muir moved to approve the request for a two-lot subdivision by Shaw Homes and Cannon Farms #3 subdivision, amending Lot C, including the south portion of the holding strip Lot C as part of Lot 2, leaving the remnant holding strip in place until maturity, based upon the findings of fact and the condition of approval that they authorize the Planning Director and the Staff to review certain building design conditions that make it more appropriate for the neighborhood, including those suggested in Condition 1 and with Conditions 2, 3, 4, and 5. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
1. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the West Salt Lake Master Plan.
2. The proposed lots of this subdivision will meet all Site Development and Zoning Ordinance Requirements.
3. All City Departments/Divisions have reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in this staff report and attached letters and memos.
Conditions of Approval
1. Any Planning Commission design conditions as they relate to the following items to be determined by the Planning Director, such as attached garage, extra windows, steeper roof pitch, type of building exterior material, etc., as may arise from the public hearing and commission discussion.
2. The applicant must apply for the final plat process and prepare an amended plat for recording.
3. One section of curb and gutter has settled in Natura Street and must be replaced. Tall weeds have grown around the existing fire hydrant in front of Lot A and should be removed for full access to the hydrant. Prior to installing curb and gutter improvements, a permit to work in the public way must be obtained from SLC Engineering. The final plat must conform to the requirements on the attached plat checklist.
4. Public Utility requirements (see attached letter).
5. Subject to all other conditions of Divisions/Departments and relevant codes and ordinances.
PUBLIC HEARING - Montgomery Villa Subdivision, by Timar Holdings L.L.C., requesting preliminary subdivision approval for a 51-lot, single-family residential subdivision located between Montgomery Street and Redwood Road, directly north of 300 South and south of an active Union Pacific Rail Line. The proposed subdivision will be located on a 9.43-acre site, which is currently zoned R-1/5000, a single-family residential zone that requires at least 5,000 square feet per lot.
Mr. Mikolash reviewed the petition as written in the staff report as well as the north aerial map showing the proposed subdivision and surrounding areas. In 1995, the proposal was to have the area zoned to RMF-45 by the Planning Commission. That recommendation was forwarded to the City Council and, based on neighborhood concerns, the property was downzoned to R-1/5000. Mr. Mikolash noted that the developer could get 56 lots on the 9-acre site. This proposal is based on 8.05 acres because approximately 1.8 acres will be removed due to the active ditch and Union Pacific right-of-way. The Staff met with the engineers to see if it would be possible to extend the park strip north 10 to 15 feet. 300 South is currently an 80-foot right-of-way that dead ends because of the significant grade difference on Redwood Road. Ten feet were added to the proposed park strip which will help with landscaping purposes and runoff. Mr. Mikolash explained that the downzone in 1995 from RMF-45 to R-1/5000 resulted in a lawsuit because the owner felt it was a taking. That lawsuit is still pending, but if the Planning Commission approves this request, the lawsuit should go away. Mr. Mikolash felt that should be included as a condition of approval. He stated that this site is specifically noted in the master plan and read several quotes showing what they are dealing with in this area. He noted that the site is bounded on the north by I-80, three active rail lines, and an open drainage ditch. The site falls within the airport impact noise zone, so an avigation easement will be needed. The zoning ordinance calls for swamp coolers or Central A/C units. Staff recommended that only Central A/C units be allowed because noise gets in through swamp coolers. Mr. Mikolash stated that he was at the site when a train went by, and it was very noisy. He reviewed the noise mitigation recommendations contained in the staff report. Regarding street design, since there is only 25 feet of interior asphalt, the Fire Department requires that one side of the street be posted “no parking.” The street will be wide enough to park on one side and still allow emergency access. Mr. Mikolash reported on delinquent assessments discovered through the previous installment of curb and gutter. The debt is $25,000 and must be paid prior to construction. He noted that the developer handed him the geo-technical report this evening, and he will review it before the final recording process. He read the recommendations for preliminary approval outlined in the staff report. The first recommendation calls for a six-foot wall, and Mr. Mikolash suggested that the wall be eight feet to help reduce train noise. He encouraged the Commissioners to read the E-mail sent by Union Pacific expressing concerns with the development. They understand that they have no control over stopping the development, but they are concerned about safety and buffering. Recommendation 18 states that no building permit shall be issued prior to final plat recordation with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. Petitioners and applicants often want building permits as soon as they hand in a tentative file, and Mr. Mikolash reaffirmed that the Staff will not issue a building permit until the plat is recorded. Based on the findings, the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval of the proposed 51-lot, single-family residential Montgomery Villa Subdivision with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Daniels referred to Mr. Mikolash’s comment about the trains being noisy and asked what time of day he was there. Mr. Mikolash replied that it was around noon. Mr. Daniels asked if the noise would have awakened him if the train came by at 3:00 a.m. Mr. Mikolash replied that it would depend on whether he was used to the noise. Mr. Daniels commented on the number of people who have been trying since January to get used to loud train noise late at night in their neighborhoods. Many of those people are not used to it and are awakened from their sleep many times during the night. He stated that he takes to heart what Union Pacific is saying. If they put houses that close to working railroad tracks, there will be sound and safety problems.
Ms. Seelig referred to the “no parking“ signs and asked that Public Services be informed, because signs are ineffective if they are not enforced.
Ms. Arnold shared Mr. Daniels’ concerns about noise and housing. She asked if the City could buy the property and put in a park since the area is not good for commercial or residential uses.
Stewart Twitchell, the applicant, agreed with the staff report and recommendations with the exception of item 4 which addresses paved access along the canal. He did not believe that would best serve the City or the applicant. If they clean the canal and put in pavement, they will tear it up with a track hoe. Asphalt would have to be used to maintain its integrity, and weeds will grow through the asphalt. He understood that there could be noise from the railroad, and to mitigate safety problems, they have agreed to put up a concrete wall along the back side. There are houses on both sides of the tracks all along the tracks, and they have agreed to do what the Staff asked them to do to mitigate the noise problem. He requested that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval for this project.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Twitchell if he lives in this neighborhood. Mr. Twitchell replied that he does not live in this neighborhood, but he does live near railroad tracks. His home is not as close to the tracks as the ones proposed, but he still hears the trains. He stated that he only hears the trains once in a while because he is used to the noise.
Chair Jonas asked if Mr. Twitchell had concerns about the dead end nature of the property. Mr. Twitchell stated that he liked this type of property because it does dead end and there is not excessive traffic. The only traffic coming into the neighborhood would be local traffic from the residents. He recommended that Union Pacific make that area a quite zone, which would not eliminate the train noise, but it would eliminate whistles. Mr. Daniels referred to the reactivated 900 South line and noted that residents along that line are still waiting for a quiet zone. Mr. Twitchell stated that the difference with this development is that people will purchase their property knowing that the tracks are used and whistles will be blowing. He acknowledged that Union Pacific is slow in acting and would leave it up to the City to pursue the request for a quiet zone to help this project and the people who already live there.
Ms. Arnold asked if the trains run daily. Mr. Wheelwright replied that 40 to 50 trains use that line every day. Ms. Arnold felt that anyone purchasing a home in that project would hear the trains at some point every day. Mr. Twitchell stated that anyone interested in purchasing homes would be told about the trains. He believed he could offer a good product and at the same time help mitigate the noise.
Ms. Seelig asked how far the closest house would be from the tracks. Mr. Wheelwright replied that it would be approximately 100 feet. Mr. Twitchell felt it was more like 120 feet. Ms. Seelig asked how close the tracks are to the Gateway condos. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the speed at Gateway is much slower than the speed in this area, and slower speed reduces the noise.
Chair Jonas commented that there is great emphasis on trying to increase housing on the west side, and this Planning Commission has supported that. One concern is creating a “slum” and whether the inherent factors of this property make it difficult to have anything but that. Mr. Twitchell assured Chair Jonas that he had no intention of building a slum. He stated that these would be nice houses built by quality builders ranging in price from $110,000 up. What would happen after he leaves is beyond his control, but he did not anticipate it would turn into a slum. Since the property is zoned R-1/5000, the best use is a 51-lot subdivision. He hated to think he had gone through all the trouble and expense to find that the City does not think this is the best use. Chair Jonas asked about common areas in the subdivision. Mr. Twitchell replied that would depend on the situation and what the City requires. He did not like common areas unless it was a large project and they could get smaller lots. A common area in this subdivision would decrease the density.
Jeff Jonas opened the public hearing.
Mark Smedley, representing the Poplar Grove Community Council, discussed the emphasis on building more housing on the west side. The Salt Lake City School District does not own any more property in the Poplar Grove area and has not acquired more property. All the schools are full, and if they build more houses there will be no space for more children or more schools in the neighborhood. More housing will overextend existing schools, and the children will not get what they deserve. Mr. Smedley anticipated that 51 units would generate at least 100 children. He stated that this site does not lend itself to the master plan goal which is to provide middle-income housing in the neighborhood. The west side has plenty of low-income housing, and the old housing stock will continue to provide that low-income source for the City. They are looking to make the neighborhood better by adding better quality housing, and he was not convinced this site would enable that to happen. The noise factors would turn the houses into rental units. He noted that the Community Council has continually asked the City to make the Montgomery intersection a quiet zone, but they have not been able to move that forward. Union Pacific will not pay the cost, and it would become a City expense. Beyond that, the Federal government has not allowed any cities to establish quiet zones. Mr. Smedley stated that the owners of the condominiums across the street have asked the City to close that crossing, but there are issues that make closure impossible. He read sentences from the master plan that he hoped would happen and stated that this area is specifically addressed in the master plan in terms of different densities and housing types. He reiterated his request for good quality housing and not low-income, affordable housing.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Smedley to explain his idea of good quality housing. Mr. Smedley replied that $110,000 sounds like affordable housing, and they have plenty of those homes already. If housing is sold at a low enough cost, people will purchase the homes and rent them. He stated that there is already a lot of rental housing surrounding that, property and they would not like it concentrated in one spot in the neighborhood.
Ryan Woolley stated that he owns one of the fourplexes which needs improvement. He recently purchased the fourplex when he relocated to Utah. In cooperation with Lisa Orgill at the Salt Lake City Police Department and a Community Action Team member, they have tried to correct the area which has been a high-crime, low-rent “slum” area. A new property owner purchased the apartment complex on the corner of 300 South and Cheyenne and has already started renovations to improve and upgrade that property. A lot of progress has been made with the Police Department in getting rid of the crime in the area. Mr. Woolley stated that they are trying to improve the overall area and property appeal so it will not become a rental district. Many of the fourplex owners are on board with wanting to do that. Leaving a vacant lot creates a dead end, and the only people who will be attracted to that are those who do not want nicer areas. A vacant street without constant activity increases the probability of crime and other problems they want to prevent. He agreed that the rail tracks are a major problem, and when he is there working on his property, he has noticed that the loudest thing is the horn. Creating a quiet zone would be a challenge, but he believed it was a necessary challenge the City would have to take on for the sake of the existing residents, whether the proposed subdivision is developed or not. He agreed with the wall buffer and felt it should extend 8 feet above the grade of the track. He disagreed that there should be an opening every two to three lots as that would create a safety issue for the children and owners of the lots where the openings occur. He believed the opening would also let sound in. Mr. Woolley commented on the price of housing and felt that $110,000 was appropriate for the area since that is higher than what most of the homes sell for. The reality is that no one will buy a $250,000 home in an area surrounded by apartment complexes and fourplexes. He suggested that the conditions stipulate that all front yards within the improvement must be landscaped with trees and bushes, which would add immediate beautification and class to the area.
Ms. Seelig asked if Mr. Woolley lives in the area. He replied that he lives in West Valley City near railroad tracks. He does frequent this area three or four times a week to work on his fourplex. Mr. Daniels asked if Mr. Woolley would consider living in the proposed development. Mr. Woolley replied that, if the quiet zone was enforced and the fourplexes were improved, he would consider living there. Mr. Daniels clarified that Mr. Woolley would consider living there if it were a better neighborhood. Mr. Woolley replied that was correct.
Daniel Lowe, a resident in the Park Willow Condominium Complex Phase 2, purchased his property three years ago and has lived there since. He is on the HOA board but stated that he is only representing himself this evening. He stated that he would love to see the lot developed. A park would be a great idea, but there is already a park two blocks down the street. Sound is the biggest issue, and he did not believe anything would be resolved until it becomes a quiet zone. Regarding safety, he noted that the commercial traffic going down 200 South is usually semi-trucks traveling 40 mph with loads of scrap metal. The only access to this property would be from Cheyenne Street or 200 South, and he and his neighbors have signed petitions to have 200 South closed to commercial traffic because of noise and safety. Mr. Lowe felt that, if the area had more traffic with a nicer class of people moving in, it would improve the neighborhood. He encouraged garages but did not believe any plan would keep cars from parking on the street.
Monte Zink stated that he owns two apartments he is trying to improve, and he believed the area was a slum. His upgrades have been mainly interior, but he would eventually get to the exterior. He agreed that development should take place and that the mitigating questions should be addressed. He commented that the noise issue is extensive, but he was used to hearing trains, so the loud whistles only disturb him a few times a day. He asked if it would be possible for the City to form a special assessment district to create a quiet zone to upgrade the area and get away from the feel of a “slum.”
Eric Gillies stated that he lives 300 feet from the track, and although he is used to the noise, there are times when his home is rocked by the train. He did not believe $110,000 was enough to provide adequate construction to keep homes stable after 25 years of constant rocking from the train. He would like to see the area developed and suggested a larger buffer between the development and the railroad tracks. He suggested decreasing the number of lots and increasing the price.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Arnold referred to the concern about schools and recalled that the Planning Commission previously addressed this issue because it was creating problems. Mr. Wheelwright stated that this matter was sent to the school district, but they did not receive a response. He understood that there have been personnel changes at the school district, and the coordination is not at the previous level. He felt that the school district would have responded if they did not believe the school system could handle this development. Mr. Wilde explained that the school district has previously stated that they would not provide letters saying that they could not accommodate more students. They take what comes and then figure out how to deal with it. He offered to follow up to see if he could get some response from the school district.
Ms. Seelig stated that she understood that zoning sets the rules, and this zoning allows a development in that location. Mr. Wilde explained that the zoning in place is to accommodate this type of development. The zoning can be adjusted, but current zoning limits them to this type of development. Chair Jonas felt that they were faced with the reality that the developer has done everything he was supposed to according to the zoning, and it seemed unfair to turn him down at this point. He noted that density is lower than previous applications for this parcel, and the homes are of a quality that fits into an area of lower income housing.
Mr. Diamond felt the question was whether this property is appropriate for this type of development, and in his mind, it was not. It is great to create housing in any neighborhood, but the major issues surrounding this property would not go away. He stated that housing is not appropriate for this site, but what is appropriate is another challenge.
Ms. McDonough asked how much study was done on closing the 200 South access crossing. Mr. Wheelwright stated that he was not aware of any street closure petitions.
Mr. Muir felt the Planning Commission had no choice but to move ahead. The proposal complies with the master plan and it is currently zoned single-family residence. He did not see how they could change the zone out from underneath this developer after he has made considerable expenditures to push it forward. This zone was a mistake made long ago, and the Planning Commission needed to make the best of it.
Ms. McDonough questioned how many other parcels are in the same zoning situation and abut railroad crossings. She suggested that Staff be asked to assess the number of other properties along railways and provide a recommendation.
Ms. Arnold asked if there is a requirement for backyard landscaping and fencing in the mitigation measures. Mr. Mikolash stated that the staff report addresses the barrier wall but not specific lots. Ms. Arnold asked if the developer could be required to fence the backyards for each lot. Mr. Mikolash replied that the zoning ordinance does not require it, and since this is not a PUD, he was unsure if that could be done. Mr. Diamond stated that he did not understand why it could not be added to the list of items being required. He felt that, if the Planning Commission approves this and suggests a special exception on the fence, it would be back before the Planning Commission in two months. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the special exception for the fence height would go to the Board of Adjustment, not the Planning Commission. Mr. Diamond asked if they could address those issues this evening so it does not have to go back through the process. Mr. Wilde stated that he was not concerned about getting the wall they need.
Motion for Montgomery Villa Subdivision, by Timar Holdings L.L.C., requesting preliminary subdivision approval for a 51-lot, single-family residential subdivision located between Montgomery Street and Redwood Road
In the matter of a petition by Timar Holding, L.L.C., for preliminary subdivision approval of Montgomery Villa Subdivision, in a current R-1/5000 single-family residential zone, Prescott Muir moved to approve the petition for preliminary approval of 51 lots, single-family residence, based upon the findings of fact and the conditions of approval with the following exceptions to the conditions:
4 - That the road roadway adjoining the ditch not be paved and rough graded only and that a gate be added to the access of that road to discourage anyone from using it except for maintenance vehicles.
13 - That a 5/12 pitch be imposed instead of a 6/12 pitch.
17 - That this item be stricken from the conditions based on the legality question and the fact that it sets them up for appeal.
Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
1. The site has been designated by the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan as desirable for residential land use recognizing the impact of surrounding infrastructure and corridors.
2. Noise Mitigation: The master plan calls out that, “noise impacts from the railroad, Interstate 80, and Redwood Road have to be mitigated. The site also falls within the Airport Noise Impact Zone C.” The proximity of infrastructure relating to noise must be mitigated on this site.
A. New housing in this Subdivision must be constructed with adequate noise reduction insulation doors, windows, barriers, and air-circulation systems.
B. An aesthetic buffer shall be installed to secure a safety barrier between the open canal and the UPRR lines.
C. Appropriate landscaping will also help buffer noise impacts from the surrounding influences.
3. The West Salt Lake Community Master Plan reaffirms that the City must preserve positive features and improve its less desirable aspects of the community. To do this, the City must recognize and conserve functionally adequate areas and find solutions to improve areas with poor development character. Underdeveloped sites must be positive contributions to the area. This site will be a positive contribution to the area.
4. An acceptable development character is necessary to enhance the quality and function of the neighborhood.
5. Although the site is not associated with any known earthquake faults, it is in a zone susceptible to high groundwater levels, severe ground shaking, and high liquefaction potential. Before the Subdivision can proceed with construction, all geotechnical, environmental, and wetland issues must be approved through Public Utilities and other appropriate governing agencies.
6. The property has delinquent assessments levied against it totaling $25,316.55 for the installation of curb and gutter.
Conditions of Approval
1. That an appropriate aesthetic buffer (wall) be installed by the developer along the north side of the Subdivision to secure a safety buffer between open canal and the UPRR lines. If the wall is over 6 feet in height, the developer will be required to apply for a Special Exception. The design of the wall and associated landscaping shall be designed to minimize potential weed and fire hazard problems.
2. Landscape the west side of the Subdivision with full, high-canopy trees at regular intervals to buffer the Subdivision from the above-grade Redwood Road. A landscape plan should be required.
3. Indicate the remnant area between the north line of the Subdivision and the Union Pacific Rail Lines still under the Petitioners ownership as an “Alpha Lot” or “Lot A.”
4. The roadway adjoining the ditch shall not be paved and rough graded only. A gate shall be added to the access of that road to discourage anyone from using it except for maintenance vehicles.
5. That the Developer be allowed to add up to 10 to 15 feet of park strip along frontage of 300 South between the southwest corner of the Subdivision and Montgomery Street within the existing 80-foot right-of-way.
6. Submittal of a Geotechnical Investigation Report must be submitted, specifically indicating what the lowest recommended floor elevation will be for the subdivision and liquefaction risk mitigation.
7. That geotechnical, environmental and wetland issues be approved by the appropriate governing agency prior to recordation of a final plat.
8. “NO PARKING” signs shall be installed in accordance with the 2000 International Fire Code on one side of the proposed internal streets.
9. That the homes only be fitted with central air conditioning units.
10. Installation of double-paned and storm windows for those windows facing north, west, and east. Also consider recessing windows.
11. Installation of soundproof exterior doors.
12. Installation of sound absorbing insulation throughout each dwelling unit, having a density of at least 2.5 lbs./ft.
13. That all homes have a roof pitch of 5/12 or greater to promote energy efficiency and to allow for an increase in the amount of ceiling insulation for sound attenuating purposes. Active attic space ventilation is also required.
14. That the Petitioner adheres to the departmental and ordinance requirements.
15. That the property owners clear all delinquent assessments against it with the City.
16. The final plat, landscape, and architectural design approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
17. No building permit shall be issued prior to final plat recordation with the Salt Lake County Recorders Office, nor shall any site grading alterations or improvements take place without a permit.
Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, and Mr. Diamond voted “Nay.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, broke the tie with an “Aye” vote. The motion carried.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.