SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Gregory DeMille, Aria Funk, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Fred Fife and Gilbert lker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Cheri Coffey and Robert Glessner.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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
Ms. Barrows moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, October 1, 1998. Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. lker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Short arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-322 by Albertson's. Inc. requesting a conditional use for a Commercial Planned Development for an A-Express gas station and convenience store located at approximately 880 West North Temple in a Community Shopping "CS" zoning district.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the rr1inutes. Ms. Coffey then stated that the State Fairpark Community Council reviewed this request and passed a motion in support of this project. The comments raised by the Community Council mainly focused on crime prevention. They requested that the site be well lit at night, especially since there will be a 24-hour access to gasoline sales. In addition, the Community Council asked that pay phones be located within the structure. If this is not feasible, they requested any phones on the premises allow only out-going calls. Ms. Coffey then stated that the Community Council also requested that the existing pay phones, located at the western edge of the parking lot, be relocated closer to the existing structures.
The Planning Commission members briefly discussed adding flowers as part of the landscaping, the pay phones and proposing that Albertson's update the parking requirements by including bike racks on the premises.
Mr. Curtis Crystal, architect representing Albertson's, Inc. was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Crystal stated that he would like to modify the recommendation dealing with the pay phones. He stated that pay phones will not be put in at this time. If circumstances change sometime in the future, pay phones will be installed outside of the building allowing for out-going calls only. Mr. Crystal then stated that he does not have a problem with adding bike racks to the existing shopping center and adding flowers to some of the landscaping.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 41 0-322:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-322 for a commercial planned development located at approximately 880 West North Temple subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with a few additions as noted:
1 The Planning Commission modify the standards to allow a 14 foot landscaped setback for the corner side yard on 900 West frontage (existing landscaping).
2 The Planning Commission modify the spacing requirement for drive approaches within the shopping center to allow the two existing 30 foot drive approaches along the North Temple frontage to remain.
3 The 15 foot wide center drive approach on North Temple be removed.
4 Shared parking and cross-over easements be retained.
5 The property owners of the pad site obtain a renewable lease of three parking stalls from the property owner to the east.
6 A majority of the facade consist of brown split-faced concrete to match the existing Albertson's and Rite Aid stores.
7. The east/west travel aisle be a minimum of 24 feet.
8. Lighting on the north side of the development be directed downward so it will not impact those residential land uses along 900 West while still being bright enough to deter criminal activities.
9. If pay phones are installed they should either be located within the structure or they can be installed outside if they allow for out-going calls only. Installation of pay phones on the site be located inside the convenience store. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
10. The petitioner discuss with Planning Staff what will be appropriate for flowering some of the landscaped areas. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
11. The petitioner provide a bike rack somewhere on the premises. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Fife, Mr. lker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Mariger arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
PLANNING ISSUES
Continued discussion of the East Central Conservation Zoning
Mr. Robert Glessner presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the "Draft East Central Community Conservation District Ordinance, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He stated that the boundary has not yet been defined, but the general boundary is from South Temple to 1300 South and 1300 East to 700 East. The main purpose of the ordinance is to try to preserve certain parts of single family neighborhoods. An advisory subcommittee created by the Planning Commission, consisting of 2 Planning Commissioners (Ms. Funk and Ms. Short) Planning Staff and 3 residents from the East Central Community Council, generated the draft Conservation Overlay Zone Ordinance in association with members of the American Institute of Architects (AlA). After several discussions, the Advisory Committee and the executive board members of the AlA concluded on a condensed version of the draft ordinance that includes five specific criteria: garage locations, front porch requirements, scale (footprints, additions, height), roof pitch and parkway trees. Mr. Glessner then reviewed the regulations for the five criteria. Although this item is not scheduled for a public hearing, Mr. Smith opened the discussion to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Glessner presented a letter to the Planning Commission members from Mr. Christopher B. Quann, Chair, East Central Community Council. The letter identifies Mr. Quann's opinion concerning the proposal for East Central Conservation Zoning. (A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Wayne Bingham, representing AlA, stated that he was pleased to participate in the discussions with the Advisory Committee. He then stated that the discussions have significantly simplified the criteria since the process began several months ago. Mr. Bingham continued by stating that AlA strongly supports the intent of the process, in terms of conservation of historic neighborhoods and their character. However, he is concerned about how it is going to be administered and whether or not the City Staff is skilled and capable to carefully and thoughtfully transmit the intent.
Mr. Wilde commented by stating that the City's intent is to provide rr1inimum elements that will help regulate infill housing to a compatible size and mass, not to assure quality design.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she feels that many of the infill houses do not fit and are not working out all that well in terms of how they are functioning in the neighborhood. She then stated that there seems to be a disruption in ownership patterns of the houses around them. Ms. Cromer continued by stating that a very important value of her property is in the character of the house itself, the surrounding landscaping and the nearby properties; which are necessary to protect people's investments.
Mr. Gary Blake, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels strongly that the City should do everything possible to preserve the historical character of the bungalow neighborhoods and encourage the restoration of arts & crafts homes. He then stated that he would like to see more of the East Central area become an historic district. However, he is pleased to have conservation zoning because he believes that it will increase the pride of ownership and make neighborhoods more healthy and viable. Mr. Blake noted that he would like to see the southern boundary of the Conservation District go to 1700 South rather than 1300 South.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith returned the discussion back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Short stated that she is in favor of Mr. Blake's suggestion that the southern boundary go to 1700 South.
Mr. Wilde stated that if the City begins to expand the conservation zoning to other neighborhoods, each neighborhood will need their own criteria that is consistent with the characteristics of that neighborhood.
Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that requiring the regulation is not appropriate unless a super majority of the people in the neighborhoods want this imposition upon their property. He then stated that he feels very strongly that this is a major impairment of property rights that is being done because of aesthetic opinions of a very limited number of people.
Ms. Funk stated that she feels that there is more support for conservation zoning districts than is being seen and that finding out if there is a super majority in the neighborhoods becomes cumbersome. She then stated that Planning Staff feels that there needs to be some protection and that there is a need for conservation zoning. Ms. Funk stated that she feels that perhaps the City could try conservation zoning on a trial basis and if it does not work then it can be discontinued.
Ms. Kirk stated that she was initially opposed to the process and that she now feels much better about it. She feels that during the trial period, the geographic area should be smaller until the City sees how the public reacts to it.
Motion for East Central Conservation Zoning:
Ms. Funk moved to forward the East Central Conservation Zoning process on to an open house and then schedule it for a hearing before the Planning Commission. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger was opposed. Mr. Fife and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
The Planning Commissioners then gave staff the authority to decide what the smaller geographic area should be for the trial basis.
PUBLIC HEARING -The Planning Commission will receive public comment and consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding Petition No. 400-97-70 by Salt Lake City Corporation requesting amendments to the text of the existing Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance (Fine Tuning).
Mr. Brent Wilde presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Comrr1ission.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she is pleased to see the language about retaining walls because large boulders are being used more and more frequently. However, the landscaping requirement that the vegetation equal the height of the wall behind it is probably not practical in this climate. Ms. Cromer is also pleased to see the language about making drive through windows conditional uses in "CN" zoning districts.
Ms. Cromer continued by stating that she asked for two things in January of 1996 pertaining to Extractive Industries "EI" zoning districts. The first thing pertains to landscaped buffers if two gravel pits are abutting. She feels that it makes no sense to require a landscaped buffer if two gravel pits are side by side. This change was made. The other issue had to do with the landscaped buffering if a gravel pit is next to an open space zone. Ms. Cromer stated that her interpretation of the ordinance was that the City was setting up an opportunity for the owner in the extractive industry zone to use the open space zone, which is usually in public ownership, for the landscaped buffering. She does not feel that this is fair because the owners of the extractive industry should be required to create their own buffer between the two zones.
Mr. Wilde stated that staff will work on the language to include that request into the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Cromer then spoke against the standards for economic hardship. She feels that developers are creating their own hardships by paying way too much for the properties and then come to the City complaining about how they cannot make it work. Ms. Cromer then stated that she feels that the economic hardship criteria is resulting in properties being commercialized and demolished unnecessarily.
Ms. Cromer continued by stating that she is generally opposed to hard surfacing of driveways and that it is reasonable to request hard surfacing for drive approaches. She noted that the City has some unpaved alley's, therefore, she feels that the City has established some criteria that it is not meeting itself.
Ms. Cromer then addressed the definition of dwelling and how the definition is being subverted and misused by people who are in the business of lodging. Residential areas are being commercialized and the buildings are functioning like a hotel. She feels that the definition of dwelling needs some repair and that the City needs to be enforcing.
Ms. Cromer requested to change the portion of the ordinance regulating the initiation of zoning changes and allow citizens to initiate zoning petitions. She would like this issue to be addressed because there have been numerous times, since the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1995, that she would have filed a petition.
Ms. Cromer then addressed the City's process for notifying people regarding administrative decisions. She feels that the process needs to be reconsidered because the public usually does not hear about the administrative decisions until it is too late to appeal the decision.
Mr. Wilde stated that if an administrative decision is regarding land use, the decision is sent to the effected community council chair to give them an opportunity to appeal. If an administrative decision is not regarding land use, there is not a notification process because there are many administrative interpretations that are made every day.
Ms. Sandy Hatch, an architect, stated that she primarily deals with additions in historic districts. She is concerned because height criteria that is set up for foothill districts are proposed to be applied to all residential districts. Ms. Hatch feels that the criteria for the foothills does not apply very effectively to all residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Wilde stated that the City's reasoning for applying the foothill height restrictions to residential areas was because there are many sloping lots outside of the foothill districts. The City's intent was to provide some flexibility to design for sloping lots outside of the foothills. It is an option that a property owner would likely never pursue unless they had a steep sloping lot.
Ms. Hatch noted that she feels that the provision seems more like a restriction than an option.
Mr. Wilde then stated that perhaps the City could take the foothill standard and create a more liberal version of it for outside the foothill districts. However, he would be a little concerned about doing that because many of the same principles that apply to the sloping lots in the foothills apply to the sloping lots outside the foothills. Another option would be to reevaluate the language in the residential zoning districts.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Wilde presented some new minor issues that the Planning Commission had not yet reviewed. The Planning Commission generally discussed the issues raised by staff and the public.
Motion for Petition No. 400-97-70:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-97-70, amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as outlined in the document attached to the staff report, to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Short further moved that Planning Staff review Ms. Cromer's issues and bring them back to the Planning Commission for a follow-up. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. DeMille and Mr. Snelgrove abstained. Mr. Fife and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Sn1ith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Wright noted that the adoption of the Gateway Development Master Plan by the City Council was on August 11, 1998. The City Council currently has a public hearing scheduled for November 3, 1998 to consider implementing the new Gateway zoning. Mr. Wright then stated that the City Council has accepted all of the urban design issues and he feels that they will adopt the zoning. Mr. Roger Boyer, a developer, has a project that he would like to locate within the boundaries of the Gateway Development Master Plan which has been in a preliminary design stage for about six months. Mr. Boyer will be submitting an application next week which could then be ready for a Planning Commission public hearing at their Thursday, November 19, 1998 meeting. Therefore, Mr. Wright suggested that the Planning Commission establish a five member subcommittee to review the plans and any related issues for the Boyer project. The following Planning Commission members volunteered to participate: Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed.
Mr. Smith stated that the Planning Commission Subcorr1mittee met with Mr. Craig Mecham earlier in the day to review the issues brought up at the June 18, 1998 public hearing which lead to the denial of Petition No. 410-271 located at approximately 2170 South 1300 East. Mr. Smith then briefed the entire Planning Commission on what was discussed. Another subcommittee meeting will occur in a few weeks to continue the analysis and discussion.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.