SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Kimball Young, Jim McRea, Judi Short, Gilbert Iker, Aria Funk, Max Smith and Fred Fife. Diana Kirk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Craig Hinckley, Margaret Pahl and Katia Pace.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00p.m. by Mr. Becker. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Cornrnission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Iker moved to approve the rninutes of Thursday, October 3, 1996 as presented. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. McRea and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Request by William Halls for preliminary approval of the Dakota Lofts Condominium. a residential mixed use development and adaptive reuse of the Salt Lake Stamp Building located at 380 West 200 South in a Downtown “D-2"
zoning district.
Mr. Max Smith informed the Planning Commission that he had a conflict of interest on this matter since this was one of his company's projects, and left the room. He did not participate in the discussion or the vote.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Rob Pett, the project architect, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Anna Haggerty, a concerned citizen, asked if the petitioners had considered building fewer but larger units. Mr. Jim Lewis, the developer, responded that they wanted to offer affordable housing units and felt this size of unit met that need.
Ms. Alicia Green, a concerned citizen, asked about air quality.
Mr. Becker explained that unless a project consisted of more than 600 units, the Planning Commission did not deal with air quality impacts. Mr. Becker explained that this type of project would actually benefit air quality because it would offer housing in a location that might reduce automobile traffic.
Mr. Wright explained that the air quality issues for the residents of the project were the responsibility of the project architects.
Mr. Hans Cerny, a concerned citizen, said he believed this was a great project that would be a benefit to the City.
Ms. Natalie Stewart, a concerned citizen, asked if the parking for this project was adequate.
Mr. Wright responded that since this project was making use of an existing building in the downtown area, regular parking regulations would not apply. Mr. Wright explained that the goal of the City was to reduce the number of parking stalls in the downtown area in an effort to reduce the number of vehicles in the downtown area and to encourage the use of mass transit.
Mr. Ashley Brennan, a concerned citizen, said he believed this was a good use of this building and would attract people to live in the downtown area.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to approve the Dakota Lofts Condominium application, based on the analysis contained in the staff report and to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Smith and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-68 by John Kapos Requesting Salt Lake City to close a 300 foot section of Major Street south of Harvard Street and declare it surplus and to sell the closed street to the abutting property owners.
Ms. Katia Pace presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Smith asked if this proposal would leave Sun Photo without street frontage.
Ms. Pace explained that they owned three other adjoining parcels and did not need this particular street frontage.
Mr. Becker asked if the Planning Commission would be seeing a plat amendment on this matter in the future. Ms. Pace explained that the plat amendment would be handled administratively.
Ms. Short asked if the area would be fenced in order to keep the transients out.
Ms. Pace stated that removing the asphalt would give the property the appearance of private property and should accomplish that goal.
Mr. John Kapos, one of the petitioners, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Brad Lefave, a concerned citizen, asked if anyone from the public would have need of this street.
Ms. Pace explained that they might be using the street at this time but added that that use was not because of need.
Mr. Robert Fennery, a concerned citizen, asked what would keep the transients from moving to the property to the west of this property if this street were closed.
Ms. Pace explained that the property to the west contained houses which would discourage the transient population.
Mr. Joseph Leraia, a concerned citizen, stated that this would simply be relocating the transient problem, not solving it. Mr. Wright explained that this might move some of the homeless population to an area where they could utilize the homeless shelter facilities.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-68, based on the analysis and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-35 by Nadine F. Gillmor Requesting that Salt Lake City annex approximately 8.6 acres of property located at 1863 West 1700 North. currently located in the unincorporated area of Salt Lake County. And zone this property Residential “8-1/7000 ".
In conjunction with the above petition. Hamlet Development Corporation is Requesting preliminary plat approval for a 33 lot single family residential subdivision.
Mr. Craig Hinckley 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. Hinckley stated that the community council for this area had met the previous evening and had voted to support this project. Mr. Hinckley informed the Planning Commission that denying the annexation request would not necessarily prevent the proposed development from occurring. He explained that Public Utilities preferred a development be annexed into the City but added that their policy was to provide services if the annexation did not occur. Mr. Hinckley stated that this annexation met the City's criteria on annexation.
Mr. Becker stated that the annexation process provided the City with an opportunity to determine which zoning district was best suited to the area.
Mr. Wright stated that the City had the option to wait on this annexation until an overall master plan for this property and the additional surrounding Gillmor properties, not requesting annexation at this time, could be developed. Mr. Wright stated that by annexing this one parcel, a statement would be made about what kind of development the City desired to see for this area and might encourage annexation of some of the other properties.
Mr. Michael Brotsky, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and said they were in agreement with the staff report. Mr. Brotsky said he believed the subdivision configuration they had designed was compatible with what the City desired to accomplish in this area.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Chad Mange, a concerned citizen, expressed concern that this request would encourage piecemeal development and annexation.
Mr. Fred Lafave, a concerned citizen, expressed concern that there were no plans available for the properties surrounding this project area.
Mr. Joe Milillo, a concerned citizen, suggested it might be better to design the water feature as an above ground feature rather than underground.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-35, as presented at this meeting, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Smith seconded the motion and suggested the motion state that the future street layout be approved in concept only since it was likely to change during the actual development phase. Mr. Young accepted the amendment to the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-84 by the Salt Lake City Council Requesting that the City amend applicable sections of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to transfer the authority to hear and decide on appeals of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission decisions from the City Council to the Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Brent Wilde presented the staff report and stated that the City Council had been hearing the appeals of decisions made by the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission since the adoption of the new ordinance in 1995. Mr. Wilde stated that prior to the adoption of the new ordinance, Historic Landmark appeals went to the Planning Commission and then the City Council, and Planning Commission appeals went to the Board of Adjustment. He stated that one of the goals of the new ordinance had been to standardize the appeals process and send them all in the same direction. Mr. Wilde said there was an expectation, on the part of appellants, for the City Council to use their legislative powers to hear the appeals rather than to hear them on a quasi-judicial basis based on the findings of fact and the record of the public hearing. Mr. Wilde stated that the City Council was requesting that appeals of decisions made by the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission now be heard by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Wilde stated that some cities in Utah sent their appeals to the city councils while some sent them to the board of adjustment since State law allowed flexibility and allowed local jurisdictions to make their own determinations. Mr. Wilde stated that while the staff understood the City Council's desire to send appeals to the Board of Adjustment, the staff would like to explore other options, including a hearing officer or an appeals board. He stated that the staff was also recommending some minor modification to the language in the ordinance dealing with appeals as demonstrated on Page 3 of the ordinance included with the staff report. Mr. Wilde said the staff's recommendation was for the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council supporting the Board of Adjustment as the authority to hear and decide appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission, for the immediate future, subject to the provisions listed in the staff report relative to pursuing the feasibility of a hearing officer or an appeals board; that training be provided to the Board of Adjustment and their staff relative to appeals; and that the necessary ordinances be amended.
Mr. Wright stated that the staff was not recommending a change to a de novo hearing, that the staff believed the appeal should be based solely on the record. Mr. Wright said he believed part of the problem had been that appellants wanted a whole new hearing with the Planning Commission's decision being replaced by a City Council decision. Mr. Wright explained that the ordinance would not allow a de novo hearing.
Mr. Becker asked if the Board of Adjustment or the Landmark Commission had discussed this matter yet.
Mr. Wilde said they had not.
Mr. Iker asked if the staff was uncomfortable with the appeals being heard by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Becker stated that the Board was used to dealing with site specific issues whereas the Planning Commission dealt with larger policy-type issues which was why the City Council had seemed to make more sense as the body to hear appeals.
Mr. Smith asked if the number of appeals currently being filed was unusually high.
Mr. Wright stated that over a course of time, not many appeals were filed but added that at this particular time, the number being filed was significant.
Mr. Iker said he felt the City Council needed to be commended for their approach to this matter and the language in the ordinance. Mr. Iker stated that under the County's system, decisions could be overturned for no other reason than politics. Mr. Iker said it was obvious the City Council trusted the Planning Commission to do their job in a legal and honorable way. Mr. Iker said whichever system the City adopted, it would be handled in an open and public manner.
Mr. Becker addressed Mr. Iker' s question relative to the staff's comfort level with the Board of Adjustment hearing appeals and stated that in the past, some of the Planning Commission's decisions had been recommendations to the Board of Adjustment on very complex issues such as the Eastland Regency/Woodbury issue which the Planning Commission had studied over a five or six month period of time.
Mr. Wilde explained the Board did not have that extensive background to educate them when faced with hearing an appeal. Mr. Wilde said that was why the staff felt it critical that the Board and their staff be trained to fully understand the very narrow scope of how appeals should be heard.
Mr. Smith expressed concern about the time constraints of the Board of Adjustment and staff workloads relative to dealing with appeals.
Mr. Wright explained that the ordinance did not require a hearing to be held with public input. Mr. Wright stated that the policy of the City Council had been to accept written information and to allow the appellant and the petitioner to speak, but he explained that public participation was not required by the ordinance. Mr. Wright stated that it was very difficult to allow the public to speak at an appeal and keep the comments to those contained in the record which the appeal had to be based on.
Mr. McRea stated that since the appeal process was supposed to be a quasi-judicial issue, he believed establishing an appeal board or hearing officer would best meet that objective.
Mr. Becker stated that the judicial system had thrown cases out of court where appeals had been heard by a city council since they were a legislative body, but added that the legislature had since given city councils the option of handling appeals if they chose to do so. Mr. Becker questioned whether having an interim body hear appeals before a final decision was made and taking the process through two steps was the best way to deal with this matter.
Mr. Wright stated that the ordinance before them contained a clause dealing with pending appeals and if the process were changed once more, pending appeals would have to be dealt with all over again.
Mr. Becker asked if a hearing officer/board would make a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Wright explained that the hearing officer/board's decision would be final, not a recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Funk expressed concern that the staff was already overburdened and suggested that if the Board were to hear appeals, there needed to be a recommendation for additional staff.
Mr. Wright explained that the appeal should be heard on the record only and additional staff should not be necessary, that the record should be read and the decision based on the record.
Mr. Becker said he was not sure the public understood the limitations involved in the appeal process relative to public input.
Mr. Smith said he would be interested in what the Board of Adjustment members thought about hearing these appeals.
Ms. Short questioned how satisfying the appeals process would be for the appellant.
Mr. Wright said the public needed to be educated on the appeal process so they understood their best opportunity to present evidence was at the public hearing before the Planning Commission or the Historic Landmark Commission, not at the time of an appeal.
Mr. Merrill Nelson, representing the Board of Adjustment Staff, explained the duties of the Board of Adjustment including hearing variances, special exceptions and appeals of administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Nelson stated that special exceptions were similar to conditional uses and the appeals of administrative decisions were similar to appeals of conditional use approvals by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wilde asked if Mr. Nelson had briefed the Board of Adjustment on this matter. Mr. Nelson responded in the affirmative and said they had expressed mixed feelings about the possibility of hearing appeals.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Francis and Ms. Samantha Francis, concerned citizens, explained that they had appealed the Planning Commission's decision on the overflow homeless shelter. Ms. Francis stated that if their appeal was heard by the City Council it would be heard on November 7th; if by the Board of Adjustment, it would not be heard until November 18, 1996. Ms. Francis said this time difference was a significant difference to them and they did not want to have to wait that long to have this matter settled. Mr. Francis said he had contacted several municipalities in the area and found that some city councils heard the appeals and some boards of adjustment heard them. Mr. Francis said it appeared to him that the City Council was just shifting the responsibilities to an appointed body which would get them out of the spotlight, particularly during an election season. Mr. Francis said he thought they did not want to feel like they had betrayed the residents of their districts. He stated that if the City Council were not going to hear appeals, he supported an appeals board which could be set up like an appellate court.
Mr. Becker asked if he was opposed to appeals going to the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Francis responded that it appeared the Board of Adjustment did not have the necessary training to hear appeals at this time, according to the staff report.
Mr. Wright explained that a hearing officer would also need the same training.
Mr. Francis said a hearing officer with a legal background might understand the process better.
Mr. Wright said (s)he might understand the process but would still need to be trained in the process and procedures, just like the Board of Adjustment would need to be trained.
Mr. Becker stated that most lawyers were pretty well trained in the legal process and its standards.
Ms. Francis asked if the Board of Adjustment could make their decision on the appeal simply by reading the record of the case without listening to her comments. Ms. Francis said she had been told she would have an opportunity to speak to the City Council on this matter when she had filed the appeal and paid the fee.
Mr.Wright said that was the typical process followed by the City Council but explained that the ordinance did not require that testimony be accepted during the appeal process.
Ms. Francis expressed concern that her appeal would have to wait until the middle of November because of this change in procedure and by that time, there would already be residents at the overflow shelter. Ms. Francis said she was afraid her appeal would not be dealt with justly because it would be difficult to force the residents out of the shelter if her appeal were approved.
Mr. Wright said the staff was in the process of informing Travelers Aid that their case had been appealed and any steps taken at this time would be at their own risk since their approval might be overturned.
Ms. Short stated that this issue was an issue dealing with a specific deadline and was a time sensitive issue unlike an appeal of a parking lot. Ms. Short said the Planning Commission might need to tell the City Council that changing the appeal process was a great idea but that they needed to hear this particular appeal since Travelers Aid needed to be getting the homeless people off the streets for the winter.
Mr. Becker said he didn't think the Planning Commission could tell the City Council what they needed to do.
Mr. Wright suggested that if the Planning Commission wanted to request that the City Council hear this particular appeal, they could do that by removing the words II and noticed" from Section 7, Pending Appeals, Page 7 of the ordinance. Mr. Wright explained that the problem with that would be that the Watts case on Almond Street was also a pending case, though it was not active at this time.
Ms. Funk asked if there were some way to quickly handle appeals dealing with
critical time factors such as the Travelers Aid request. Ms. Funk said she did not believe it was fair to make Travelers Aid wait until November 1 8th to find out if their approval was going to be upheld or overturned, regardless of whether or not they were warned that moving ahead with the overflow shelter would be at their own risk due to the appeal.
Mr. Wright explained that the City Council had started the change in the appeal process before the Planning Commission had approved the overflow homeless shelter.
Mr. McRea said he understood why Travelers Aid was at risk with a time delay on the appeal process but questioned how that delay would affect the appellant.
Ms. Francis stated that they were being dragged through the news media and they wanted the matter resolved. She stated that if it were not going to be located at this location, another location needed to be found and this matter solved once and for all. Ms. Francis said she did not want another community to have to go through what they had had to deal with over this issue. She added that they were having people pull out of their business leases because of this issue.
Mr. McRea said the “time is of the essence" issue could be pled by any applicant.
Ms. Funk responded that the only case it would affect was this one case since there were only two appeals pending and the other appeal was not active at this time. Ms. Funk said she disliked the ideal of having an interim body hear appeals if it were at all possible to speed up the process and direct them from the City Council to the final body without using the Board of Adjustment on a temporary basis.
Mr. Wright said the staff would like to find out if a hearing officer or an appeals board was a feasible option for appeals. He explained that the board would have to be established, the ordinance written governing the board, appointments made and training accomplished before it could operate. He added that this would take time to accomplish and said he did not have a problem with the Board of Adjustment hearing the appeals while this was being studied. Mr. Wright stated that the Board of Adjustment already functioned as a quasi-judicial board and they were probably the best talent in the City to function as an appeals board at this time.
Mr. McRea said the Board of Adjustment was already part of the City's approval process and he felt the appeals should be heard outside of that process. Ms. Funk said she agreed with Mr. McRea. Mr. Smith said the Board of Adjustment was just one more internal step and pointed out that the appellant still had the option of appealing the decision through the courts system.
Mr. Becker stated that if an appeals board were established, they would not have to hear appeals as a panel but could rotate responsibility from member to member to make decisions.
Mr. Wright stated that if the hearing officer system were used, there would more than likely be more than one hearing officer in the event a particular hearing officer had a conflict of interest on a case.
Mr. McRea said debate over who should hear appeals in the future was great but pointed out that the Travelers Aid case needed an immediate resolution and the City Council might have to proceed to hear that particular case and then transfer the appeals to the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Young asked if Mr. McRea was suggesting the Planning Commission accept the staff recommendation to look at establishing an appeals board or a hearing officer, but to eliminate the Board of Adjustment as an interim step in the appeals process.
Mr. McRea responded in the affirmative. Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission could recommend an appeals board or a hearing officer be established immediately. Mr. McRea said he felt the City Council had the current responsibility to deal with appeals and would need to continue to do so until the appropriate change had been accomplished. Mr. McRea added that he did not think the appeals process should be expedited and the people already in the process “Siam dunked" during that expedition.
Mr. Wright said he believed the City Council's intentions were to accommodate the appellants as expeditiously as possible since they did not believe the current process was the best way to handle appeals. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission could recommend appeals not go to the Board of Adjustment during an interim period but added that the City Council would not be bound by that recommendation.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Petition No. 400-96-84
Ms. Funk moved to recommend to the City Council that they establish an appeals board to hear appeals from the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission and that until such time as that board was established, they hear those appeals that had already been filed. Mr. McRea seconded the motion.
Ms. Funk explained that she felt the appeals board should not be a panel and should not be the Board of Adjustment, that she had some ideas as to what it should consist of but added that she didn't think those ideas should be part of this motion. Ms. Funk said she felt the board needed more of a legal background than the Board of Adjustment might have.
Mr. McRea reiterated that he believed it should be removed from typical City approval processes.
Mr. Smith said that he had been before the Board of Adjustment many times and he had a lot of faith in their abilities. Mr. Smith said he thought the staff
recommendation was a good recommendation.
Ms. Funk, Ms. Short and Mr. McRea voted “Aye” on the motion. Mr. Young, Mr. Smith and Mr. Fife voted “Nay”. Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, voted “Aye" to break the tie. The motion passed.
Mr. Becker explained his vote in favor of the motion and stated that he believed the Planning Commission needed to explain to the City Council that they were concerned about the work load of the Board of Adjustment as well as the range of issues that the Board of Adjustment typically considered compared to Planning Commission issues and felt that an appeals board might be a better solution.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request from Performance Construction for a one year extension of time on Conditional Use No. 410-192. a 6 unit residential planned development located at 2880 South 900 East.
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that the conditional use approval for Case No. 41 0-192 would expire shortly and that petitioner had requested a one year extension.
Mr. Young moved to approve a one year extension to Conditional Use Case No. 41 0-192. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Smith voted “Aye”. Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Planning Commission Elections.
Ms. Funk moved to nominate Mr. Young as the Chairperson and Mr. Smith as the Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission during the next twelve months. Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea, Mr. Becker and Mr. Smith voted “Aye”. Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.