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 Vice-Chair Arla Funk, Kay (berger) Arnold, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Jennifer Seelig. Tim Chambless, Jeff Jonas, and Prescott Muir were excused.
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, Doug Dansie, Ray McCandless, and Janice Lew.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Ms. Funk called the meeting to order at 5:38 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 3, 2002
John Diamond referred to page 4, first paragraph, regarding the flag being 30 feet in size and requested that the minutes reflect the full flag size of 20' x 30'. He referred to the last sentence, fourth paragraph of the same page, and requested that the sentence be revised to read, “The footings are 10 feet, and the pole meets all the specifications within the attached drawing.” Referring to page 7, second paragraph, and Ms. Funk’s question about why a ratio is not required, he suggested that the sentence be revised to read, “Ms. Funk referred to page 1, b.vi. and asked why a ratio of landscape to hardscape is not required if they are trying to reduce urban heat islands.” Mr. Diamond referred to page 9, second paragraph, and asked Ms. Funk if her comment should indicate a specific number of trees. Ms. Funk replied that her intention was to not force the petitioner to have any trees. Mr. Diamond felt the sentence was awkward and suggested revising it to read, “She did not want to require the planting of trees..” Mr. Diamond referred to page 10, second paragraph, second to the last sentence, and requested that the word He be replaced with Mr. Diamond to indicate that he made the statement. Referring to page 12, third paragraph, second sentence, he requested that the sentence be revised to read, “Mr. Diamond questioned whether this would create a greater use of hard surfacing.” Mr. Diamond referred to Page 20, second paragraph, and requested that the sentence be revised to read, “Mr. Diamond asked abut the landscape plan for buffering the residential property to the south.”
Ms. Funk referred to page 3, last line which reads, “The Staff did has provided .and requested that the word did be removed from the sentence.
Motion
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to approve the minutes of October 3, 2002, as corrected. Mr. Diamond seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, and Mr. Muir were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-20, by the Salt Lake City Administration requesting Fine Tuning amendments to the text of the existing Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission will receive public comment and consider making recommendations to the City Council.
Planner Joel Paterson noted that the Planning Commission has discussed these fine tuning issues at several meetings. At the last Planning Commission meeting, concerns were expressed about the thresholds for reevaluating conditional uses in the event of an alteration or amendment to a conditional use. The current zoning ordinance does not set a standard for when such a conditional use review is required. Mr. Paterson remarked that, based on comments from the community councils and Planning Commission, the standard was revised to provide an administrative conditional use process, and that process was developed originally to deal with certain cell sites. It uses the same noticing requirements as a regular conditional use which would notice all property owners within 300 feet of the property. It also uses the same conditional use standards for review listed in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Paterson explained that this would be an administrative process. The conditional use could be reviewed by an administrative hearing officer, but there would be plenty of opportunity for the public to voice their concerns. The petition would be heard by community councils before application to the City. Mr. Paterson described the administrative hearing process and noted that the hearing officer would have the option of sending controversial matters to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Diamond asked how this process would protect the property owner. Mr. Paterson replied that, if it is a non-controversial item, it could make the process easier and faster. Mr. Diamond asked if, at the administrative hearing, the Staff would make the decision on how extreme a petition might be. Mr. Paterson replied that they would make that decision. Mr. Wilde explained that the Planning Department has struggled with this issue for some time and discussed when the conditional uses would be handled administratively. He cited an example of an increase in space that would not require an increase in the parking requirement. Mr. Paterson explained that an increase in the parking requirement would be the trigger that would send it through the administration process. He noted that for several uses in the zoning ordinance, parking requirements are not based on square footage, such as a church, where the parking requirement is based on the number of seats. If a large auditorium were added to a church, it would have a greater impact but would not raise the parking requirement. Another example would be a warehouse where the parking requirement is based on the number of employees. Mr. Paterson distributed copies of an addendum to the staff report that would more adequately addresses those uses. He noted that the addendum includes another recommendation which addresses obstructions in required yards and that he had accidentally combined two separate items. Under the old zoning ordinance, a covered patio open on three sides was allowed in the rear yard, such as a roof coming off a garage covering an on-grade patio. The old ordinance required that the roof be set back 15 feet from the property line. When the zoning ordinance was re-written in 1995, the standard was changed to 25 feet, causing enforcement officers to have to determine whether a roof was built prior to 1995 to know whether it violated the setback requirement. The Staff recommended that the setback be returned to 15 feet.
Ms. Arnold stated that she did not understand why the City should care if an owner had a covered patio coming off a garage. Mr. Paterson explained that the ordinance states that only a certain percentage of the rear yard can be covered with a structure. Mr. Wilde stated that a homeowner is allowed to have a 720-square-foot garage. If a person had a small garage with a lean-to coming off the side to cover a patio and the entire structure did not exceed 720 square feet, it would be considered part of the garage. Ms. Arnold clarified that the City does not care about the rear yard setback if it is a standard one- or two-car garage. Vice-Chair Funk stated that she did not understand why the City should care beyond the 720 square feet. Mr. Wilde explained that, if everyone were allowed to build to the property line, there would be property-line-to-property-line buildings. He believed it was legitimate to keep some open rear yard, and this revision would allow encroachment of the patio into a portion of the rear yard.
Mr. Paterson explained that another proposed change in the Foothill Residential Zones is to remove the criteria for the number of stories, which is currently a maximum of 2-1/2 stories and 30 feet. The definition of stories is difficult to determine when issuing a permit, and the Staff has recommended eliminating the 2-1/2 story requirement in the Foothill Zones and make 30 feet the maximum height. The People’s Freeway Community Council has suggested that this height be extended to the entire City. The Staff has not had an opportunity to look at all the impacts of doing that and recommended that it not be extended to the entire City at this time. Mr. Wilde clarified that this revision would not change the height and would allow someone to have a legitimate three-story structure.
Mr. Daniels asked why they could not eliminate the number of stories and make 30 feet the maximum height throughout the City. Mr. Paterson replied that it is mostly an urban design and compatibility issue. Large portions of Salt Lake were developed in the early 1950's, and most of the houses are single story. In those areas, the building height is 15 feet or less to the ridge. Mr. Daniels stated that he favored a blanket 30-foot height for the entire City if it could be done. Mr. Wilde stated that currently the City is having problems with infill homes that are not compatible, and in most neighborhoods, a three-story home would be a large departure from the standard. Ms. Arnold stated that, as costs escalate, people are likely to stay in their homes or buy in a neighborhood they like and remodel their homes. She hoped this issue would be resolved quickly, because the problem would only worsen. Mr. Paterson agreed that the value is in the land and that many people buy a lot and then demolish the house and build a new one.
Mr. Paterson recommended that the Planning Commission forward these fine tuning amendments to the City Council for their review.
Ms. Seelig referred to the proposed billboard spacing regulations and asked how many billboards in the City would be impacted. Mr. Dansie explained that this language clarifies the original intent. Large billboards were to be 800 feet apart, and small billboards were to be 300 feet apart. A literal reading might allow a small billboard to be 300 feet from a large billboard, and the proposed change would clarify the intent. He stated that he was unsure how many billboards would be impacted. Ms. Seelig asked if the existing billboards would be considered non-conforming uses. Mr. Dansie replied that they would be.
Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing.
Andy Fletcher, Vice-Chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that they reviewed the document with Mr. Paterson, and he wished to voice the Council’s concerns this evening. The first issue was distance of notification for the conditional use. Currently the requirement is 100 feet and 300 feet, and they would like that changed to 660 feet. Based on the practice of land banking and lot size, notification for a conditional use within 300 feet could mean the petitioner would be notifying himself. Expanding the notification boundary would allow everyone on the block to be informed. Mr. Fletcher requested that the language for off-premise signage be revised to say that all off-premise signs are prohibited. He commented on the fine structure for illegal uses and noted that the fine is currently based on zoning, which means a commercial property could be limited to a residential fine. He would like to see that changed so that, if a commercial company uses residential property for a parking lot, storage facility, etc., it would be fined as a commercial property. Mr. Fletcher complimented Mr. Paterson on his work and thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for backing off the 25% expansion and using the administrative conditional use requirements. He requested that the five-acre restriction for an industrial use PUD be reduced, citing Realms of Inquiry as an example to support his request. He noted that Cindy Cromer has suggested a reduction to 2.5 or less.
Mr. Wilde explained that a PUD enables an owner to have more than one structure on a lot; however, there is a minimum square footage requirement. He clarified that Mr. Fletcher is suggesting that the square footage requirement be reduced. Mr. Paterson noted that the square footage requirements vary by zone, from five acres in some zones to as low as 20,000 square feet in others. He believed Ms. Cromer recommended that the institutional zone be reduced to the size of the smallest lot in the Institutional District.
Ms. Seelig asked Mr. Fletcher to explain his request for a change in the notification process. Mr. Fletcher replied that the current notification distance is 300 feet, and the community council would like to see that increased to 660 feet which would encompass the block. Sometimes lots are so large that no one would be notified but the petitioner. Ms. Arnold recalled previous discussions about notifying 300 feet from the petitioner’s ownership to address that problem. Mr. Fletcher felt that would be acceptable. Mr. Wilde stated that, if the impact is only 300 feet, it should not matter who owns the property. Ms. Arnold replied that the assumption is 300 feet for impact, but it is always much greater than that. Mr. Wilde felt they should discuss the extent of impact rather than ownership if they want to expand the number. Ms. Arnold stated that the impact is not always geographic, because other people are impacted. If someone has ownership, they can control everything that goes on, and she believed that was wrong. She believes notification should be based on ownership. Mr. Diamond agreed that requiring notification within 300 feet from the property line would identify the impact.
Jeff Davis, representing The People’s Freeway Community Council, stated that the Council had concerns about the revision from 2-1/2 stories to 30 feet in the Foothill area. Originally, the Council supported 30 feet for the entire City, but after hearing the discussion this evening, he was not certain that a three-story home would be appropriate for the entire City. He noted that the 2-1/2 story language is cumbersome for people outside of the Foothill area and asked that the Planning Commission consider how to better clarify it through the ordinance.
Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Mr. Paterson referred to comments from the East Central Community Council about prohibiting off-premise signs and agreed that this had been identified as a problem in the sign ordinance. He referred to Page 18 of the ordinance, which contains a list of signs expressly prohibited from all zoning ordinances in the City. Off-premise signs have been added to that list with the exception of billboards, which are permitted. Mr. Wilde clarified that this is not a substantive change, because it does not alter the billboard standards.
Mr. Paterson noted that the noticing requirement of 100 feet mentioned by Mr. Fletcher is a standard that currently exists in the Conditional Use Chapter for modifications of Planned Developments. A number of changes are proposed to that section of the ordinance to clarify the language. The 100 foot noticing requirement is still included. If the Planning Commission is interested in changing that, it could be included in the next round of fine tuning issues.
Ms. Arnold referred to page 15, fence height, and noted that a minimum grade is mentioned but not a maximum. Mr. Paterson commented on the confusion that has occurred because of the language. He noted that the amendments propose eliminating the averaging requirement and explained the benefits of making this change. Ms. Arnold agreed.
Ms. Seelig asked when the Staff expected the next round of fine tuning issues to occur. Mr. Paterson replied that they intend to move these along as quickly as possible.
Mr. Daniels agreed with Mr. Fletcher’s comments about fines and noticing. Mr. Daniels believed the fines were too low and the area for noticing did not extend far enough. Mr. Wilde stated that, if the Planning Commission wishes to pursue the suggestions made by East Central Community Council, they can do so at a later time. None of these issues are included in the current list, and they have not been advertised. These issues could either be added to the next round, or the Planning Commission could initiate a petition directing the Staff to bring these back right away. Vice-Chair Funk asked if it would be better to do fewer fine tuning issues each round and bring them back more often. The Commissioners agreed that would be a better approach. Vice-Chair Funk requested that the Staff include the definition of material net cumulative adverse impact on the next list. That is undefinable at this point, and she would like to see it addressed quickly.
Ms. Seelig favored making the notification a separate issue. Determining the impact area is significant, and she believed it needed careful consideration.
Motion
Peggy McDonough initiated a petition to direct the Staff to take all the issues presented by the East Central Community Council this evening, as well as the definition of material net cumulative adverse impact, and summarize them and present them to the Planning Commission with recommendations as to which items should become separate petitions and which should become fine tuning issues. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold asked about a time frame. Ms. McDonough asked if the Staff could have them ready by the next meeting. The Staff replied that would be possible.
Ms. McDonough amended her motion to request that these issues be presented to the Planning Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Daniels accepted the amendment in his second.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, and Mr. Muir were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 400-02-20
Peggy McDonough moved to accept Petition 400-02-20, by the Salt Lake City Administration to amend the text of the existing Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as presented this evening. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, and Mr. Muir were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-12, AND 400-02-13, by Linda Cordova, Property Manager, Salt Lake City Property Management to declare a portion of the 500 West right-of-way, and adjacent land, surplus and to dispose of it through a future sale.
Mr. Dansie noted that this was originally noticed as two petitions. The parcel at 200 South and 500 West noticed as Petition No. 400-02-12 was more controversial, and after new issues arose, it was postponed. Mr. Dansie explained that the petition the Planning Commission will review is for a parcel at 500 West near 400 South and is not part of the 500 West right-of-way. This parcel was part of an “over purchase”. When the City designed 500 West Street, the original street right-of-way was 132 feet. It was widened to 198 feet in order to accommodate the park in the center of the block. Between 200 South and 400 South, the property owner on the east side of the block was the railroad, which did not want to break up the property and presented an “all-or-nothing” offer, resulting in the City over purchasing what was needed. Mr. Dansie presented an aerial map showing the area being discussed and the land that was over purchased. He noted that this was presented to the community councils, and no issues were raised on this parcel. All other City Departments were comfortable with the petition as presented and expressed no concerns. The Staff recommended that this parcel be declared as surplus and transmit a positive recommendation to the administration. Because this does not involve vacation of a street, it is not required to go to the City Council. Mr. Dansie explained that this parcel is in the City’s hands under Property Management, but since the Redevelopment Agency paid for it, the City will transfer title to the RDA. He referred to the legal description and map contained in the staff report and clarified that the parcel is only A and B, (not C).
Linda Cordova, representing the petitioner, explained that the property was purchased by three funding sources, one of which was the RDA. At the time deeds were conveyed to the City, the railroad was asked to separate the parcels and give the RDA what they were purchasing. The railroad did not want to deal with two deeds and agreed to sale the entire property to Salt Lake City Corporation and let the City deal with the separation of parcels. The purpose of this petition is to convey the portion paid for by the RDA back to the RDA to dispose of.
Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition 400-02-13
With respect to Petition 400-02-13, a request by Salt Lake City Property Management to declare a parcel of land located on the east side of 500 West as surplus and dispose of it through sale, Laurie Noda moved to approve the petition based upon the findings of fact recommended by Staff and forward it to the administration for sale of the land. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
1. The sale of surplus property is consistent with the Gateway Master Plan because it will provide developable land while allowing for the construction of the park blocks between 400 and 200 South Streets.
2. The proposal does not harm the long-term street right-of-way and will provide developable property adjacent to the street.
3. There are no technical (Utilities, Transportation, etc.) reasons to prohibit the sale.
4. The applicable departments have reviewed the petition and find no objection to the sale of the property.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, and Mr. Muir were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-616, by Utah Power and Light Co., requesting a conditional use to allow an 80 foot high communication tower in the telecommunication corridor near Ensign Peak in the Open Space “OS” zoning district.
Planner Ray McCandless reviewed the petition as written in the Staff report. He explained that Utah Power and Light wishes to update their current communication system from analog to digital. As part of that update, they would like to construct an 80-foot-high tower within the telecommunication corridor northeast of Ensign Peak. The new tower will be constructed east of an existing 30-foot-high tower, and no new buildings are proposed. Mr. McCandless recalled that the zoning ordinance defines the telecommunication corridor and tries to limit where telecommunication facilities can be installed. He noted that it was evident on the field trip that the covers on some of the microwave dishes stand out because they have not been painted a grey color. As part of the approval, the Staff recommended that the tower and all microwave dishes and antenna covers be painted a flat medium gray color. Mr. McCandless noted that an issue was raised during the field trip about removing facilities that are no longer needed. He explained that technology changes constantly, and the Planning Commission could incorporate that concern into the motion and require that inactive facilities be removed.
Greg Rutledge and Barry Anderson, representing the petitioner, were available to answer questions. Mr. Rutledge provided a brief history and explained why the tower is necessary in the proposed location. He noted that Utah Power and Light was the pioneer on the hilltop starting with a microwave dish in the early 1960’s. This proposed project is designed to upgrade from an old technology. The 80-foot tower will receive a signal from Little Mountain, 35 miles north of this site and send it to their control center at the North Temple office. In order to get clearance through the FCC, 80 feet (of tower height) is required. The transmissions will be substation and transmission line telemetry telling them what is happening along their transmission and distribution system in the northern part of the State of Utah. The transmissions will come into their control center so they can do remote switching to restore for outages or be alerted of problems in the system. Mr. Rutledge stated that this is critical for their operation, and the economy depends on it. He stated that he understood the need to be sensitive to how the tower is developed. Although the Staff recommended that it be painted, he explained that it is a galvanized steel structure that is shiny when new but in 90 days would start to soften (oxidize) into a duller grey. Galvanized steel does not hold paint well, and they are concerned that the paint would just chip off. He stated that Utah Power and Light uses their existing facilities and will continue to use them for the foreseeable future as they handle different types of data from different sources. They were not adverse to removing the facility when it is no longer essential. Mr. Rutledge explained that PacifiCorp. is a multi-state/international energy company which operates in six states, and future successors will be responsible for upholding any stipulations or conditions of the conditional use in terms of removing the facilities.
Ms. McDonough stated that the plans show three dishes on the tower and asked if they plan to add more in the future. Mr. Anderson replied that the tower could hold more dishes, and as things change, they may try to migrate dishes from the old tower to the new tower. The tower was designed to hold another two dishes at the top of the tower. Ms. McDonough asked how many of the other towers in this location are owned by Utah Power and Light. Mr. Rutledge replied that there is one 30-foot antenna and a reflector dish further up the hill, and none of the other towers belong to Utah Power.
Mr. Diamond asked if Utah Power and Light has a back-up plan if this petition is not approved. Mr. Rutledge stated that they have looked at alternatives, and without this tower they would have to install a 140-foot tower at the service center on North Temple.
Ms. Seelig referred to an E-mail sent to the Planning Staff after meeting with the Capitol Hill Community Council which questioned whether Utah Power would replace the existing tower. The response to that question was that the 30-foot tower would remain. Other communications antennas are on the tower, and relocating them would require further costly FCC licensing fees. Ms. Seelig asked if the motivation for not replacing those was strictly cost. Mr. Rutledge replied that it is a capital cost issue and a permitting issue. He indicated that it could be done by significantly expanding the scope of the project. Ms. Seelig commented on the discussion about eliminating unusable structures. Mr. Rutledge stated that he was comfortable with the Planning Commission adding a condition that if the tower is not being used, it will be removed.
With regard to painting the tower, Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Staff has recommended painting the tower to bridge the 90- to 180-day gap of waiting for the galvanized steel to dull. Even if the paint peels off, by then the steel will be darker. Mr. Daniels expressed concern about glare and danger to aircraft. Mr. Rutledge asked if there were requirements that recently installed towers be painted. Mr. McCandless replied that the last time towers were installed on a hill was 1995, and Mountain Fuel was required to paint them. Mr. Anderson responded to the comment about aircraft safety and stated that most problems arise from towers not being seen. Mr. Daniels clarified that his concern is that pilots could be blinded by the glare. Mr. Rutledge felt that painting would not be an issue if the Planning Commission wants it done.
Ms. Arnold was concerned about the incentive for removing the unusable towers. Mr. Wilde replied that the Planning Commission can include conditions of approval requiring removal of unusable equipment, or they can require a performance bond.
Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Mr. Diamond felt there would be more harm to the environment from paint flaking off than just waiting for the galvanization to oxidize.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that a tower has not been removed for 40 years, and they do have economic value. He believed it would be logical to assume that, if a tower is not needed, it would be taken down because it is an asset. He was unsure if the City could track a bond for as long as it might be needed.
Motion for Petition No. 410-616
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to accept the Staff recommendation, with the exception of painting, for conditional use approval of the proposed facility subject to a clause regarding abandonment and stipulating clean up and restoration of the area, as well as a clause stipulating ongoing maintenance and upkeep with a reasonable bond. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion with a question regarding the bond. She agreed with Mr. Wheelwright that a bond over a 40-year period would be hard to track.
Ms. Noda stated that a bond is not required unless there is suspicion that a company may go out of business or default on the required work. Mr. Wilde noted that the City has the ability to impose civil penalties of $100 per day for any zoning violation. The Planning Commission can stipulate, as a condition of approval, that if there is a violation of an abandoned facility that has not been removed, the civil penalty will be imposed immediately. Ms. Seelig favored this option because she believed they needed some formal assurance about responsibility.
Mr. Daniels amended his motion to eliminate the bond and include the civil penalty in the case of abandonment or lack of in-service as stated by Mr. Wilde. Ms. Arnold accepted the amendment in her second.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed development requires conditional use approval by the Planning Commission.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with and implements planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation of the proposed development is properly designed.
E. Existing utility services are adequate for the proposed facility and will not have an adverse effect.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures, provided the tower, all antennas, future antennas, and microwave dish covers be painted a flat gray color to minimize visual impacts.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural, and environmental features of the property.
J. The proposed lattice tower is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
K. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State and Federal codes and ordinances.
Additional Findings
a. The facility is located within the telecommunication corridor.
b. No changes are proposed to existing roads.
c. The applicants have verbally indicated they prefer not to allow a private company on the tower for security reasons but would entertain a proposal by local government or state agencies to co-locate on their facility.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, and Mr. Muir were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition 400-02-26, by Mr. Kirk Schneider, President, Nate Wade Subaru, requesting that a portion of the alley located between Kelsey Avenue and 1300 South and Main and Major Streets be closed and declared surplus property. The requested action will facilitate the commercial redevelopment of the property adjacent to the alley. The property is located in a Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning district.
Planner Janice Lew reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She explained that the petitioner is in the process of acquiring the property abutting the alley which he does not currently own in order to redevelop the existing automobile business. Plans include removal of the existing structure adjacent to the alley at 1300 South and replacing it with landscaping as well as razing several of the old buildings for a new service facility. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close and abandon the alley and declare the alley property surplus. This recommendation is based on the analysis and findings included in the staff report. Ms. Lew stated that the Planning Department has heard no objections to this petition from abutting property owners. The Staff also recommends that this petition be subject to the three conditions outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Lew referred to the parcel map contained in the staff report and clarified that the property at 1222 Major Street is owned by the petitioner.
Ms. Seelig stated that she understood Petition 400-96-94 of 1997 was filed by this same petitioner. Ms. Lew replied that it was filed by Nate Wade, and it is the same company. Ms. Seelig asked if the petitioner has been receiving value from the already closed portion of the alley since 1997, and that portion of the alley has not yet been paid for. Ms. Lew replied that was correct.
Ms. Arnold asked why they want to close the alley now. Kirk Schneider, the petitioner, explained that he has recently purchased the business, and in 1997 the property was controlled by Mr. Wade. Now that he is the property owner, he wants to do the redevelopment, building a new service facility. He noted that the alley is a perpetual crime problem, which is another reason he would like to have it closed.
Ms. Seelig asked if the 1997 petition was filed by the same company. Mr. Schneider replied that the 1997 petition was filed by Nate Wade as the property owner. Mr. Schneider clarified that he is with Nate Wade Subaru and is filing as Nate Wade Subaru, the business.
Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing.
Jeff Davis, representing the Peoples Freeway Community Council, stated that Nate Wade Subaru presented plans during the Community Council meeting, and the Council voted unanimously to approve the petition to close the alley and allow the company to purchase it.
Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-26
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to accept the Staff recommendation to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close and abandon the subject alley and declare the alley property surplus to the City’s needs as a public alley subject to the following conditions:
1. The closure is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property.
2. Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant City standards and ordinances.
3. The closure is subject to the execution and recordation of a private right-of-way agreement for the full width of the alley between all property owners whose property requires continued access to the alley, as may be appropriate, if the contemplated property acquisitions are not realized.
Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
1. The appropriate City divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. The applicant will be required to maintain all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property.
2. The petition meets Considerations B and C.
3. The closing of the alley will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property if closure is conditioned upon execution and recordation of a private right-of-way agreement for the full width of the alley between all property owners whose property requires continued access to the alley.
4. The proposed alley closure would not create any landlocked parcels.
5. The alley closure is consistent with applicable policies of the City.
6. No objections were expressed by abutting property owners to the petition.
7. The proposed petition will further the City’s preference for closing entire alleys by disposing of the remainder of the subject alley that was partially closed in 1997. The portion of the subject alley to be closed should be declared surplus to the City’s needs as a public alley and sold at fair market value consistent with City policy (City-owned Real Property Chapter 2.58).
8. The alley will not be necessary for rear access if the petitioner acquires all abutting property or the request is conditioned on the execution and recordation of private right-of-way agreements for the full width of the alley between all property owners whose property needs continued access to the alley.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, and Mr. Muir were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-614, by Palatial Pets, represented by Robin Lawyer, for a conditional use to allow a kennel with accessory light manufacturing and retail sales in an existing suite at the Diamond Parking Business Development at 47 South Orange Street in a BP Business Park Zone.
Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She clarified one mistake in the staff report and noted that Palatial Pets and Diamond Parking are not partners in this business but are looking at a marketing partnership. Ms. Coffey stated that this petition meets all the criteria, and the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use for both the kennel and retail sales in the BP zone with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Robin Lawyer, the petitioner, was available to answer questions.
Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Mr. Diamond asked which department regulates these facilities. Ms. Coffey replied that they are regulated by the Health Department. When Ms. Lawyer applies for a business license, it will be reviewed by both the Health Department and Animal Control.
Motion for Petition No. 410-614
With respect to Petition 410-614, based upon the findings of fact and conditions recommended by Staff, Laurie Noda moved to approve the petition as outlined. John Diamond seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. Kennels and retail sales are allowed as conditional uses in the Business Park Zone.
B. The proposed use meets the intent of the Business Park zoning classification as well as the planning goals identified in the Northwest Community Master Plan and Futures Commission Report.
C. Access to the proposed development is adequate to carry the anticipated traffic to the site. The adjacent street is adequate to handle the anticipated traffic generated by this use.
D. The Transportation Division has reviewed the proposed project and has found that the internal circulation system is properly designed. The proposal meets the off-street parking requirements.
E. The applicant must continue to work with the Public Utilities Department to ensure that the capacity of the utilities can adequately handle the waste removal and other demands of the kennel. All improvement required by the Public Utilities Department must be met to ensure that the necessary water pressure and waste disposal is adequately provided prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit.
F. The proposed operations will all be within an existing building. Exterior alterations are not proposed. Noise issues associated with barking dogs should not be an issue for adjacent properties. Any noise disturbance to the adjacent tenant in the suite east of the subject suite should be handled as part of the lease agreement through the business park management.
G. The proposal is in an existing building in a business park development and is consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. The applicant is not proposing to make any exterior changes to the building.
H. The project will be located in an existing business park development. Mature landscaping for the business park is already provided and is appropriate for the scale of the development.
I. The project is not located within a designated historic district or landmark site. There are no sensitive environmental features associated with this site.
J. Operating hours will be 24 hours a day. Deliveries will be made during the daytime, consistent with delivery hours of the other businesses adjacent to the proposed use. Adjacent land uses are primarily manufacturing and offices. The operating and delivery hours will be compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed uses are consistent with Diamond Parking Business Parks function of serving the traveling public and are appropriate uses for a business park. The uses are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or City as a whole.
L. The development will be required to meet all applicable codes prior to the issuance of any business license or building permit which will include compliance with the Health Department regulations for Kennels and may include an avigation easement with the Airport.
Conditions
1. No retail services be allowed on site except those that are accessory to the boarding of animals and are customarily found in a kennel facility (such as grooming services).
2. No advertising of the retail sales offered at the facility.
3. Animals shall be limited to dogs, cats, and common household pets as approved by the Salt Lake County Animal Services and Salt Lake Valley Health Department.
4. Outdoor facilities for the kennel shall be prohibited.
5. Final building permit or business licensing plans shall be submitted to Public Utilities for approval to ensure the capacity of the utilities can adequately handle the demands of the facility.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, and Mr. Muir were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.