SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger, Vice-Chairperson Max Smith, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Jackie Gasparik, Doug Wheelwright, Craig Hinckley, Margaret Pahl, Elizabeth Giraud and Everett Joyce.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. 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
Mr. Daniels moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, October 7, 1999. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-45 by Dennis Glass requesting Salt Lake City to consider declaring a parcel adjacent to 600 North East Capitol Street, abutting East Capitol Boulevard, as surplus property.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Gasparik then stated that Mr. Glass is requesting to purchase a 21' by 64' portion of the parcel to satisfy the rear setback requirement for his proposed new home. The remaining City property directly behind this property will be leased by Mr. Glass for his personal and continued use as landscaped rear yard.
Mr. Mariger asked why the entire parcel is not being purchased. Ms. Gasparik responded by stating that Mr. Glass would like to purchase the entire parcel, however,
he cannot afford the entire parcel at this time. Mr. Mariger then commented by stating that if the City is willing to allow a long-term purchase of the property, it should not be much different than leasing the property.
Mr. Dennis Glass, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Glass relating to the case and his leasing a portion of the parcel as opposed to purchasing the entire parcel.
Mr. Glass stated that he is leasing a portion of the parcel because he is unable to afford the entire piece at this time. Mr. Glass then stated that he will consider purchasing the remaining property as soon as he has recovered financially from building his home.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Gasparik noted that this issue was reviewed and approved by the Capitol Hill Community Council.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-45:
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 400-99-45 and declare the parcel as surplus to the existing or future needs of the City allowing the administration to further process the disposition of this property under the terms of City Code 2.58 subject to the following conditions (underlined portions added by the Planning Commission):
1. That a new private right-of-way easement agreement be recorded against all three properties involved.
2. That Salt Lake City's Property Management Division be encouraged to find a means of selling the property to Mr. Glass, and the other abutting property owners involved, on terms that could work for Mr. Glass and the other abutting property owners.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-52 by Salt Lake City Planning Division to amend the Site Development Ordinance (Chapter 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Code) to establish standards for interpretation of 30% slope related to foothill development.
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 then explained the difference between the current slope interpretation standard used to establish development limit lines on a site (the 10-foot Rule) and an
alternative method for establishing development limit lines (10-foot Averaging). The definitions are as follows:
10-foot Rule means areas of significant steep slope are determined by identifying areas on an accurate slope classification map which include at least 10 continuous and uninterrupted vertical feet of 30% or greater slope.
10-foot Averaging means calculating the slope between 10 foot contour intervals on the Slope Classification Map to determine if the average slope is less than 30% or more than 30%. This technique is used as the basis for establishing a development limit line.
Mr. Hinckley then stated that a letter had been received from the Arcadia Height/Benchmark Neighborhood Council, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The letter states that the Council feels that "the current 30% slope restriction should be maintained and strictly enforced". The Council's letter also stated that "the strictest standard of the "10 Foot Rule", not 10-Foot Averaging, should be maintained to establish the development lines on a site."
Mr. Hinckley then stated that a workshop was attended by several representatives of Community Councils whose areas may be affected by foothill development. At the conclusion of the workshop, the majority expressed a preference for the concept of 10-Foot Averaging, which appears to be the most restrictive, as the method for establishing development limit lines. Therefore, it was Mr. Hinckley's understanding that the Arcadia Height/Benchmark Neighborhood Council was in favor of the 10-Foot Averaging not the 10-Foot Rule. Mr. Hinckley continued by stating that he will check into this issue and then get back to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Hinckley relating to the "Draft Slope Evaluation Standards".
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jerry Bergosh, Chair of the H Rock Neighborhood Council, stated the community's consensus is that there be no development above 30%. Mr. Bergosh then stated that the community also disagrees with the staff's recommendation.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Bergosh about H Rock Neighborhood Council's position on either the 10-Foot Rule or the 10-Foot Averaging. Mr. Begosh clarified that the H Rock Neighborhood Council and the Arcadia Height/Benchmark Neighborhood Council have been in favor of the 10-Foot Averaging for quite some time. Therefore, the recent letter from the Arcadia Height/Benchmark Neighborhood Council, addressing the strictest standard is not correct.
Mr. Lorin Brown, Chair of the Arcadia Heights Neighborhood Council, stated he feels that the current 30% slope restriction should be maintained and strictly enforced. Mr. Brown then stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Begosh's comments concerning the Council's position about being in favor of the 10-Foot Averaging. He feels that this method would be the most accurate and would leave the raw land, greater than 30% slope, in its most natural state.
Mr. Dale Gardiner, attorney for Romney Lumber Company and the Robert W. Carson Family, submitted a letter containing comments on the proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The letter states the following: "Because the amendments are not based upon engineering or technical standards, are inconsistent with the legitimate and relevant portions of the City's Master Plan and, if adopted, coupled with the City's other acts, will be a taking of my clients' property without just compensation, the amendments should not be adopted and applied to the Romney/Carson property."
Mr. Robert Elder, Engineer with EWP Engineering, Inc., submitted a letter stating that the proposed amendments are not based on any technical, engineering or environmental reasons, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Elder then stated that in working with other agencies, slopes have not necessarily been the main driving force as much as dealing with the aesthetics and the environmental issues. He believes that the regulations should be based on sound engineering standards not on predevelopment hillside limitations. Mr. Elder then stated that he believes that the proposed slope restrictions are primarily to restrict development on the Romney/Carson property.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Messrs. Gardiner and Elder relating to their comments.
Mr. Snelgrove asked Mr. Gardiner if he believes that engineering and technical standards are the only bases for standards. Mr. Gardiner responded by stating that he is not trying to give the City a policy bases for the proposed changes. Mr. Gardiner then stated that he has two concerns; one is that the City has not articulated the purpose of the amendments. The other concern is that most slope standards or regulations are based upon either technical, engineering or environmental reasons; the proposed amendments are not.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger stated that he is uncomfortable with Paragraph 2.a. which reads:
"Existing roads/trails established prior to 1981 which traverse significant steep slopes may remain but shall not serve as primary access for new development."
Mr. Mariger feels that the above statement would be difficult to support as it is currently drafted because it does not make a distinction as to whether or not the roads/trails were legally cut. Mr. Mariger then stated that he recommends that Staff work on redrafting Paragraph 2.a. so that it states that if the roads/trails were illegally cut or cut on a slope that exceeded the legal limits at the time, that it can not serve as an access.
Mr. Hinckley then spoke concerning Paragraph 2.a. by stating that the intent of that paragraph was that no road should be widened, if it is not wide enough to meet City standard and it is across a steep slope, it should not be allowed to be widened to cause increased disturbance. Therefore, Mr. Hinckley agreed that Paragraph 2.a. should be reworded to include the Staff's intent.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-52:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to table Petition No. 400-99-52 and recommend that Staff rework the "Draft Slope Evaluation Standards" to include the Planning Commission's comments and that it come back to the Planning Commission, without a public hearing, for final discussion and approval. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-53 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division to amend Section 21A.24.010 regarding general provisions in residential districts to provide regulatory standards and requirements for residential building foundations.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pahl stated that the Planning Division is proposing a zoning text change to the general provisions regarding residential structures to require building foundations and perimeter skirting. The concern about footings and foundations arose during the installation of two manufactured houses in the Von Baron Place planned development subdivision. Ms. Pahl continued by stating that since state and federal law dictates that manufactured housing cannot be singled out in regulations or targeted for exclusion from the single family dwelling zoned areas, the changes will apply to every new residential structure on an individual lot.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Pahl relating to the case.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jay Ingleby, Chair of the West Salt Lake Community Council, spoke in favor of the proposed changes because of the water problems that exist in his community. There may not be problems in every community, however, he feels that a firm cement foundation should apply everywhere.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith stated that he believes that there needs to be some sort of an "out" clause for unique situations, such as for houses in steep slope area where the owner or designer wishes to use a stilt or pier foundation support design, which might be appropriate in some situations.
Ms. Pahl responded by stating that a phrase will be added to give the Planning Director leeway in unique situations.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-53:
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 400-99-53 and direct the Staff to prepare an ordinance and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for their consideration and approval subject to the following condition as added by the Planning Commission:
1. That the ordinance include language allowing portions of dwellings on sloping lots to be built upon columns, subject to the Planning Director's approval.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-50 by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission to amend Section 21A.34.020(K) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding Economic Hardship and the demolition of landmark or contributing structures in local historic districts.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission recommended approval of the proposed changes on June 16, 1999; the changes include the following:
1. That the required appraisal be presented in a tiered approach in order to provide the Economic Hardship Panel and the Historic
Landmark Commission with an opportunity to evaluate the cost of retaining the buildings without an inflated land cost.
2. Allowing the Historic Landmark Commission greater oversight and providing them with final authority in accepting or denying the findings of the Economic Review Panel based on the analysis provided by the applicant, rather than a flaw in the actions of the Panel.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Giraud relating to the proposed changes of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding Economic Hardship and the demolition of landmark or contributing structures in local historic districts.
There was a brief discussion relating to appraisals and how they should be approached. Ms. Kirk suggests that the City provide a list of criteria that an appraiser would need to meet and then provide an approved list of appraisers that can be used for Economic Hardship cases. The applicant would then be required to use an appraiser from the approved list.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that Ms. Giraud, members of the Planning Staff and members of the Historic Landmark Commission have worked very hard on bring the Economic Hardship ordinance forward. However, she feels that the ordinance has been abused since it was adopted in 1995. Ms. Cromer then stated that she has a problem with the way the committee has been functioning. Ms. Cromer agrees that the consequences for a demolition application through the Economic Hardship process are far graver than the consequences of the conditional use process. She feels that the Economic Hardship "procedure and standards" needs to be the same for both the demolition and conditional use processes. Ms. Cromer does not agree with Economic Hardships because it someone pays "too much" for a structure, it is their own fault.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Funk stated that she does not understand why Economic Hardship exists. She believes that the main purpose of Salt Lake City's Planning Division is to determine the best good for the neighborhood. If someone enters Economic Hardship and make that the criteria on which a decision is made, the neighborhood's best interest has been overridden. Ms. Funk also agrees with Ms. Cromer's comments that the same standards should be used for demolition and conditional use processes. Ms. Giraud responded that an economic hardship clause was necessary to balance a takings issue.
Mr. Smith stated that he believes that Staff, members of the Historic Landmark Commission and members of the Planning Commission all have the same goal which is to save historic structures. The belief of some people is that an Economic Hardship is due to the high cost of land. Contrary to what is believed, Mr. Smith feels that the high cost of rehabilitating the historic structures is the real culprit for needing Economic Hardship.
The Planning Commission members then discussed the proposed changes to the ordinance regarding Economic Hardship. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission members directed Ms. Giraud to incorporate the Planning Commission's comments and suggestions into the proposed ordinance.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-50:
Ms. Kirk moved to table Petition No. 400-99-50 and directed Staff to make the necessary changes to the proposed ordinance and then bring it back to the Planning Commission for final discussion and approval. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Rezoning Request in the Sugar House Business District
Mr. Everett Joyce stated that the McDonald's on the corner of Lincoln Street and 900 East has submitted a request to rezone their property to Commercial Sugar House Business District "C-SHBD" to accommodate for an addition to the front for a playland. Mr. Joyce then stated that he is requesting that the Planning Commission consider initiating a petition to look at the entire block because Staff recommends not splitting the block with two different zones. The block is currently zoned Commercial Corridor "CC".
Ms. Funk moved to initiate a petition to consider rezoning the properties between 900 East and Lincoln Street on 2100 South from Commercial Corridor "CC" to Commercial Sugar House Business District "C-SHBD". Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Moratorium and Northwest Jordan River/Airport Area Master Plan Subcommittee
Mr. Doug Wheelwright informed the Planning Commission members that the City Council unanimously voted for a six month moratorium on the area bounded by I-215, 1900 North (address coordinate), 3400 West and County Line. The moratorium will not allow any changes of use, subdivisions, conditional use considerations or rezoning requests. During the six month moratorium, the Northwest Jordan River/Airport Area Master Plan will be reopened to deal with long-term land use recommendations because significant things have changed since the master plan was adopted in 1992. Mr. Wheelwright then asked for volunteers to serve on a subcommittee that will assist the Staff.
Mr. Steed and Ms. Kirk volunteered to be a part of the Northwest Jordan River/Airport Area Master Plan Subcommittee.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.