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 Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Laurie Noda.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Marilynn Lewis, Doug Dansie, and Janice Lew.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ELECTIONS
Chair Daniels noted that Prescott Muir had withdrawn his name from the ballot for chairman.
Arla Funk felt the chair should be elected by a majority of five rather than by the most votes. If there is not a majority of five for any one candidate, the top two should be re-voted on in order to obtain a majority vote. After discussing her suggestion, Chair Daniels asked for a show of hands, and the majority of Commissioners preferred that it be based on the number of votes.
Jeff Jonas was elected Chairman. Arla Funk was elected Vice-Chairman.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, September 19, 2002
Prescott Muir referred to Page 11, the second sentence which reads, “Ms. Funk believed some of the comments were are worth consideration .and asked that the word were be deleted.
John Diamond referred to Page 8, last paragraph, and asked that the sentence be revised to read, “Mr. Diamond commented on his experience with the California Coastal Commission and admired their ability to say whether a structure is subordinate to the landscape, and the Commission has the authority to decide if the structure is compatible.” He referred to Page 9, second paragraph, third sentence, and asked that the sentence be revised to read, “Mr. Diamond disagreed and felt that type of complacency kept the built environment from improving.” He referred to Page 10, first paragraph, second sentence from the bottom, and asked that the sentence be revised to read, “Mr. Diamond asked about the negative impact of the current 50% rule.” Referring to Page 25, second paragraph, first sentence, Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Muir if he intended to say “reviewing the master plan” rather than “re-looking at the master plan.” Mr. Muir agreed that the word reviewing would be better than re-looking. Mr. Diamond referred to Page 2, second paragraph, fourth sentence, and asked that the sentence be revised to read, “The entire site will be enclosed with a fence, and the petitioner is considering using vinyl slats within the fencing.”
Motion
Laurie Noda moved to approve the minutes of October 3, 2002, as revised. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas abstained from the vote. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Brent Wilde reported that he, Cheri Coffey, and Doug Wheelwright, along with some City Council members, were given a tour of the northwest quadrant by Zions Securities which included a land tour and a quick helicopter flyover. Mr. Wilde stated that he found the tour to be quite revealing and offered to arrange a field trip if any of the Commissioners were interested in seeing the northwest quadrant. He noted that there are 5500 developable acres, basically farmland with a lot of surface water, west and north of the airport. Since there will be movement toward more planning activities in the area, he encouraged the Planning Commission to take a field trip to the area.
Mr. Diamond asked if Zions Securities had a master plan for the area. Mr. Wilde replied that Zions has collected data and has schematic drawings and options of how they would develop the land. Ms. Funk asked if Zions Securities owns the land. Mr. Wilde replied that they own 2,700 acres, which is half the land. A Salt Lake Shore Lands Plan exists, which is a special area management plan, and Peggy McDonough sits on that committee. The majority of the property owners participate in the process, and they hope the process will set the stage and provide the base data from which they can proceed. Mr. Chambless asked if this is the largest developable area of open space in Salt Lake City. Mr. Wilde explained that there is also developable property south of I-80, but this parcel in the northwest quadrant is the largest developable parcel. It has the potential to be a site for 30,000 to 40,000 residents and become its own community. Mr. Goldsmith explained that the Planning Commission will address this in master plan form within the next 24 months. Mr. Wilde remarked that options are being explored for a master plan for the area.
Chair Daniels reported that a Block 57 Design Review meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 8, at 3:00 p.m. He and Ms. Funk are listed as ex-officio members, and he suggested that Jeff Jonas attend as the new chairman. Mr. Jonas affirmed that he would be able to attend.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-604, by Ken Garff Honda, for a conditional use to legalize a 90-foot tall flag pole located at 64 East 900 South, in a Downtown D-2 zoning district
Planner Doug Dansie reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. He explained that the petitioner contracted with a flag company to build the flagpole, and the flag company was to have obtained the necessary permits. The petitioner was surprised to learn that the contractor had not obtained the proper permits when he received an enforcement notice from the City. Mr. Dansie referred to an updated site plan which had been faxed to the Commissioners and explained that the flag is on the State Street side of the dealership and is constructed within an existing landscaped area. The site was reviewed by the Development Review Team, and no concerns were expressed by Public Utilities or the Transportation Division. The flagpole is 43 feet from the property line. Flagpoles are allowed be constructed to a height of 60 feet. This flagpole is 90 feet high, and the Planning Commission has the authority to authorize a flagpole up to a height of 120 feet. Mr. Dansie noted that a separate petition had come before the Planning Commission in January, which involved a 120-foot flagpole at a dealership on West Temple and Seventh South. That petition was denied by the Planning Commission and subsequently appealed. The Land Use Advisory Board upheld the decision. Mr. Dansie reported that the People’s Freeway and Central City Community Councils voted to approve the flag pole. The flag is illuminated from lighting on the dealership roof. The nearest residential development is at 150 East or Edison Street, which is slightly over a one/half block away. The Staff has provided alternatives for approving or denying the flagpole at a height of 90 feet.
Wayne Peterson, General Manager of Ken Garff Honda, stated that he was responsible for the flag. The contractor indicated to him that there would be no problem getting approval for a flagpole under 100 feet, so they proceeded with the installation. Mr. Peterson stated that he has been unable to contact the contractor and believes he has gone out of business. Mr. Peterson noted that he went to the Community Councils, and the people were enthusiastic about the flag. He stated that the flag is 20’ x 30’ feet in size, and anything smaller would be inadequate in an area with tall buildings. He discussed the maintenance that would be done to be sure that the flag is never frayed or tattered.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Peterson if he believed he was misled by the contractor. Mr. Peterson replied that he did, and he thought everything had been handled until he received a citation. He explained that the objective of the flag is to support the state of the world today and to be patriotic. It is not meant to be advertising or used in a commercial sense for business.
Mr. Jonas asked if the Staff was certain that the contractor did not obtain a building permit. Mr. Dansie explained that the City Enforcement Division brought this to his attention after receiving a complaint about the flagpole. After finding there were no permits, the petitioner was informed that he needed to go through the proper process. The Enforcement Division would like this resolved so they will know how to handle the matter.
Ms. Arnold asked when the pole was constructed. Mr. Peterson replied that it has been up since February. Mr. Dansie explained that the reason for the permit is to be sure that the pole is constructed property and is structurally sound. At this point they do not know if it meets the standards. Mr. Peterson stated that this pole was the most premier pole available. The footings are 10 feet, and the pole meets all the specifications within the attached drawing.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Peterson to explain his relationship with Garff Warner Nissan. Mr. Peterson explained that Ken Garff Honda is a separate entity under the Garff umbrella. They purchased the Warner Group two years ago and operate separately with a separate management team. Mr. Muir noted that the two entities share the same master company and are not communicating with each other. Mr. Peterson stated that he was unaware that the 120-foot pole had been denied, and he had no reason to believe this flagpole would be an issue. Mr. Wilde clarified that a permit would be required for 60 feet or less, but the conditional use would not be.
Chair Daniels expressed his hope that, if the Planning Commission grants approval for this flagpole, it would be contingent upon a certification that the pole meets the standards to which Mr. Peterson has attested.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jonas stated that he had a problem with the same company doing the same thing at a later time. In this case, they are asking for approval of a flag pole several months after they were denied another one. He found it hard to believe that no one knew what was going on.
Ms. Arnold commented on the number of dealerships in the area and that most do not have flagpoles. She believed multiple flagpoles would create noise problems. She did not have a problem with this flagpole but would have a problem with future petitioners who might make the same request. She stated that there is always a reason why someone does not obtain a permit, and she could not understand why anyone would do that unless they were trying to short cut something.
Ms. Funk felt this flag was an acceptable height and away from the street. She had no objections but believed its stability should be verified. She stated that it is hard to know how these companies operate and whether they did or did not know another dealership had requested a flagpole. She favored approval and stated that it is not the Planning Commission’s place to punish, but it is their place to decide if this flagpole is appropriate.
Ms. McDonough recalled that the proportion of the flag was the primary issue she had with the larger flag they denied, and she believed this flag was complementary and not out of proportion. She could see no problem with compatibility.
Chair Daniels agreed that there was nothing wrong with the height of the flagpole or the flag. However, if this one is approved and a number of other businesses in the area want the same thing, he questioned what would happen in terms of noise. Mr. Jonas noted that all businesses can have 60-foot flagpoles as a permitted use. Chair Daniels stated that he had no objection to the height of the flagpole or the size of the flag.
Motion for Petition 410-604
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 410-604 for the 90-foot flagpole in the D-2 zoning district subject to verification that it is engineered properly and based on the following findings of fact:
1. That the flagpole and the flag are an appropriate size and in an appropriate location so that they complement the area rather than degrade it.
2. That the flag is not considered to be a noise factor because of the material in which the flag is made.
Mr. Wilde suggested that Ms. Funk tie the findings to specific standards.
Ms. Funk continued her motion as follows:
Under Standard A, that the 90-foot flagpole is appropriate for this location.
Under Standard E, that utility services are adequate.
Under Standard F, that the positioning of the flag is appropriate. It is far enough off the street that it does not cross any lot lines and it does not have inappropriate noise impacts. That it is properly lighted, that the building inspector would verify the engineering, and that the appearance of it is acceptable.
Under Standard H, that the landscaping is appropriate.
Under Standard K, that there are no net cumulative adverse impacts on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Chambless voted “Nay.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-00-21, by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, requesting an amendment to the Zoning Text as it relates to landscaping requirements that affect the Salt Lake City International Airport. The proposal includes the creation of a new Airport Landscape Overlay District regulating landscaping on the properties generally located between I-215 and the eastern boundary of the International Center and approximately between 2700 North and the Western Pacific railroad corridor south of I-80.
Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the petition as written in the staff report. She noted that the purpose of this proposal relates to modifying parking lot and other landscaping standards at the Salt Lake International Airport and includes creating a new landscape overlay district and modifying airport landscape standards to eliminate potential safety hazards at the airport due to potential expansion of bird habitat. The goal of the amendment is to meet the requirements of issues related to safety, urban heat islands, visual buffering, water conservation, and plan review. However under the current regulations we cannot meet the requirements without sacrificing some safety.
Ms. Lewis explained that Airport Flight Path Protection relates to issues concerning imaginary surfaces within navigable air space, and she noted that navigable air space is not limited to just the airport property. Private parcels are located within the AFPP, and due to their proximity, these properties hold the same potential for hazards. She commented that the airport is bound to create a master plan for managing wildlife. She reviewed the findings of fact outlined in the staff report. Based on those findings, the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance text for landscape, adopt the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District, and amend the existing overlay zoning map to include the new overlay district as it relates to Salt Lake International Airport and surrounding properties. It was noted that no drawings were submitted with this proposal.
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. Ms. Lewis replied that no ratios were selected at this time because the Planning Director and Airport Staff Director want flexibility in reviewing each plan as it comes through. Ms. Funk referred to Page 3, f. Operational and Maintenance Lots and asked if the operational and maintenance lots would have to meet landscaping requirements if they are changed into public lots. Ms. Lewis replied that they would have to meet some requirements and would have to go through the plan review process.
Steve Domino, Director of Planning for Salt Lake City International Airport and Randy Berg, Director of Operations for the airport, were available to answer questions. Mr. Domino stated that they have worked with the Planning Department for nearly a year to try to develop an ordinance that would address some of the concerns at the airport and concerns they will face in the future as they continue to develop and expand. He stated that the primary concern has always been safety. The ordinance was changed a few years ago, and they recently realized that, as they continue to expand the airport, there will be a problem with the number of trees required in the existing ordinance. There are currently 580 trees in the terminal area, and the existing ordinance would require that they increase the number of trees to approximately 5,000. There is already a problem with attracting wildlife, which causes significant problems with ingestion into aircraft engines. They have been notified by the FAA that the number of bird strikes at the airport has increased over the years, which prompted them to update and intensify their wildlife management practices. In working through the Planning Department, they felt this could best be dealt with by allowing some flexibility in developing a landscape program that provides good aesthetics. However, they are also concerned about safety and a number of other issues. Heat islands are a concern to the City, but because the airport is not in the heart of the City, heat is less of a problem. Airport operation is different from parking lots downtown because their lots are never empty. Mr. Domino noted that one concern expressed by the Police Department related to safety and having 5,000 trees that would shield potential criminals. They hoped to develop a program that would work in coordination with the Planning Department, address the issues of aesthetics and safety, and still showcase the airport. Mr. Domino stated that the current landscaping at the airport is very nice, but the goal is to improve it. One goal is to replace turf, which consumes a lot of water, with more shrubs. A number of pilot programs have been developed that remove turf to develop the Utah look, which is a high mountain desert appearance.
Mr. Jonas felt the golf course at the airport was inconsistent with the issues of safety and water consumption. Mr. Domino replied that they also have concerns, but years ago when the golf course was developed, there was a need and desire to beautify that area. The City had a plan to increase the number of golf courses to generate some revenue, and they were told that one would be placed in that location. Open water was a concern because it attracts large geese, and that is one issue the Operations Division is specifically responsible for in terms of wildlife management. They also work closely with the Department of Agriculture in their wildlife area. Mr. Jonas asked if comment about impacts had been received from private property owners to the north and east of the airport. Ms. Lewis reported that the Planning Department has received numerous calls from property owners around the perimeter of the airport, and she has explained to them the contents of the staff report and the purpose of the amendment. Those who called in advance were given copies of the staff report. She stated that the majority of property owners were satisfied with what the airport was trying to do, and she has heard no additional comments.
Mr. Muir felt one solution would be to move the parking off site so the City could impose environmental restrictions without imposing risk on the flight corridors. Mr. Domino replied that there is already a significant amount of airport parking off site, and that was not something the airport looked into. He noted that parking generates a lot of revenue that helps offset the costs of the airport. On-site parking is a need at the airport and a convenience for passengers and the public who use the airport. Mr. Muir agreed that it might be inconvenient, but he did not think revenue was an issue because many other airports do have more remote long-term parking. Randy Berg explained that any remote operation is more expensive to operate and would likely impact revenue.
Mr. Chambless asked about bird strikes. Mr. Berg replied that the FAA requires flight crews to notify the airport and the FAA of any strikes. Airplanes and birds are not compatible, so they do report the strikes. Bird strikes over the past year have increased, and they met last week with the wildlife people to talk about what can be done to manage strikes. Mr. Domino stated that the location of the Great Salt Lake is a big problem, and there are a lot of wetlands in the immediate vicinity of the airport. There are also many duck clubs in the area, and the airport is not in a position to control property it does not own. In 1995 they were prohibited from replacing the wetlands within 10,000 feet of their runways and had to create a resting pond two miles west of the airport which has helped keep birds out of the airport approach area. Mr. Chambless asked at what point they would use drought tolerant plants and other landscaping that is unattractive to birds rather than trees. Mr. Domino replied that the purpose of the ordinance is to leave that decision open and flexible to work with the Planning Department.
Ms. Funk reiterated her earlier question about why there is a problem with requiring a ratio of landscape area to asphalt. She did not want to require the planting of trees, but she believed a lot of grasses and shrubs could be planted. She believed the urban heat island was a problem, even at the airport. She suggested using water permeable asphalt to keep from heating up all the ground. Mr. Domino replied that the ordinance specifically says no ratio for trees because they are trying to focus on shrubs, rockscape, and other aesthetic features that address the issue of heat islands. Ms. Funk stated that she was troubled that the airport has little or no planting in the parking lots. Mr. Domino explained that their concept is to have landscaped areas around the bus shelters so people can see those areas and know that is where they can catch a shuttle. They would like to use landscaping as a buffer or shield so people will not see the parking lot until they turn into it.
Mr. Goldsmith noted that this issue has been discussed at length, and one issue dealt with heat islands. The Staff tried to require light-colored paving surfaces, but the airport people felt it was too costly. Unlike the Planning Department, the Planning Commission has the purview to insist on certain things. With regard to permeable asphalt, Mr. Goldsmith explained that there is no batch plant in the Intermountain area that can supply it, and they cannot require a product that is not available.
Cheri Coffey felt that one issue related to the ratio is that the airport constantly moves the parking lots, and putting in a lot of interior landscaping would mean that landscaping would have to be removed and replaced. This would not likely happen if the landscaping was placed around the perimeter. Mr. Domino explained that interior landscaping also gets into maintenance issues. The lots are never empty, which makes it harder to rake up leaves or remove fallen branches. If they settle on a ratio of landscape to asphalt, his preference would be to put it around the perimeter so the area where vehicles park can be intensified.
Mr. Diamond asked if parking could be structured in 1,000-car pads so they could create landscape buffers between pads. Mr. Goldsmith felt that was an interesting concept and one they did not explore.
Mr. Jonas clarified that the ordinance requires that the Planning Director approve modifications to the landscaping or general plans for the airport that would include landscaping. He commented that this is a strange animal, and he did not understand how they could come up with an appropriate ratio that would be meaningful. He noted that this ordinance addresses the concept of drought tolerant vegetation, xeriscaping, and heat islands and gives the Planning Director flexibility to work with the airport to demand some things that are not available to the Planning Director in the current ordinance. Mr. Goldsmith felt the Planning Commission could negotiate the idea of light colored paving materials with Mr. Domino and his supervisors. When dealing with municipal projects, the Planning Commission needs to exercise leadership, and the issue of having a program that requires lighter colored paving materials is reasonable.
Mr. Diamond asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to limit the number of parking stalls and how the parking areas are laid out. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the Planning Commission can establish a ratio, but it would take a lot of work. It may be easier to keep this within the purview of the Planning Director to negotiate each change on a case-by-case basis.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Stephanie Duer stated that she is the water conservation coordinator for Salt Lake City Public Utilities. She thanked the airport for being diligent in trying to address issues of trying to minimize and reduce water use at the airport. She offered suggestions for technical wording in the document regarding landscaping. In terms of increasing their flexibility, she suggested adding “or resistant” when using the word drought tolerant. Depending on times and periods, those are two different functions of a plant and two different kinds of plants. Using “drought tolerant or resistant plants” would further deflect any concerns. Native plants might be argued as being one or the other, and this wording would eliminate that type of argument or discussion. When talking about minimizing turf, she recommended that they add “minimizing traditional turf.” They might want to use native grasses that are turf-type grasses, but the current wording may limit those opportunities. She noted that the terms “xeriscape” is a trademarked term that is controlled. She believed the word could be eliminated from the document without changing the body of the text. She stated that “xeriscape” is a term that is misunderstood and misused and cited a number of examples in the document to support her statement.
Mr. Goldsmith asked Ms. Duer for her opinion on requiring light-colored paving.
Ms. Duer replied that there has been interest in the high performance task force meetings and other meetings that involve dialogue about heat islands. She stated that she is not a proponent of trees in large islands of asphalt in this climate. Depending on the ratio, the result could be a lot of dead trees in the middle of a parking lot. The idea of creating larger islands of planted material would increase the goal of decreasing heat islands and increasing aesthetics. She felt it would be best to look at these on a site-by-site basis and not as a general rule.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir asked what percentage of landscaping would be required if this were a commercial parking lot. Ms. Lewis replied that it would be based on the square footage. Mr. Muir asked if they had looked at the airport in total. He noted that this is a complete fee simple piece of property, including the golf course, and looking at that in balance, he asked about the percentage of landscape to hardscape. Mr. Goldsmith stated that they had not done those calculations. Ms. Lewis explained that the master plan would be reviewed before it is approved and moves forward in order to make substitutions if necessary. She clarified that the airport does not have a specific plan at this time. Mr. Muir suggested taking the overall perspective and giving the airport some credit for the golf course. Instead of looking at parking lots in isolation, he felt they should look at the entire package as one PUD. Ms. Lewis was unsure what credit or exchanges were made when the golf course was created and agreed that this option could be investigated, and possibly made a condition. Mr. Muir felt something should be done to pose some resistance to tearing out the golf course.
Motion for Petition 400-00-21
In the matter of Petition 400-00-21 by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports requesting amendments to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as related to parking lot landscaping at the Salt Lake International Airport, and based upon the findings of fact and the discussion, Jeff Jonas moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance text for landscape buffers, adopt the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District, and amend the existing overlay zoning map to include the new overlay district as it relates to the Salt Lake City International Airport and surrounding properties with the following modifications to the ordinance as proposed:
Adding language on page 31, item a. General Landscape Performance Standards, to encourage use of light-colored paving and encourage parking lots to be broken up so they can be more aesthetically pleasing, and Incorporating the changes recommended by Stephanie Duer.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Jonas if he would accept language in his motion to direct the Planning Director to create language that gives credit to the existing landscaping in exchange for the reduction of required landscaping on the parking lot. Mr. Diamond questioned whether this would create a greater use for hard surfacing. Mr. Jonas stated that he understood Mr. Muir’s intent, but he was unsure if it would entitle anything. Mr. Goldsmith suggested that the Planning Commission direct the Planning Director to explore this and understand how it fits with the long-term plan for the airport.
Ms. Funk suggested putting “and/or” wherever trees are mentioned in the ordinance to make it less demanding. She was uncomfortable with requiring that trees be planted if there is a safety issue. Mr. Goldsmith preferred that the wording state, “may include trees, shrubs, and perennials.” Ms. Funk was comfortable with that language.
John Diamond seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed amendment will allow the Department of Airports to effectively modify any hazardous situations associated with wildlife habitat. The amendment allows the restraint and control of potential habitat creation, thereby avoiding the need to eliminate or alleviate habitat, thus displacing wildlife. The amendment will create opportunities to be more sensitive of environmental constraints and allow more advanced consideration of safety as required by the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.
B. There are various urban design and conservation policies included in the “Futures Commission Report.” The flexibility of the proposed amendments allows the Planning Director to ensure adequate visual buffering of parking lots, low use of water, and minimization of urban heat islands while still ensuring a landscaped area that reduces potential safety hazards.
C. The existing zoning primarily shows open space and commercial properties directly adjacent to the airport facility, especially within the Airport Influence Zone “A”. The master plan calls for “No net increase in dwelling units within the Airport Influence Zone”B”, phasing out residential dwellings toward the long range development plan. Since the proposed amendment is concerned with the airport facility and those properties directly adjacent, it does not encourage the expansion of any particular zoning. The proposed amendment will increase the potential for safety and decrease negative impacts to surrounding land use areas.
D. The airport and other properties within the Airport Landscape Buffer Overlay District, while not participating in the standard manner to reduce the effects of urban heat islands or contribute to typical visual buffers, will still have to address these issues with a new and more innovate approach with this text amendment. Heat islands can be broken up with a variety of plant materials and/or shade producing structures. Visual parking lot buffers can be obtained through manipulation of topography and the use of a variety of plant materials.
E. The most important goal is to achieve the highest level of safety while maintaining an acceptable level of landscaping. This amendment allows both the Planning Division and the Department of Airports opportunities to investigate various ways of ensuring the highest levels of safety possible while complying with basic requirements and standards of the City code.
F. The AFPP Overlay District was created to identify and prevent all potential hazards to aircraft in the air, as they maneuver on the ground, during take-off and landings. The Airport Landscape Overlay District relates to areas on the ground where conformance with current vegetative practices could have a direct affect on safety within the AFPP. Therefore, the proposed amendments help implement the purpose of the AFPP Overlay Zone.
G. Although it is a colloquial term, there are many private firms all over the country that use the word “Xeriscape” as part of their name. The goals for the proposed amendment are to reduce water consumption for landscaped areas and encourage the usage of drought tolerant plan materials. Safety in the air and on the ground is the number one concern for airports. It is important to provide opportunities to increase surveillance of the grounds. Certain types of plant material being used for screening easily shield nefarious activities. This amendment proposal will allow a great deal of flexibility in choosing plant species that would perform the functions of an aesthetic buffer while providing for visual observation.
H. The DRT would like to make sure that the intent of Title 21A landscaping requirements are adhered to. This can be done by requiring Site Plan Review for development in the Airport Landscape Overlay District, with a listing of all appropriate exceptions made in the body of the text as follows:
A landscape plan shall be required when landscaping or alteration of landscaping is required by the Title. Such landscape plans shall be drawn in conformance with the requirements specified in this Chapter. The Zoning Administrator, prior to the issuance of a building permit, must approve landscape plans. Landscape plans for planned developments, conditional uses, or other uses requiring site plan review approval shall also be reviewed and approved by the development review team.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-14, by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting to amend Sections 21A.06.080, 21A34.020F2h and 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board and the standard of Land Use Appeals Board review.
Planner Janice Lew stated that the Planning Division has prepared changes to the portion of the zoning ordinance relating to the Land Use Appeals Board at the request of the Administration. After having processed a number of appeals from decisions of the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Planning Commission, the administration has found that it would be helpful to clarify the standard by which the Board hears and decides cases and to increase the number of voting members. Ms. Lew noted that the Board meets more frequently now, and the ordinance currently requires only three members and two alternates. At one point recently, the Board had only two members and one alternate available due to time lapses between resignations and appointing new members which made it difficult to convene a quorum if one of those three people were unable to attend or if there was a conflict of interest. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regarding the Land Use Appeals Board to change the number of voting members from three (3) to five (5) members, to modify the standard of review to a decision being supported by “substantial evidence” in the record, and to include a definition of “substantial evidence” in the ordinance. This recommendation is based on the finding that the proposed changes to this ordinance will allow better administration of the Land Use Appeals Board which is necessary to administer the appeals process of the zoning ordinance and that is necessary to implement the City’s master plans. Ms. Lew reported that she received a phone call from Cindy Cromer who indicated that she would like to see the scope of the Land Use Appeals Board broadened. Ms. Lew indicated a few errors in the ordinance contained in the staff report. References to the Historic Landmarks Commission on pages 2 and 3 should be changed to refer to the Planning Commission.
Ms. McDonough read from page 3 of the ordinance, “Substantial evidence means that the record contains evidence supporting the findings,” and asked if there was a need to define evidence. Ms. Lew replied that the language came from the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Jonas commented that the entire paragraph is hard to understand. The Commissioners concurred. After discussing language in the ordinance, the Planning Commissioners agreed that the language was vague and unclear. They agreed that the term “substantial evidence” needed to be clarified. Mr. Muir felt the document was inconsistent when referring to the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission.
David Dobbins, Deputy Director of the Community Economic Development Department, explained that this request was initiated by the City Council approximately four years ago. The City Council created the Land Use Appeals Board as a means of giving the Board appeals that they did not want to look at. He explained that the original ordinance was very restrictive and limited the Board’s review. If there was evidence, the Board could not review the matter and simply had to support it. The Board felt that, if someone was going to appeal, the Board should have the authority to be more effective by looking at the evidence and determining whether the evidence supported the decision. Mr. Dobbins clarified that the Board does not want to take over the role of the Planning Commission or the Landmarks Commission.
Mr. Muir asked if this would leave open the possibility of every decision being appealed and argued on the grounds of substantial evidence. Mr. Dobbins replied that, if Planning Commission decisions follow the ordinance, the Land Use Appeals Board has no evidence for overturning their decision. He agreed that it does open the door more than it is now.
Chair Daniels asked if Mr. Dobbins felt the re-write was clear. Mr. Dobbins replied that he did not find it clear in terms of the language, but because he has been reviewing it for four years, he did understand the intent. He believed the intent was simply to say that there had to be more than just a scintilla (of evidence). He noted that the Board consists mostly of attorneys, and in their mind, this gives them the opportunity to look at the evidence and determine whether it meets the ordinance. Ms. Noda stated that she was unsure if that was what a reviewing body was supposed to do. Technically, an appeals court or review body looks at procedural error, but they are not supposed to look at the hard evidence. Mr. Dobbins explained that the City Council’s intent is for people to have the right to say that they think the Planning Commission was wrong and that the evidence does not support the findings. It opens it up to looking at the evidence, and they do become more than just a review board.
Mr. Muir asked if this request was emanating from the City Council and not the Appeals Board. Mr. Dobbins replied that was correct. He explained that this request has gone through several processes, and at one time there was talk about eliminating the Land Use Appeals Board because of the lack of appeals. In the last year, the Board has heard eight appeals, and now that the appeals have picked up, the City Council wants to look at it again. Mr. Dobbins offered to work with the City Attorney to draft clearer language. Ms. Noda felt that the ordinance needed to be re-written.
Mr. Dobbins asked if the Planning Commission agreed with the intent. The majority of the Commissioners indicated that they did not. Ms. Funk referred to the flag that was previously denied and overturned by the Appeals Board. One conversation that came up with regard to the flag was the assumption that it was advertising for the business, not an act of patriotism, and that was included as a finding of fact. She felt the assumption was subjective because no one knew for sure if they were advertising or if they were just flying the flag. She believed someone needs to evaluate that evidence, but there are no clear-cut lines or demarcations.
Mr. Muir stated that he did not understand why the Planning Commission was rendering an opinion on this matter if it was authorized by the City Council and ultimately goes back to the City Council for a final vote. Ms. Coffey explained that a Planning Commission recommendation is required by the zoning ordinance.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Cindy Cromer expressed two concerns about the proposal. One dealt with how the filing was presented, and the other dealt with the content of the proposal. She noted that the agenda reads that the petition is by the Salt Lake City Administration requesting to amend. They have heard this evening that the petition was initiated by the City Council, which is a legislative branch that has nothing to do with administration. She stated that she was present at a previous meeting where Stephen Goldsmith asked the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to increase the number of Land Use Appeals Board members because they were having a hard time making a quorum. At that time he stated that the Mayor was asking them to do this, and she was puzzled because the Mayor has the authority to initiate the petition himself. Ms. Cromer read from Section 21A.50.030 which says that applications for amendments may be initiated by the Mayor, a City Council Member, a Planning Commissioner, or the owner of the property included in the application. She noted that the Mayor, all the City Council members, and the Planning Commissioners is a total of 20 people. She was concerned about being sloppy about who is initiating a petition. She felt this was important, because the person who files it takes responsibility for getting it through the process. She believed the Planning Commission properly initiated an expansion based on Stephen Goldsmith’s request to expand the number of members. She did not believe the administration should be able to initiate a petition, because it would be chaotic if every department head could initiate a petition. She objected to the way this petition was filed and believed the confusion became evident in the comments made this evening.
Ms. Funk asked Ms. Cromer if she felt the petition was improperly advertised. Ms. Cromer felt that was a harsh way of saying what she just said, and it does not move them forward. She noted that the item regarding authority of the Land Use Appeals Board is listed as item 3 in her suggestions for fine tuning. She believed more people would have commented this evening if the people who have appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board had been notified. She favored an expanded review, because some of the issues the Planning Commission deals with are matters of judgement. There is only one hearing on a conditional use, and the Planning Commission is the decision making body. It is possible that the Planning Commission may not get it right on one hearing. She believed an expanded review was warranted. She understood why the Planning Commission was reluctant to go with the expanded review available under the proposal, but she would like to see broader discretion by the Land Use Appeals Board to address matters of judgement. She would also like the Board to include more planners and someone with historic preservation background. She felt it would be helpful to notify people who have previously appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Doug Wheelwright clarified that, after receiving a letter on March 27 from Sandi Marler requesting the change in the ordinance and the increase in board members, the matter was presented to the Planning Commission to initiate the petition. He felt it would be better if the language read “by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission at the request of the administration.” He noted that this was only a technical difference and there was never a “bait and switch”.
Ms. Funk questioned whether this item should be re-advertised and asked if the petition included re-writing the ordinance in addition to increasing the number of people. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the petition included both issues. He did not believe the item was mis-advertised, but he was willing to do whatever the Planning Commission wished.
Ms. Noda stated that she understood the petition was strictly for an increase in the number of Board members. She did not recall anyone saying that the Planning Commission would be asked to review changes to the ordinance.
Mr. Muir stated that he could support Sections 1, 2, and possibly 4, but he could not support the recommended changes to Sections 3 and 5. He did not believe word smithing would change his mind, because the intent undermines the authority of the Planning Commission and the value of the time he dedicates.
Ms. Noda concurred. She believed it would be a waste of time for the Planning Commission to defer to the Appeals Boards on findings of fact.
Ms. Funk stated that she had attended Land Use Appeals Board meetings and recommended that everyone attend at least one meeting before making a decision. She believed the process was exactly as Mr. Dobbins described and that it is an inefficient procedure and a worthless board.
Mr. Jonas felt it was unfair to the applicants to expand the authority of the Land Use Appeals Board because there will never be closure.
Chair Daniels agreed that expanding the authority of the Land Use Appeals Board diminishes the authority of the Planning Commission.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-14
Prescott Muir moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the amendments in Section 21A.06.080.C, Section 21A.06.080.G, and Section 21A.34.020.F.2.i of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding the Land Use Appeals Board such that the number of voting members is changed from 3 to 5. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Funk voted “Nay.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. (The balance of the petition was remanded back to the Staff and City Attorney for revisions.)
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-609, by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department, requesting a Conditional Use to utilize City owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a Community Outreach Center. The site will be leased to the University of Utah, and programming will be run by their University/Neighborhood Partners Group, and;
Petition No. 400-02-31, by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department, for an amendment to the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and West Salt Lake Master Plan future land use map, for the property at 1060 South 900 West. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from an R 1/5000 (single-family residential district) to OS (open space district). The purpose for the change is to zone all of the Jordan Park properties in the Muscatine subdivision, owned by the City and used in association with the park, as open space.
Planner Marilynn Lewis presented petition 410-609 by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department as written in the staff report and reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report. The request is to utilize City-owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a community outreach center. The property will be leased to and operated by the University/Neighborhood Partners, an organization affiliated with the University of Utah. The center will provide a variety of activities and opportunities for the neighborhood. She clarified that this is not a halfway house or rehabilitation facility. In lieu of monthly rent, the University has agreed to enter into a 10-year lease and commit $60,000 toward renovating the property. Ms. Lewis noted that the site was previously used as a caretaker’s house, and the building is now vacant. Vacant structures can become attractive nuisances and a target for vandalism in the neighborhood. Impacts may be experienced by neighbors due to the hours of operations, deliveries and programs. Ms. Lewis explained that a zoning change is also required to accommodate the project use. Not all park properties were zoned as open space during the 1995 zoning re-write project. It is necessary to consolidate and rezone all the park parcels to open space in order to remove all off-site parking issues for the Parks Department and to alleviate any future problems. Ms. Lewis reported that the Police Department is encouraged by programming activities in this area of Jordan Park. The use of the parking lot by more legitimate traffic will provide more passive surveillance on the property. The center may not open before 8:00 a.m. and should be closed by 9:00 p.m. This will allow evening meeting attendees to leave prior to the gate closing. Based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report, the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this conditional use for a community outreach center at Jordan Park with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Diamond asked about the landscape plan for buffering the residential property to the south. Ms. Lewis replied that it would be a 10-foot buffer along the entire property as it touches any residentially zoned properties. There is not a current plan, and one would have to be created and approved.
Mr. Chambless asked about ADA access and whether a ramp is planned or expected. Ms. Lewis replied that there is limited to difficult access to the structure for a person with varying abilities. The University has committed to providing a ramp structure, and the Planning Department will work with them to come up with something appropriate for the neighborhood and provide adequate access. Mr. Chambless asked if the hours of operation on the south lawn would be year round.
Ms. Funk noted a conflict between the two petitions regarding the hours of operation at the center. Ms. Coffey explained that the Health Department limits the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but the Planning Commission can be more restrictive. Ms. Lewis has suggested that the hours be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission can decide which time is more appropriate, but it should be consistent in both petitions.
Chair Daniels preferred to see indoor activities at the center go as late as 10:00 p.m. based on approval from CPTED. He would like youth activities to go as late as possible to avoid sending young people out on the streets at 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. Ms. Lewis stated that the Planning Commission can make those recommendations, but her reasoning is that the gate closes at 11:00 p.m., and closing at 9:00 p.m. would allow people an hour to clean up and leave without holding up park employees.
Ms Funk asked if the University had specified any hours. Ms Lewis replied that their request was 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with the potential for evening meetings.
Ms. Lewis presented Petition 400-02-31 by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department as written in the staff report and reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report. The request is to amend the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and change the zone from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to OS Open Space District. The request requires an amendment to the 1995 West Salt Lake Community Generalized Land Use Map to identify collection of parcels as open space rather than single-family residential. The purpose of the map amendment request is to rezone park properties that were not included in the 1995 re-write as Park Open Space. The amendment will provide consistency in zoning for all Jordan Park properties located within the Muscatine subdivision. Rezoning of all the parcels is necessary to resolve issues with off-site parking associated with park properties and, in particular, the proposed center. Ms. Lewis noted that off-site parking is not allowed in the R-1/5000 zone or in open space zoning districts, and this proposal eliminates the off-site parking issue. Based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report, the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the report to approve the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments.
Mr. Jonas stated that he did not understand how they could attach conditions to a zone change. Mr. Wheelwright replied that, in the past, they have done conditional zoning changes where conditions have been built into the ordinance. Ms. Coffey explained that the conditions are covered in the conditional use, and the intent is to go through the conditional use process to allow the applicants to begin work on the project now. As long as the conditions are part of the conditional use, the Staff will make sure the conditions are met before they sign off on it.
Mr. Chambless noted that a park can be used seven days and week. Since this building is next to the park, he wanted to know the perceived or expected frequency of use for the building. Ms. Lewis felt the applicant could better answer this question.
Mr. Jonas stated that it seemed inconsistent for one small part of the park to have conditions if the buildings were gone and everything returned back to the park. Ms. Coffey agreed that the hours of operation would not make sense if the building were gone.
Rick Graham, Director of Public Services for Salt Lake City, stated that this is an excellent use for this facility. They have had experience working with the University of Utah on a similar project dealing with education and youth programs throughout the City, and he felt fortunate to have them as a partner. The building has been vacant for several years and is a nice structure that fits well within the community. The City did not believe that tearing it down would bring any value to the community, and they were glad to have it put to such an excellent use.
Fred Esplin, Vice President for University Relations, and Archie Phillips, Campus Architect, were available to answer questions.
Chair Daniels asked about ADA accessibility inside the building in terms of restrooms, doorways, etc. Mr. Esplin replied that all ADA issues will be addressed.
Mr. Jonas asked if this program would be run by the Bennion Center. Mr. Esplin explained that the project came about under the guidance of Irene Fisher, who is the founding director of the Bennion Center. She retired from the Bennion Center and is now heading up this project. This project is separate but would work closely with the Bennion Center. Mr. Jonas asked about the expected use of the center, the number of days, and the anticipated hours of operation. Mr. Esplin stated that it would depend on the interest generated by the community, and he assumed it would be Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with some evening meetings and activities. There could be some weekend hours depending on the nature of the activities.
Mr. Chambless referred to page 4, number 8, of the draft lease agreement and asked how the University is prepared to handle the matter of under-age drinking since this would be an extension of the University of Utah. Mr. Esplin explained that fraternity houses are not owned by the University and are subject to different codes. This would be leased by the University and subject to the same regulations of alcohol consumption on State property.
Mr. Graham commented on the hours of operation and noted that the Sorenson Multi-Purpose Cultural Center two blocks away closes at 9:00 p.m. That center is heavily involved in youth programs, and closing at that hour has worked well. He did not object to a 10:00 closing, but he did not want to mandate what the University needs. Mr. Esplin explained that Irene Fisher was out of town and unable to attend this evening, but she was aware of the 9:00 p.m. restriction and had no objections. It is conceivable that some activities may go longer, but that is not contemplated immediately. Mr. Chambless felt 10:00 p.m. was a reasonable closing time.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Charlotte Fife-Jepperson, a resident of the Poplar Grove area, stated that she grew up in a house around the corner from this facility. She is currently on the West Side Community Ambassadors Committee started by Irene Fisher, and she stated that Ms. Fisher has done an excellent job talking to a cross section of people to see what they want for their community. Ms. Jepperson asked the Planning Commission to support the request for a rezone and the facility proposal.
Daneen Adams, Community Outreach Coordinator at Edison Elementary on 400 South and 1500 West, stated that the parents and family members would feed into this community center. Ms. Adams had worked with Irene Fisher this summer with the families from Edison. Ms Fisher came to the school to find out what the parents were interested in and found that they were interested in employment opportunities. Ms. Fisher, with the help of Julie Swaner, put together an employment program for the parents at Edison. Ms. Adams noted that the demographics of the school is approximately 80% immigrants, and transportation to the University was arranged as well as educating them on how to apply for jobs and what job titles meant. Babysitting was also provided. Ms. Adams felt this was a wonderful program, and she recommended a community center and certainly a partnership with the University.
Julie Swaner, from the University of Utah, stated that she worked with Irene Fisher on part of this project. She referred to the program explained by Ms. Adams and noted that these families needed employment and wanted to help them on the first rung of the employment ladder. Ms. Swaner remarked that the divide between the west side and east side was enormous, and they are trying to help traverse the divide. One thing Ms. Fisher has planned for the house is computer programs to help with skills so people can go on line to access the University of Utah web site. They are trying to narrow the divide and enable their children to go to the University of Utah or some other higher learning facility in the valley. Ms. Swaner saw this project as a social responsibility to cross this great divide.
Leon Johnson stated that he has been a resident of the west side since the early 1980's and is very enthusiastic about this project. He stated that many residents on the west side cannot speak English, and he would like to see them being taught English. He will be learning Spanish from a friend so he can teach Spanish-speaking people English so they can progress on the west side. He would also like to teach English-speaking people Spanish so they can communicate with each other. He stated that he is an amateur actor and hopes to see an organized children’s theater that he could help direct. He noted that he is one of several people who would like to get the 900 South rail line and a number of other industries out of the area. He would also like to see economic development on the west side. He remarked that the diversity of people is the greatest asset on the west side. He would like to see opportunities for them to demonstrate their diversity through cultural and other ways and would like to see greater communication within the communities on the west side.
Jacob Brace, Salt Lake City Weed and Seed Coordinator for a Department of Justice grant the City receives, stated that they work in the Glendale, Fairpark, and Poplar Grove areas. They support this project and have been working with Irene Fisher on getting it started. Mr. Brace felt the Planning Commission had already seen the positive impacts. The empowering part has already happened, and they have the opportunity to empower further by opening this center. The center has no major facade changes, so it will keep the integrity of the building and bring life to a dead spot.
Matthew Barrowman, a resident at 837 Fremont across the street from the subject property, felt it was necessary to have activities every night or at least several times a week. He supported the idea of having a place where people could educate and train themselves for employment positions. Mr. Barrowman commented on the importance of available programs for youth and training them to be successful in life. He believed this facility should have several computers with internet capabilities with staff that knows how to use them. He favored keeping the center open later in the evening. He expressed reservation about the open space in the park because there are security issues, and he hoped this project would increase park security.
Ethel Roberg, a resident in the area, stated that she is a mobile watch patroller and agreed with Mr. Barrowman about park security. She hoped this new facility and the parking provided for people involved with the facility would secure the park, because on their patrols they see questionable, uninvited people they do not want in their area. She was anxious for this house to become busy again with positive activity.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir felt that timing restrictions were more appropriate in a lease agreement between the City and the user rather than being imposed in the ordinance. Ms. Coffey replied that the issue is the lawn area south of the building. She did not believe there was a concern with hours of operation for activities inside the building. There is a residence next to the lawn, and the Staff was unsure how that lawn would be used. Mr. Muir asked if Public Services would entertain the concerns of the Planning Staff and introduce that into the lease agreement. He preferred to encourage more use rather than impose limitations on use. Ms. Arnold agreed that this could be handled through a lease agreement. Mr. Graham stated that he understood the concern and was willing to work with a lease agreement.
Motion for Petition 410-609
In the matter of Petition 410-609 and based upon the findings of fact, Tim Chambless moved to approve the request for a conditional use for a Community Outreach Center with the conditions specified in the staff report with an amendment that time limits be determined with a lease agreement rather than with this motion. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact - Conditional Use
A. The subject site involves less than 3 acres (+2.70 acres). Therefore, the proposed use, a community outreach center, is permissible through the conditional use process.
B. The West Salt Lake Master Plan shows the majority of the land in the vicinity as public open space. This proposed use is in keeping with that intent. A petition is also being brought before the Planning Commission to rezone the property from R-1-5000 residential district to public open space, with consolidation of all of the Jordan Park parcels within the Muscatine subdivision, and to amend the future land use map of the master plan to identify these parcels as Open Space consistent with the rest of the Jordan Park properties.
C. The Transportation Division has reviewed this request and has stated that vehicular access to the facility from 900 West and Jordan Park is adequate. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance must be incorporated on site to ensure appropriate and adequate access to the facilities and programs within the building. Pedestrian access to the structure via sidewalks is currently provided. Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final approval of the ADA ramp structure to the Planning Director to ensure the new ramp be built in a way that is compatible with the existing structure.
D. The Division of Transportation is supportive but recommends approval with certain conditions: a) the designation of adequate parking for the facility within Jordan Park (reiterating that no parking is allowed on 900 West) and, b) compliance with ADA for accessibility issues for the functions of the site. The off-site parking can be accommodated on the southern drive of Jordan Park once the consolidation of the parcels is completed. The applicant will have to meet ADA requirements for providing accessibility parking stalls and access to the structure.
E. Existing facilities are adequate or will be required to meet City standards. Public Utilities may require upgrades to the utilities as the use changes from residential to public use. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Police Department should conduct a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Review.
F. In order to adequately buffer adjacent land uses from the proposed use, the applicant will need to install a 10-foot landscaped buffer along all property lines that are adjacent to neighboring parcels zoned as residential. The activities proposed on the southern lawn area should be limited to reduce potential impacts to the adjacent residences, thereby minimizing noise problems to neighbors. Any outdoor lighting should project downward to shine on the subject property and not the adjacent residential use to the south.
G. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing structure, which is compatible with the existing structure. Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final exterior elevation modification approval to the Planning Director including the design and location of an accessible ramp to the structure.
H. The site has mature landscaping. The site consists of mature landscaping. A 10-foot-wide landscape buffer is required. Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate the final landscaping plan approval to the Planning Director and requires the landscaped buffer be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The plan must meet all of the requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
I. The existing structure is not located in a designated historic district or designated as an individual landmark site. However, there will be no changes made to the exterior of the structure except what is required to provide ADA compliance. The site does not contain any specific environmental features that will require preservation or mitigation.
J. The community outreach center will rely on the gate openings and closing of the Jordan Park facility for vehicular access. Therefore, the operating and delivery hours will be limited to the center’s proposed hours of operation (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) in order to be consistent with current adjacent land uses. Evening meetings should be limited during the week so that the adjacent residents are not impacted. Should the center desire utilization of the south lawn for meetings and activities, the hours should be limited to avoid disturbance to the adjacent residence.
K. This center will be based within the community that the University of Utah has identified as having the greatest need for the services it provides. By locating within the community they will be able to have the opportunity to create a positive impact. The community is anxious for these services and programs to be made available to their residents. No adverse impacts are anticipated from this project.
L. As a request for conditional use, there will be conditions placed on the project which must be met prior to occupancy or the commencement of any activities. All pertinent City codes must be met prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Conditions of Approval
1. Parking stalls for use by the community outreach center, especially those required to meet ADA guidelines, must be designated in some manner.
2. An accessible pathway from the parking facility into the existing structure must be provided. The design must meet the federal guidelines for ADA. Final approval of the ramp design and location is granted to the Planning Director. The access into the building must be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Dedicate a minimum number of 8 parking stalls on the southern drive of Jordan Park for exclusive use by the community center to ensure adequate parking is available for the center.
3. The lessee may only make the repairs to the structure as previously agreed to in the lease and as approved by the Director of Public Services and the Director of Planning. Final approval of any exterior modifications should be granted to the Planning Director to ensure compatibility.
4. A ten-foot landscape buffer be provided on the southern property line and final landscaping plan approval be granted to the Planning Director.
5. The community outreach center’s hours of operation shall be determined through a lease agreement.
6. Applicant consolidates the lots into one parcel prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure on-site parking on the southern drive of Jordan Park.
7. The extra right-of-way is deeded to the 900 West Street right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. Activities on the southern lawn area should be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in order to minimize noise impacts to the adjacent residence to the south.
9. A CPTED review should be conducted by the Police Department with their suggestions being transmitted to the Planning Director for final approval of the site plan and landscaping plan.
10. The required landscape buffer needs to be installed along the property lines where the park property is adjacent to residential zones.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 400-02-31
In the matter of petition 400-02-31, a zoning map and master plan amendment request for property at 1060 South 900 West, based upon the findings of fact, Jeff Jonas moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve a proposed zoning map and master plan amendments without conditions. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact - Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment
A. Rezoning the properties to Open Space helps clarify that these parcels are part of Jordan Park and allows the Public Services Department more flexibility with future upgrades to existing facilities (in particular the greenhouses, maintenance yard) and the subject structure. This consolidation also eliminates any problems which could arise on subdivision issues since parking is currently on a separate lot, not to mention in a different zone. The facilities must be tied together in order to coherently plan for development of facilities and programs in the park, such as the proposed community center, which meet goals identified in the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan and the Futures Commission Report.
B. The rezoning of the parcels to be consistent with the rest of Jordan Park will help identify these parcels as part of the park. The single-family structure will remain and be utilized for community enrichment programs. The existing streetscape will retain the same character. The park parcels will remain in harmony with the neighborhood.
C. The activities of the center are consistent with the Health Department’s noise ordinance. Morning meetings cannot occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. Activities on the southern landscaped lot were not identified in the draft lease. The park gates are closed at 11:00 p.m. in the evening; therefore, parking for the facility will be closed off at that time. It is important that activities at the community outreach center be synchronized with the daily flow of the neighborhood so that negative impacts are not experienced. Exterior lighting added for security purposes may not shine onto any adjacent lots and may not become a nuisance to other residential structures.
D. There are no overlay zoning districts on the site that will impose additional standards.
E. The appropriate City Divisions have reviewed this request and have found that existing public facilities and services are adequate to serve the subject property.
Master Plan Amendment
The mandated notification procedures as outlined in the State Code for amending a master plan have been followed.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye”. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Housing Mitigation Report
Arla Funk moved to accept the Housing Mitigation Report on the property at 1060 South 900 West relating to Petition 400-02-31 and, based on the findings outlined in this report, the Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development’s designation that the applicants have adequately mitigated the loss of a residential unit at 1060 South 900 West by proposing to construct a new single-family detached residential unit at 557 South 1000 West in City Council District 2. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
As outlined in the attached Housing Loss Mitigation Report, the requirement of Section 18.97 of the Salt Lake City Code have been adequately addressed with the applicant’s proposal to construct a replacement dwelling within City Council District 2.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Foss Subdivision amendment, by Mr. Jim Shaw of Shaw Homes requesting approval of an amendment of a portion of the Irving Park Addition Subdivision Plat. The proposal is to amend five lots and a portion of the previously vacated Foss Street into three new single-family building lots, and a remnant parcel impacted by an adjacent railroad track (located at approximately 1551 West 200 South in a Residential “R-1-5,000" zoning district).
Chair Daniels announced that this petition had been withdrawn.
Jim Shaw, representing Shaw Homes, stated that he was asked by the Staff to speak to the Planning Commission this evening.
Edie Trimm requested that she be allowed to voice some concerns about her neighborhood in general.
Chair Daniels stated that the Planning Commission would not be discussing this item because it has been withdrawn, but he would allow Mr. Shaw and Ms. Trimm to speak briefly.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the Staff met with the petitioner last Thursday and made some suggestions and improvements to his project which he agreed to. After finalizing the Staff report, they learned that there were problems with Union Pacific Railroad, and Mr. Shaw indicated that he would withdraw his application.
Mr. Shaw thanked the Staff for the time spent on the project. After working through everything, he withdrew the application because it became apparent that the proposal was not a good use. He asked the Planning Commission for an opinion of what they believed would be a better use for the property which is zoned R-1-5000 residential, and that did not appear to be an appropriate zone. Mr. Shaw noted that the property is located at 200 South and 1500 West.
Mr. Jonas felt that a neighborhood support use would be appropriate rather than a residential use.
Ms. Funk favored the recommendation by Union Pacific Railroad that a wall be installed to keep people from migrating toward the tracks.
Ms. Coffey suggested that a typical procedure would be for the petitioner to obtain input from the Community Council and then have the Staff discuss a feasible use. Staff could then work with the owner to decide what request should be submitted to the Planning Commission.
Ms. McDonough agreed that this site was not appropriate for housing. It is transitional in nature and should form a buffer to the residential community across the street and the railroad tracks. She believed any use would benefit from a brainstorming session by the Staff.
Edie Trimm stated that she found it ironic that Union Pacific would not recommend building houses along the railroad tracks since there are houses on the 900 South line that are closer than any of these houses would be. She hoped the Planning Commission would see their community as one willing to take care of itself. They have a big stock of existing housing and people of all ethnic groups making big investments in their homes. In addition to the railroad tracks, they are concerned with minimal housing being built in their neighborhood when people are trying to actively upgrade existing housing. Ms. Trimm believed affordable housing could be done well in their neighborhood, and it does not have to be simple bare bones. She spoke with Mr. Shaw about this issue and believed he understood and wanted to help. She stated that their neighborhood wants to exist on the map for generations to come, and she wanted the Planning Commission to see them that way and not as pleaders for help. She wanted them to be seen as good, hard-working people who are trying to build a neighborhood. She requested a quiet zone at that location and other spots in the neighborhood. Whether Mr. Shaw builds housing or commercial, they need a quiet zone, because there is a rail crossing a few feet away. People who live there now deserve to have a meal without having a train blasting them out. She stated that she had the sense that some of the Planning Commissioners saw them as sad people, and that was not how she wanted her neighborhood to be seen.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.