SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph Becker, Jim McRea, Kimball Young, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gil Iker and Arla Funk.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent B. Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Joel Paterson and Margaret Pahl. Planning Director William T. Wright was excused.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Howa. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, September 21, 1995 as presented. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONDITIONAL USE PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-189 by Salt Lake City Cellular Telephone Company requesting a conditional use for a communications tower exceeding the maximum height allowance to be located at 665 East Wilmington Avenue in a Commercial “CB" zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce 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. Kim Garrick, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of
the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Garrick stated that they had contacted all of the home owners in the immediate vicinity at the request of the community council to obtain their input, and added that none of those property owners had been opposed to this request. He explained that as a result of that contact, they had agreed to install a wrought iron fence around their property.
Mr. Wilde reminded the Planning Commission that a subcommittee had been established to study communication towers in the City but had not yet had the opportunity to fully examine the issues. Mr. Wilde stated that the subcommittee would now become active and would break down communication tower studies between urban towers and foothill towers since the issues involved were very different in nature. Mr. Wilde stated that the staff felt comfortable with this particular request since it was in a commercial area and he did not feel approval of this request would establish a precedent for approval of communication towers in residential districts.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no requests, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea asked if the Planning Commission felt this matter should be tabled until the subcommittee had had the opportunity to study these issues in greater detail.
Mr. Wilde reiterated that he felt comfortable that this request would not establish any precedents.
Ms. Short said she was in favor or tabling this case and that she would prefer to see the tower placed in such a manner as to not be so visible.
Mr. Young asked if the staff had considered the idea of waiting until the subcommittee had examined communication tower issues further prior to asking the Planning Commission to make a decision.
Mr. Joyce stated that he had discussed this matter with Mr. Wright, the Planning Director, who had felt that due to the location of other surrounding utilities and the commercial location of the tower, this matter could proceed at this time without negative impacts.
Mr. Wilde stated that the subcommittee would need to address height standards and added that the City had received another application for a 1 95 foot high tower on 700 West. He added that penetration of communication towers into residential districts was also another issue that needed careful examination.
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-1 89 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Mr. Becker and Mr. Iker voted “ Aye." Ms. Short and Mr. McRea voted “Nay." Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
A discussion followed on whether or not the Planning Commission should recommend the City Council place a moratorium on further applications for communication towers until the subcommittee had had the opportunity to fully examine the issues involved.
Mr. Wilde explained that a moratorium would not deal with the existing application for the 195 foot high tower.
Ms. Kirk stated that the Planning Commission could always deny that request if they did not believe a tower of that height was in the best interests of the community.
Mr. McRea stated that the subcommittee would have a report for the Planning Commission by their next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-192 by Jim Davis and Steve Butcher requesting a conditional use for a residential planned development consisting of seven single family homes located at 2880 South 900 East in a Residential "R-1/7000" zoning district.
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.
Mr. Becker asked why a Phase II was shown on the site plan but was not being considered at this time. Ms. Pahl explained that the staff had wanted to alert the Planning Commission to the fact that it might be a future development but was not owned by these developers. Ms. Pahl stated that the two current property owners could not agree on how the parcel should be divided, and therefore, no current plans were in the works for developing that site.
Mr. Jim Davis, one of the petitioners, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Davis talked about the need for housing in the City and gave a brief presentation of their plans for this project and a description of the types of homes that would be constructed on this site. Mr. Davis stated that they had met with the community on this matter and had reduced the number of lots from eight to six in response to the requests from the community. He stated that they would like to be able to make water and sewer connections during the time the City would be out digging in this area, and therefore, they were on a tight time frame. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Ruth Robbins, a resident of the area, stated that many of the members of their community council had worked hard for several years to obtain Community Development Block Grant funding for a park to be constructed on this site. Ms. Robbins stated that they had obtained more than 1 00 signatures in favor of such a park. She stated that the park had never been funded due to a lack of available parking spaces but added that people should walk, not drive, to a neighborhood park. Ms. Robbins requested this land be kept open and something other than housing be developed on it. She also expressed concern that all of the garbage cans for this residents of this project would be stacked up on 900 East and create a problem.
Ms. Roselyn Oxenhert, a resident of the area, requested that since a portion of this project would border on her back property line, her privacy be considered. She stated that she had originally been in support of a park but due to the recent increases in criminal activities, she was now very much against a park for this property.
Mr. Noel Hilden, a resident of the area, stated that he was in support of this project but also concerned about their privacy. Mr. Hilden stated that he too had originally been in support of a park but added that he no longer wanted a park on this site.
Mr. Tom Pace, a resident of the area, stated that this project would border on his back property line and was concerned about privacy, that the project would have to install pumps for their sewer lines and that parks were a drain on City taxes whereas home would increase the City's tax base. Mr. Pace stated that he was in support of this project.
Mr. Terry Wade, a resident of the area, asked what the price range would be for the proposed homes.
Mr. Wade asked if a variance would be needed since the road would only be 20 feet wide.
Mr. Howa explained that the price of the homes was outside the purview of the Planning Commission and the road was actually a private driveway and therefore, the normal requirements for road widths would not apply to this case.
Ms. Pahl stated that the Transportation Division had approved this plan subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Craig Ardema, a resident of the area, stated that this project was very similar to the Apple Court development down the road and that project had been a great asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. Cameron Kergaye, a resident of the area, stated that he looked forward to this project being developed on this site.
Mr. John Borsos, a resident of the area, stated that he had been one of the people to sign the petition for a park that Ms. Robbins had referred to and that he had signed that petition about two years ago.
Ms. Thelma Williams, a resident of the area, stated that she did not want a park at this location and added that she was in favor of this housing project and felt it would be an asset to their community.
Ms. Robbins stated that even though the petition for a park was more than two years old, she had kept in touch with many of the people who had signed the petition and they were still in favor of a park for their community. Ms. Robbins said she believed many people had been brainwashed about gang problems. She stated that this project could not be compared to Apple Court because it had access on 800 East and 900 East and was located in the County.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Davis about the fencing/privacy issue raised by the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Davis responded that the fencing issue was negotiable and they would be happy to meet with those property owners and work with them on that matter.
Mr. Becker stated that since the City had not exercised the option to construct a park at this location, it probably would not do so in the future.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-1 92 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the fencing to be approved by the Planning Director along with the landscaping. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted “Aye"; Ms. Short voted “Nay." Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-195 by Iverson/Clissold requesting a conditional use for a residential planned development consisting of four twin home structures located at 968 East 2700 South in a Special Residential “SB-1 " zoning district.
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 corrected the staff report and stated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who had jurisdiction over the wetlands involved in this project, had given their approval to this project subject to certain conditions.
Ms. Short expressed concern about the possibility of ground water seepage into the basements of the homes proposed for this site.
Mr. Duane Iverson, one of the petitioners, stated that the house that was there now had a basement and had never had any water problems.
Mr. Becker asked if the mature vegetation such as the old willow tree would be preserved.
Mr. Iverson said they would work to preserve every tree possible.
Mr. Becker asked if the development presented at this time met the conditions of approval placed on the project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Ed Clissold, one of the petitioners, responded in the affirmative and stated that the conditions placed on the project by the Corps of Engineers were very specific relative to pond placement and retention. Mr. Clissold stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations Mr. Clissold explained to the Planning Commission how the existing ponds would be channeled and stated that none of the existing available water would be eliminated, but rather, would be rechanneled as necessary.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Ruth Dinse, a resident of the area, expressed concern relative to safety issues if traffic were allowed through this area via their cul-de-sac. Ms. Dinse also expressed concern for their privacy.
Mr. Richard Belew, a resident in the area, stated that he was not opposed to the project but did not want to see the road connected to their cul-de-sac. Mr. Belew stated that he had purchased this home because it was on a cul-de-sac and he was opposed to any changes being made to the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Kathleen Parker, a resident of the area, stated that she was in support of the project but was concerned about how this project might affect her property value and property taxes.
Ms. Susan Sandak, a resident of the area, stated that she was opposed to the road being connected to the cul-de-sac but she was not opposed to the project itself.
Ms. Sandak said she was afraid their property values would be decreased if the road for this project connected to their cul-de-sac.
Mr. David Payne, a resident of the area, stated that he was not opposed to the project but was opposed to its design with the street connecting to their cul de-sac.
Mr. Hal Dinse, a resident of the area, stated that he was concerned that traffic from the main streets would cut through their neighborhood as a short cut.
Mr. Blaine Townsend, a resident of the area, stated that he was opposed to the road for this project being connected to the cul-de-sac and was also concerned about snow being shoved into the cul-de-sac during the snow removal process. Mr. Townsend stated that he was not opposed to the project itself.
Mr. Howa explained that garbage pick up and snow removal would be handled by the Homeowner's Association and they would not be allowed to dump their snow onto the cul-de-sac. Mr. Townsend said he had purchased this home because it was located on a cul-de-sac and he wanted it to remain that way.
Ms. Judith Soren, a resident of the area, stated that they had purchased their house because it was on the cul-de-sac and she wanted it to remain that way. Ms. Soren said she was concerned for the safety of the wildlife that inhabited the area and added that she did not want to see the road connected to the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Michael Soren, a resident of the area, stated that they were not opposed to the project but that they were opposed to the connection of the road for this project to their cul-de-sac.
Mr. Justin John, a resident of the area, stated that he believed they would experience a lot of trespass traffic if the road connected to the cul-de-sac. Mr. John stated that he was not opposed to the project itself.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Howa asked Ms. Pahl to explain the reason behind the proposed connection
between the road and the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Pahl responded that safety issues were the main reason for the cul-de-sac. Ms. Pahl also explained that from a crime prevention perspective, visibility on dead-end streets needed to be increased and had been one of the reasons for the proposed cut-through. Ms. Pahl stated that the Police had been involved in the discussions on this matter and added that another reason for the proposed cut-through had been design issues relative to protection of the existing trees and the ponds.
A discussion followed on the possibility of installing a crash gate between this project and the cul-de-sac, the possibility of constructing a hammerhead turnaround and the possibility of an electronically operated gate with openers provided to the appropriate people.
Mr. Howa asked what the solution would be if the Planning Commission did not approve the cut-through from the street to the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that an electronic crash gate would work.
Mr. Clissold stated that this would be a driveway, not a street and added that the home owners in the project would not want traffic accessing this driveway any more than the residents of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Clissold stated that this may not develop into a problem and if it did, the home owners of the project would be the ones to deal with it.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission tried to anticipate problems and solve them before they occurred and added that this would create a problem for the existing residents of the area who needed their rights
protected.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that he believed an electronic gate would solve the problems of safety access and eliminate unwanted traffic.
Mr. Clissold said they did not have a problem with installing an electronic gate at the cul-de sac.
Motion on Petition No. 410-195:
Mr. McRea moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-195 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with an added condition that an electronic gate be installed at the cul-de-sac at Forestview Avenue to prevent public drive-throughs. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Someone from the audience requested that the gate be installed before the commencement of construction of the project.
Mr. Clissold stated that there might be construction equipment that would need to access the property from the rear.
Mr. Howa suggested to Mr. Wilde that the construction phase be monitored to ensure as little negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as possible.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-1 91 by Craig Anderson requesting a conditional use for a planned development consisting of seven single family homes located at 636 North 900 West in a Residential “8-1/7000" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the easel the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Craig Anderson, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Joe Medina, an abutting property owner, asked what type of fencing would surround the project. Mr. Anderson stated that the fencing would be chain link fencing since it would not contribute to the graffiti problem.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-191 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with an added condition that the Planning Director approve the fencing along with the landscaping. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-63 by the LOS Church requesting a land trade with Salt Lake City in the Ensign Peak area as well as a minor subdivision approval for a two lot subdivision located at Ensign Vista Drive and Hillside Drive.
Mr. Joel Paterson 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. Tim Bagman, representing the LOS Church, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Bagman requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker asked if the garden area would be open to the public. Mr. Bog man said it would be open during the daytime but probably locked up at night for security reasons.
Ms. Funk asked why they were proposing to trade land with the City rather than using land they already owned as Lot 108 in the subdivision.
Mr. Bagman stated that the process to use that lot for these purposes was far more complicated than trading land with the City and would require a subdivision amendment process. He stated that they had investigated that route and had chosen not to pursue it.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Becker stated that he had been concerned this request would eliminate the parking/staging area currently used by those accessing the foothills but stated that he now understood that would not be the case. Mr. Becker said he believed it was of vital importance to retain that parking/staging area.
Mr. Becker moved to approve Petition No. 400-95-63 to declare the City-owned property surplus and to grant preliminary plat approval for the two lot subdivision. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Funk suggested an amendment to the motion that a recommendation be forwarded to the Parks Department to retain that parcel as a parking/staging area. Mr. Becker and Mr. Young accepted the amendment to the motion and the second. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
SUBDIVISIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Steven Erickson for Roger Brockbank requesting preliminary plat approval for a one lot subdivision located at 1 090 East North Bonneville Drive.
Mr. Joel Paterson 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. Paterson reminded the Planning Commission that an issues only hearing had been held on this matter on August 24, 1995.
Mr. Park Brockbank, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation with the exception that they did not believe the alpha lot would be necessary. Mr. Paterson explained that the creation of the alpha lot would allow the property to be sold to the abutting property owner without having to go through the plat amendment process, or to be retained by the Brockbanks. Mr. Brockbank stated that they were in agreement with that option.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Diane Nielson, an abutting property owner, stated that they were responsible for the request for the creation of the alpha lot and the access for the wildlife. Ms. Nielson stated that she felt the staff recommendation was suitable. She stated that they did not have any objections to the establishment of this subdivision or to the building on this lot.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to grant preliminary plat approval for the Perry's Hollow Subdivision No. 2 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with an added condition that the alpha lot between the Brockbank and Nielson property be created as shown on the site plan presented at this meeting. Mr. Becker seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion on Communication Towers
A short discussion took place on communication towers, the differences between urban and foothill communication tower requirements, the appropriate height of the various types of towers, and the desire on the part of the industry to locate communication towers in residential neighborhoods.
Ms. Kirk moved to direct the Planning Staff to file a petition to reevaluate the ordinance dealing with communication towers. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde stated that the staff would probably break down the study of communication towers between the urban towers and those located on the foothills since the issues relative to them were very different.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:1 5 p.m.