SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (berger) Arnold, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Mary McDonald, and Judi Short. Andrea Barrows, Aria Funk and Craig Mariger were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Robert Glessner, Everett Joyce, Doug Dansie and Craig Hinckley.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Short moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, September 7, 2000 subject to the discussed corrections being made. Ms. McDonald seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows and Mr. Mariger were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Daniels moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, September 21, 2000 subject to the discussed corrections being made. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows and Mr. Mariger were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING -Case No. 410-483 by Crickett Communications requesting a conditional use to construct a 60 foot high wireless telecommunication monopole antenna at 1730 South 1045 West in a General Commercial zoning district.
Ray McCandless presented the Staff report. He directed the Commission's attention to a site plan and aerial photograph showing the proposed location of the monopole. Most of the property surrounding the monopole's proposed location is commercial. There are some residential properties on the North side of 1700 South, however the monopole meets the ordinance requirements that monopoles be set back at least 330 feet from the zoning district boundary line. The Staffs recommendation is to approve Petition No. 410-483, subject to the following recommendations:
1 Painting the antennas a flat medium gray color.
2 Obtaining approval of a landscaping plan from the Planning Director.
3 No accessory building be constructed.
4 No beacon be allowed unless required by the FAA.
5 Minimal antenna bracing be used.
6 Landscaping, including trees that will reach the height of 40 to 60 feet be installed at the base of the monopole with an irrigation system as approved administratively by the Planning Director.
Mr. McCandless then asked the Commission if they had any questions about this petition. There being no response, Mr. Smith asked if there was a representative from Crickett Communications who wished to speak.
Ms. Nancy Liebelt, representing Crickett Communications, expressed Crickett Communication's willingness to comply with the Planning Staff's recommendations.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification about an existing monopole mentioned in the Staff report. Ms. Liebelt and Mr. McCandless said that was a misprint in the Staff report. There is not an existing monopole in the area.
Mr. Smith then opened the hearing up to the public. There being no response, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and brought it back to the Commission.
Motion for Case No. 410-483:
Mr. Jonas made the motion to approve Case No. 410-483 by Crickett Communications subject to the conditions as stated 1 through 6 in the Staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows and Ms. Funk were not present. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Case No. 410-476 by Nextel Communications Inc. requesting a conditional use to install roof mounted wireless telecommunications antennas on a residential condominium located at 214 West North Temple in a Residential/Mixed Use "R-MU" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the Staff report. Nextel is requesting to install four cellular telecommunication antennas on the roof of the building located at 214 West North Temple. The purpose of this site is to cover the medals pavilion during the Olympics and would be a temporary site. Mr. McCandless directed the Commission's attention to a map of the proposed site and pointed out the locations of the antennas. The antennas would be quite visible when traveling east on North Temple. However, they wouldn't be visible traveling west, due to large trees and roof height. Antennas are required by ordinance to be set back at least 10 feet from the face of a building. Each antenna is 8 feet in height. Nextel has indicated that this will be a temporary site for a couple of years. The Staff would like to see an agreement between Nextel and the City to assure that the antennas are removed after the Olympics. The Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
1 Painting the antennas and mounting equipment a flat medium gray color.
2 Minimal antenna bracing to be used and a detailed drawing of the mounting structure be provided to and approved by the Planning Director.
3 Compliance with all departmental requirements.
4 Locating the antennas at least ten feet from the south roof edge.
5 Implementation of an agreement with the City to remove the facility after the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Mr. McCandless then asked if the Commission had any questions for the Staff.
Mr. Jonas noted that Nextel's plan was to set the antennas back five feet.
Mr. McCandless said that was correct and that the Staff report recommended the antennas be set back at least 10 feet to meet ordinance requirements.
Ms. Arnold asked why, if this was a temporary situation, Nextel was asking for Commission approval now instead of next year. Mr. McCandless said his understanding was that Nextel needed as much lead time as possible to make sure leases and electricity are in place and to have time to test the system.
Ms. McDonald asked if there was currently landscaping where the electrical equipment would be placed. Mr. McCandless said there was landscaping there, including grass, a six foot fence along one side and a fenced parking area. He suggested another condition of approval could be that landscaping would have to be replaced after the antennas are removed.
Ms. McDonald asked if when the antennas were removed the electrical equipment would go along with them. Mr. McCandless said that was correct.
Mr. Daniels asked for the size of the building housing Nextel's electrical equipment. Mr. McCandless said the dimensions were 8 by 12 feet. Mr. Daniels asked if that building would also be taken down when the antennas were removed.
Mr. McCandless said that was correct.
Ms. McDonald noted that the lease between Nextel and the property owners went through July of 2002 and asked if that meant the antennas would be removed by that July date. Mr. McCandless said that would be something the Commission could require to match the lease date Nextel has with the property owners.
Ms. McDonald asked about this case in relation to the Trolco property petition that would be heard later in this Planning Commission meeting. The Trolco petition mentions an ordinance that requires screening of rooftop antennas, and asked why that wasn't mentioned in the Staff report. Mr. McCandless said the current telecommunications ordinance would not require screening. Mr. Wilde said the Planning Division could require screening if the Commission wished to do that. The Planning Division has not typically required screening of cell antennas. The antennas proposed by Nextel and the ones by Trolco are two different types of antennas and they are governed by different ordinances. Roof mount cell antennas are often times less visually intrusive than screening used to cover them.
Mr. Smith invited a representative 'from Nextel to speak to the Commission next.
Mr. Trevor Fink, Nextel Communications, informed the Commission that Nextel would comply with the 10 foot set back of the antennas. He said the equipment shelter and lawn space would be restored to its original condition, as was stated in the lease Nextel worked out with the landowner. He explained that Nextel needed to prepare and get all Olympic sites lined up as soon as possible to make sure leases and power to the sites was ready to go for the Olympics. Nextel was not planning on building this site this year. Nextel would also like the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit to be good for one year instead of the usual six months to file for a building permit. The current lease agreement with the landowner is a one year lease, with a one year renewal if any events occurred that Nextel would want to cover. The lease would be in effect for no longer than two years. Nextel did not foresee the lease extending past a year. Mr. Fink asked if the Commission had any questions for him.
Mr. Jonas asked if Nextel had a special relationship with Olympics. Mr. Fink said Nextel was very involved with the IOC. The IOC uses Nextel phones, for instance, as well as the FBI.
Mr. Jonas asked if the Commission would see these petitions from everybody else that needed to cover the Olympics. Mr. Wilde said the Planning Division expected to see many requests, and that the Division was doing an ordinance for the Olympics that would deal with everything from vendors to signage, and that telecommunications issues were being addressed in that ordinance. The Planning Division's understanding is that most of the temporary installations would come in the form of mobile units.
Mr. Jonas asked why the antennas couldn't go on the east wing of the proposed building. He noted that the trees on that side would help to obscure the antennas, and that location would be a shorter run for the electrical connection.
Mr. Fink explained that cell antennas work on a line of site basis. An antenna needs to be able to see a cell phone to work well.
Ms. McDonald asked if the antennas could be moved back an additional 15 or 20 feet. According to
Mr. Fink, the covering created by the roofline and the edge of the building would obstruct the antenna signal.
Mr. Daniels asked if Nextel had considered a building due east of the one proposed as a site for their antennas.
Mr. Fink said all the buildings in the area were considered and Nextel felt the proposed building was the best candidate for radio frequency and from a leasing and zoning point of view. Nextel has been working on obtaining this site for over a year.
Mr. Daniels noted that the building to the east is taller and already has an array on the roof. Mr. Fink did not know the particulars on why that building was rejected by Nextel, but suggested it could have been leasing or zoning problems.
Mr. Smith then opened the hearing up to the public. There being no response from the public, Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and brought the petition back to the Commission for further discussion. Mr. Smith noted that Capital Hills Community Council did meet on this and approved a one year lease with an additional year option.
Mr. Jonas noted that although he wasn't wild about having a big antenna on the proposed building, it was only going to be there for a limited time, and it did serve a purpose for the Olympics.
Ms. Arnold said the building to the east was higher and already had several antennas, and would therefore make more sense to her for this proposed antenna. She expressed concern that the Commission would be hit with many more requests for antenna sites. She wanted to see something more concrete as to why the State building could not be used.
Ms. McDonald wondered if indeed the Commission would be seeing more requests for these antenna placements, would they want to put them on the State building's rooftop as well. Mr. Smith expressed the same concern and said that the Commission could not know that at this time, but could assume there would be more. He suggested the City could perhaps consider some kind of temporary building on that block that could be a tower for all communications. It would be distinguishable as a special use structure for the Olympic event, thereby avoiding putting antennas on every building on that block.
Ms. Arnold said she could understand why Nextel would want to get started now on getting permits to build this antenna, since in the next year the Commission would be inundated with similar requests. She liked Mr. Smith's suggestion of a special use structure.
Mr. Jonas said there would be TV towers and other antennas on that block for the Olympics.
Mr. Goldsmith asked Mr. McCandless if SLOC had indicated the scope of the communications tower requirements, and what the capacity needs to be to absorb those needs around the medals plaza. Mr. McCandless said no -the question had not yet been asked of SLOC. Mr. Goldsmith expressed a need to get together with SLOC to answer that question. Too many antennas at this location, which is a gateway into the city, would make it look like East Berlin. He asked the Commission to consider allowing the Planning Division to meet with SLOC to get a handle on the communication needs.
Motion for Case No. 410-476:
Ms. Arnold made the motion to deny Nextel's petition 410-476. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas said he felt the Commission should give Nextel their request at this time, and the Commission could make an agreement with Nextel that this antenna would be incorporated into a communication tower if it comes into play later. He did not want to make Nextel come back and go through the whole process again if the tower does exist.
Ms. Arnold said she didn't believe the process would be difficult for Nextel at all and that it was more difficult to set up an agreement with Nextel. It was more important to lay the groundwork right now for all of the future petitions that may come through to the Commission.
Mr. Jonas then asked how Nextel would be able to get a priority position when they have already done the work so far in advance to get a site and a lease, community council approval, etc., when the Commission is only hypothecating at this point that there may be a need in the future for a tower. He agreed with
Mr. Smith that it would be a good idea to consolidate all the antennas on a tower, but that the Commission didn't know if that would even happen in the future.
Mr. Smith then suggested that the Commission could approve Nextel's petition contingent upon no other option becoming available.
Ms. Arnold believed that to deny this petition and say the Commission wanted communication with SLOC first would get SLOC's attention right now, because the Commission would have stopped any kind of towers and antennas going up on North Temple.
Mr. Wilde said the Planning Division had not had conversations with SLOC about antennas, but had had ongoing conversations about signage. SLOC has control and will be approving any Olympics-related signage in the general downtown area. SLOC cannot at this time even tell the Planning Division what to anticipate for signage. SLOC won't be participating in the installation of antennas and Mr. Wilde expressed doubt that SLOC would be able tell the Planning Division what communication needs would be. Given that SLOC doesn't have a good idea about signage and advertising needs, for which they are responsible, Mr. Wilde didn't believe SLOC would be able to give much direction for antennas, which is not on their list of concerns. Talking with SLOC would not necessarily produce a solution to the Commission's concern at this time.
Mr. Smith asked about going to the industry. Mr. Goldsmith suggested pulling together a summit or scoping meeting with the industry that would help the Planning Division to anticipate what would be needed valley wide for communications. He listed the University of Utah, Hogle Zoo, and the hotels as some of the sites that will be needing communications antennas as well. He expressed his appreciation that the Commission wanted to get a handle on this situation as quickly as possible.
Mr. Smith agreed and said that the communications needs were obviously a critical issue. He brought the Commission's attention back to the motion on the floor, and asked if there was any further discussion.
Mr. Jonas said the Commission runs a great risk that SLOC wouldn't be organized enough in the end to help other petitioners who needed communications antennas, and expressed his concern again that Nextel should not have to be part of any last minute hysteria when they have anticipated so far in advance their needs and done the necessary work to avoid problems. He said the Commission should approve Nextel's request and if a tower does exist later on, Nextel could move their antenna accordingly. He reiterated that this antenna was only temporary and would only be there for a maximum of two years.
Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Fink of Nextel if his organization got the space they want, would they share it with any other petitioners. Mr. Fink said Nextel was more than willing to do exactly as Mr. Jonas suggested -moving to a central location, should that occur. He reminded the Commission that Nextel had been working for the last year with SLOC on communication sites, and that SLOC will not have anything to do with telecommunications and the Olympics. SLOC would not be able to organize telecommunications. He asked for an approval until something better came along.
Mr. Goldsmith asked if SLOC could move forward in the games without telecommunications. Mr. Fink said they could. SLOC does not rely upon what Nextel is doing to carry out the games.
Mr. Smith asked what Mr. Fink's opinion was of getting the industry together to discuss telecommunication needs. Mr. Fink said the industry has already had several meetings on what was the best way to approach SLOC, as well as all the Olympic venues and how to locate on those. In some areas, companies like AT&T already have enough antennas set up and do not need any more coverage. Nextel, on the other hand, does need added coverage and needs an antenna. A central tower for six different companies would require space for all the equipment as well, and Mr. Fink warned that equipment would take up a very large area. In Mr. Fink's opinion it will therefore come down to a case by case basis for every communications company. Where it is possible, Nextel is always willing to group and co-locate.
Ms. McDonald asked if it was possible that there was another antenna in the proposed area that Nextel could co-locate with. Mr. Fink said if that had been possible, Nextel would have already done it. In this location, that was not possible.
Ms. McDonald then asked if Nextel would be building other antennas at other sites for the Olympics. Mr. Fink said yes.
Ms. McDonald asked if any of the antennas coming up would be covered or screened.
Mr. Jonas noted that the covering on the antennas on top of the Triad Center looked worse than the antennas going in.
Mr. Goldsmith asked about a subcommittee with Mike, Andrea and others and asked if that subcommittee needed to be reconstituted. Mr. Smith said he felt the Commission was lacking in information at this time for telecommunications needs.
Ms. Arnold said again that the proposed building wasn't very high and was very old. Other buildings in the area would accommodate an antenna and be less intrusive.
Mr. Smith said it was his sense that the Commission could proceed with this petition on a contingent basis, and meanwhile try to work out a master plan for telecommunications needs for the Olympics. He found it difficult to believe that SLOC wasn't entertaining some of the telecommunications issues.
Mr. Jonas asked if the Commission was going to deny or continue the motion for more information. Mr. Smith said there was a n10tion and a second on the floor that needed to be voted on first.
Mr. Daniels, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald, and Ms. Short voted "Aye" on the motion to deny the petition. Mr. Jonas voted "Nay". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Funk were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Goldsmith asked if Jim McCrae would come back to the subcommittee and work with the Planning Staff on the telecommunications issues. Mr. Jonas volunteered to be on that subcon1mittee.
Mr. Jonas wanted it noted for the record that it was wrong for the Commission to have denied Nextel's petition and make them lose their position based on a hypothetical situation that mayor may not occur in the future.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-00-13 -A legislative action from City Council Member David Buhler requesting amendments to Section 21A.24.010 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the definitions of "grade" in order to determine the point from which building height is measured. This petition is continued from August 17, 2000.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the Staff report. He directed the Commission's attention to an illustration on the wall which was intended to show the evolution of a piece of property from undeveloped ground to when homes are built on it, and how the Staff then determines "established" grade and "finished" grade. Using an average 200/0 slope in a Foothill FR-2 zone, which requires a half acre lot and a 20 foot front yard set back, he explained the approval process. Once a road is developed on the top and bottom of the slope, what is left is called "established" grade. He explained that "finished grade" is the grade that's left once all the grading takes place to build a home.
T
he changes the Staff proposes are to provide an alternative in defining "grade." Grade for the initial construction for the home could be measured from either finished grade or established grade, whichever was lower, and thereafter would be measured from finished grades. Therefore, any additions made to a home in later years would be measured at finished grade so that the homeowner and City Staff would not have to do a lot of historical research.
Mr. Jonas thanked Mr. Hinckley for the drawing, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He asked Mr. Hinckley why the staff is using a different standard from initial construction to any subsequent additions. Mr. Hinckley answered that at initial construction the grade is already established and the City knows what the property owner wants to do with it.
Mr. Wilde recommended using the established grade in the Foothills because in that area the Planning Division allows as much as a six foot cut or fill. If the Division determines building height at finished grade for initial construction and the homeowner comes in and fills six feet, they have just gained six feet of additional building height. Through the years of negotiating the Foothill height regulations, established grade has leveled the playing field in terms of how to build a house in the Foothills.
Mr. Jonas asked if there are sufficient records available to know what established grade was, and if those records would be available 30 years down the road. Mr. Wilde said that was a little "iffy." City Engineering has contoured maps of Benchmark, for instance, that have topography on them.
Mr. Hinckley explained that using either grade, an addition to a structure could end up being higher than the original structure. Whichever standard chosen, it could not exceed the envelope.
Mr. Wilde said that once a home is built and the homeowner then wants to build an addition, the argument is to not penalize or benefit the homeowner based on whatever the grade might have been 30 years ago. Finished grade should be used for any later additions.
Mr. Jonas did not think that was fair, since a neighbor below could add height by filling at initial construction and then add an addition that might block views of his neighbor above, who might not have added any 'fill at initial construction.
Mr. Smith said the Commission needed to clarify the difference between established and finished grade, and that Mr. Hinckley's illustration had greatly helped with that.
Ms. Arnold asked for an explanation on what the property owner did on 26th East that brought this need for grade clarification to the Staff's attention.
Mr. Wilde explained that in the Foothills there is the envelope to work with, but once out of the Foothills there is no envelope, just a 30 to 35 foot maximum building height.
Ms. Arnold talked about a house on Sheridan and Clairmont that is hugely overdeveloped for the neighborhood, and asked what the City ordinance was that would allow someone to come in and build massive two story homes in an area where there are no other two story homes.
Mr. Wilde said when the petition first came from Dave Buhler, part of the petition was to figure out if there was a way to deal with the rear addition that in this case was so much out of scale. The Planning Division proposed for the first round a provision that said if there was an addition to a house, that addition cannot exceed the height of the original house without coming through a process. Mr. Buhler wanted to discuss this with some of his colleagues before the Planning Division advanced that provision. In terms of new construction, there was an attempt to do a conservation zone that would help regulate the size of an in-fill house and to keep additions more in scale with surrounding development. AlA was involved in this, but a solution was not forthcoming on a "conservation zoning" approach.
Mr. Smith said if that provision had come to pass, the Commission would be seeing a lot of petitions, since building another story to a home is being done quite a bit now, and oftentimes justifiably so.
Ms. Arnold said that putting monster houses in a neighborhood full of smaller homes diminishes the value of those surrounding properties.
Mr. Wilde said that the Planning Division would be getting back to the Commission with some proposals on these matters. In a past 12 month period, there were 180 permits for additions to homes within the City. Of those 180, the Building and Licensing Division estimated that half of those additions were for additional stories. The Commission could expect around 100 cases per year that would have to be dealt with if the Planning Division had a discretionary process.
Ms. Arnold asked for the address of the house on 26th East. Mr. Hinckley said he did not put that in the Staff report because he didn't want to single this homeowner out.
Mr. Smith asked if there were any petitioners present. There being no response, Mr. Smith opened the hearing up to the public. There being no response, Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission.
Mr. Jonas asked for Mr. Smith's opinion about the petition provisions. Mr. Smith said he believed the key would be to have a provision in place that was not ambiguous and that either way could work. He liked the envelope and the established grade system.
Mr. Jonas said again that that system seemed unfair. A homeowner could change the grade two weeks before he goes in for a permit in terms of filling and cutting and say that was his new finished grade.
Mr. Wilde said that was a good point. The established grade on East is what created the problem. What Mr. Jonas was suggesting was that somebody can change the grade and come back in a month to gain height. The existing ordinance says that in the Foothills the established grade must be used whether or not it's new construction or addition. That doesn't solve the 26th East problem.
Mr. Goldsmith said he was not comfortable making too many changes yet. He is a fan of performance zoning, which means the neighborhood has a goal to preserve the form and character of their neighborhood and to preserve the view corridors. As long as the architect and the owner can go to the counter and say these things have been preserved, the home can be built.
Mr. Smith said his experience today is that a lot of developers are attempting to put that kind of control in the CCRs and are being more successful than they have been in the past.
Mr. Wilde said the Planning Division does not have a very good solution to the issue Mr. Jonas raised.
Mr. Goldsmith said that was one of the reasons he had asked Mr. Hinckley to research other cities and see how they had approached these issues. Nobody has a magic answer.
Mr. Daniels said the approach described in the petition does make things clearer and is very helpful in making progress towards a solution.
Motion for Petition 400-00-13:
Mr. Jonas made the motion to approve Petition No. 400-00-13 to recommend to the City Council that they approve the attached amendments listed in the Staff Report to Sections 21A.24.010 and 21A.62.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, which clarify the definitions of "grade" and the point from which building height is measured in residential zones with the following modification (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission): To modify the Zoning Ordinance to provide that initial construction of a building in a Foothill Zone or any subsequent structural modification to an existing building in a Foothill Zone shall be measured as a vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage, and to include the exhibit prepared by Mr. Craig Hinckley as part of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. McDonald seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold voted "Nay". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote.
Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows and Ms. Funk were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith then asked Mr. Hinckley if there was still a provision in the ordinance that buildings cannot have three levels of windows in the Foothills. Mr. Hinckley replied that it could not be more than 2 and a half stories and that there are restrictions on windows on front and rear elevations. He also stated that even though the maximum height in Foothill zones is 28 feet, there's a restriction on how high the front and rear walls can be, and that is 24 feet. Mr. Smith noted that perhaps Mr. Hinckley's exhibit should say that there cannot be three stories of windows.
PUBLIC HEARING -Case No. 410-358 by Trolco Properties, Inc. requesting amendments to a previously approved planned development and conditional use for a radio station and accessory antennas at the Trolley Corners Building located at 515 South 700 East in a Commercial Shopping "CS" zoning district. Amendments include additional antennas and relocation of roof top antennas. The previous approval was given on August 19, 1999.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the Staff report. A little over a year ago, the owners of the Trolley Corners building came to the Planning Commission asking for approval to put a radio station in the building. A radio station is listed as conditional use in the CS zone. Between then and now, the building has been remodeled and has been much improved. However, the antennas on the roof ended up in a different location than shown when the Planning Commission last looked at this project. In addition, when the project was approved there was a specific condition that if there were more than five antennas on the roof, it would have to come back to the Planning Commission for review. The petitioners are requesting approval for the relocation of the antennas, the additional antennas and for screening. Mr. Hinckley passed around a rendering prepared by Simmons that represented what they believe the antennas will look like when the
Hinckley said yes and explained where they were located at the time and why no screening was provided at the time. Mr. Jonas asked how many antennas were up on the roof at this time. Mr. Hinckley said there were a total of 8 or 9, including the one that was to have been on the ground and was now moved to the roof. The petitioners have already added the new antennas.
Mr. Smith then asked the representative from Simmons and the owner of the building to come forward and speak. Mr. Craig Hanson, Executive Vice President of Simmons Media Group, addressed the Comrrlission. He introduced Mr. Place as his landlord in the Trolley Corners building. Mr. Hanson went over the conditional use permit his company received last August, and explained that before they moved in, the antennas were moved by the engineering firm installing them because of structural problems. This was an unforeseen problem, but in order for Simmons to comply with FCC regulations they have to originate their broadcast from that facility. In order to hit their target on Farnsworth Peak they had to install the antennas in a line of sight, and still respect the structural integrity of the building. The antennas became visible from the 7th East and 5th South area, but are not visible from the south and from the north on 7th East. The petitioners have a proposal to screen the antennas to make them less visible. Mr. Hanson also explained that the satellite dish was placed on the roof because of an engineering problem with the signal and they found a site on the roof that would correct that. The petitioners are requesting an amendment to their original use permit to increase the number of antennas because their company is growing. The satellite dishes and antennas are fundamental to their operation and allows them to continue to compete with other stations.
Mr. Hanson brought an updated version of the vinyl material proposed to use as screening (should the Commission require it) for 100 feet across the 7th East side and 40 feet on the north side. The vinyl would be four feet wide and be imprinted graphically to match the size and color of brick on the building. The vinyl would be fastened onto a non-metallic structure so that it would not conduct electricity. It is the petitioner's intent to replace the vinyl every 24 months so that it would not deteriorate or fade.
Ms. Arnold noted that KSL and Triad had much more height on the building so that their antennas were not as noticeable. She also thought the picture submitted by the petitioners of the antennas on their building was not completely accurate regarding visibility as well. The antennas are fairly intrusive. She believed the screening would not improve on that situation.
Mr. Jonas asked if the reason the antennas were moved was because of structural problems and not because of the signal reaching Farnsworth Peak. Mr. Hanson said that it was both structural and technical. Technically they had discovered that as the antennas were to be originally installed in the center of the roof, the antennas would have to be elevated to reach the line of sight.
Mr. Jonas asked if the vinyl material would interrupt the signal. Mr. Hanson said it would not. It was porous enough for the signal to pass through it. The frame proposed to anchor the vinyl would be polyethanol, much like PVC, only more durable.
Mr. Daniels asked for more information about the size of the antennas and if they needed to be so large. Mr. Hanson said they did need to be that large, since the trajectory of the signal was 19 miles from the studio location.
Mr. Hanson then passed around several photographs of the antennas on the building from different angles and directions, as well as some photographs of other buildings with antennas in the area that he felt were as intrusive as his company's antennas.
Ms. Short said she felt the vinyl looked terrible and would rather just paint the antennas a dull gray.
Mr. Wilde asked about a more rigid fiberglass material as a screen and if it were an option. Mr. Hanson said it wasn't porous enough and would deflect the signal. The vinyl was the only material that could be used to obscure the antennas -and a third of the antennas would still be able to be seen.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Michael Place, the building owner representing Trolco properties, if he had investigated the cost of putting the antennas where they were initially. Mr. Place said cost was not a factor, but trying to meet the window of the technical requirements.
Mr. Place said his company wasn't particularly pleased that the antennas were so visible. They have not been able to find a satisfactory location to move them to. The landlord also had reservations about the vinyl material. Mr. Place said he had received unsolicited telephone calls from Community Councils complimenting the upgrade to the building. Everyone expecting to see a radio station would expect to see an antenna somewhere. There will be signage from Simmons when the project is completed indicating a radio station. Mr. Place's concern was how to screen the antennas adequately and not create a distraction from the beauty of the building, and make it possible for his tenants to stay there.
Mr. Smith stated that everyone at the table was very pleased to have Simmons' business in Trolley Corners. He clarified that the Commission had already approved five antennas, and now were being asked to approve four more, for a total of nine plus the satellite dish. There are seven antennas installed now. The other two would be for future growth.
Mr. Smith then asked how far back from the building edge were the antennas. Mr. Hanson said in some cases as far back as 20 feet. The petitioner's intent was to put the screen immediately above the building edge.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification about page two of the Staff report, saying that the total number of roof top antennas be increased from five to nine, and that the satellite was one of the nine. Mr. Hanson said that was correct. A total of nine antennas are proposed, including the satellite dish.
Mr. Smith thanked Mr. Hanson and Mr. Place, and asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to speak to this petition. There being no response, Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission. He stated that the two issues in front of the Commission were to approve up to nine antennas and whether or not to require screening or painting or leaving them as is.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Place if the antennas could be raised. Mr. Place said yes, but that they would be equally as visible. Mr. Jonas said he was concerned about the proximity of the antennas to the edge of the building. He believed they would be less obtrusive set father back.
Mr. Daniels agreed that perhaps if they were moved back further to the southeast, and then raised a little bit they would be less visible.
Mr. Smith asked if the Commission could deal with the vinyl issue first. Ms. McDonald noted that perhaps the vinyl wouldn't look as unattractive looking from a farther distance. Mr. Smith did not believe the vinyl would be effective, especially to put the material flush with the building's edge. He suggested Commission members go look at the dark mesh screen used above the Triad building to hide antennas. He believed that would be more attractive than the brick pattern.
Mr. Hinckley asked if the mesh would be closer to the antennas and not the building's edge. Mr. Smith answered yes, and suggested an architect do a study on that option.
Mr. Jonas said he had no problem with increasing the antennas from five to nine, and hoped the petitioner could come up with a better solution than the vinyl.
Ms. Arnold noted that the equipment Mr. Smith mentioned on the Triad building was actually wrapped in the mesh material. Mr. Smith said she was quite right, and that all of the equipment could be wrapped in the mesh material.
Mr. Jonas wondered if the antennas could be painted a color to match the proposed mesh material.
Motion for Case No. 410-358:
Mr. Jonas made the motion that the Commission approve the petition to increase the total number of rooftop antennas from five to nine, and that the Commission also approve the satellite receiving dish be moved from the ground onto the roof as one of the nine total antennas, that the antennas be allowed to be located near the west edge of the roof where they are now installed, and that the petitioner work with the Planning Director and architect to come up with a screening proposal that is less obtrusive and more acceptable.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows, and Ms. Funk were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde asked if the Planning Commission wanted to see the solution the Planning Director and architect come up with before it was carried out. Mr. Smith said no.
Mr. Wilde then asked if before the break the Commission would hear the Other Business listed on the agenda for an extension of time on Mr. Craig Mecham's office building. The Commission agreed to hear this case, the report of which can be found in agenda order at the end of these minutes.
PLANNING ISSUES
Petition No. 400-00-40 by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department requesting that outdoor dining opportunities be expanded and the process for outdoor dining be simplified throughout Salt Lake City. Planning Commission discussion is continued from September 7, 2000; AND
Petition No 400-00-41 by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department requesting amendments to the sidewalk vending ordinance to simplify
In response to your request for zoning confirmation for the Walgreens development proposed for the corner of 900 East and 2100 South Streets, please be advised of the following:
1. Subject to provisions of Salt Lake City Development Agreement No., and a comprehensive plan review through the Salt Lake City Development Review process, the property located on the northeast corner of 900 East and 2100 South Streets may be developed in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning district.
2. A retail store is permitted in the (CC) zoning district
2. The site plan and elevation drawings attached to this letter, dated, have been reviewed for compliance with requirements of the (CC) zoning district and are in conceptual compliance with requirements of the (CC) zone with regards to building size and location on the site, parking number and layout, vending in the public way, public parks and private property within Salt Lake City. Planning Commission discussion of this petition is continued from September 7, 2000.
Doug Dansie presented the Staff reports. The Planning Commission requested that the Staff tie the proposed ordinance from the last discussion down to some specific decibel levels. The Staff cross referenced the ordinance to the existing Salt Lake City noise ordinance. Mr. Dansie had a conversation with Mr. Jim Bennett from the Health Department about decibel levels, and Mr. Bennett suggested that the Staff cross reference the existing noise ordinance to the new ordinance because it has specific language as to how the decibel level is measured. The present noise ordinance says that adjacent to residential zones, the decibel level is 55, and in adjacent commercial zones, it is 60 decibels. Mr. Dansie then gave some examples of decibel levels in other public areas, such as a library at 30 decibels, an air conditioner at 20 feet is 60 decibels and average city traffic, a garbage disposal, and an alarm clock at 2 feet is about 80 decibels. A garbage truck and chain saw is about 100 decibels. The Staff believes the 55 decibel level they recommend in the ordinance is fairly soft.
Mr. Dansie also noted that in the cross referenced ordinance there is a curfew time of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., and on weekends from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m., which means that at the property line no noise may be heard.
Ms. McDonald thought the noise ordinance curfew was 10 p.m., noting that the fraternities have later curfews. Mr. Dansie said he had copied exact wording out of the ordinance and the curfew was 9 p.m.
Mr. Daniels asked if the 10 p.m. curfew was residential. Mr. Dansie quoted from the cross-referenced ordinance that residential weekdays is 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. and Sundays and holidays it is 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. During those hours the restaurant can still play music, but must turn it down so that it cannot be heard at the property line.
Mr. Smith suggested the Commission deal with the public issues separately and the Commission members agreed.
Mr. Jonas asked why the Commission was dealing with landscaping with this petition as well. Mr. Dansie said that even in a landscaping section, patios, decks and other things in the front yard are allowed. The cross-referenced ordinance says that a structure cannot be built in the front yard area.
Ms. McDonald said the 9 p.m. curfew seemed too early. Mr. Dansie agreed, and said that Mr. Bennett in the Health Department had mentioned that Salt Lake City was tighter than the rest of the County. He reiterated that the proposed ordinance was for the required yard area only. In Downtown zones there is no required yard area. Additional criteria, such as the curfew, doesn't apply.
Ms. Arnold said Renos on 21 Street South was an example of outdoor dining that would have to turn down the music at 9 p.m. so that the neighbors cannot hear it in their backyard.
Mr. Daniels said the Dodo would also fit into that group. Ms. Arnold mentioned the restaurants in Emigration Market.
Mr. Smith said in his experience with outdoor dining, the music was never a big part of it, and he was surprised that this had become a big issue.
Ms. Arnold asked if the ordinance could change the curfew to 10 p.m. Mr. Dansie said the way he had written the ordinance was to cross-reference with the City's ordinance, and that City ordinance required a 9 p.m. curfew. To change it to 10 p.m. would change a lot of other things in the cross-referenced ordinance.
Mr. Smith asked how big an issue the music really was. Mr. Jonas said that curfew wasn't unreasonable when you considered the residential neighbors who may have children they are trying to put to bed, etc. Mr. Dansie said that dining in a buildable yard area is already permitted. In Downtown zones there is no required landscaping, so there is no issue. In zones like Renos and Frescos, when dining is in the 15 foot set back landscaping, this ordinance would apply. There are required landscaping buffers for front, side and rear as well.
Mr. Wilde said Renos would technically not be in a required yard area because it doesn't encroach into either a front yard or a rear yard.
Ms. Arnold asked for an example. Mr. Dansie mentioned La Salsa on 4th South. It is not in a neighborhood, but the building itself has a zoning requirement of a 15 foot set back. The building is set back, but had to go through a conditional use process just to have the dining in the front yard, because that was supposed to be a landscape area. What the ordinance would do would say that a restaurant wouldn't have to go through a conditional use process, it could go ahead and do it as long as noise is not an issue.
Ms. McDonald noted that traffic would be noisier than 55 decibels. Ms. Short said this wasn't a big issue unless you were in a residential area.
Mr. Wilde said another example of this is along the 13th East strip around Market Street Grill, where all the restaurants are utilizing required front yard.
Mr. Smith than informed the public present that the Commission was not dealing with a public hearing, but asked by a show of hands if anyone in the audience had an interest in the outdoor dining case. Several people raised their hands. One man said the noise from a restaurant band and entertainment located a half a block from him in his subdivision was so loud he couldn't sit in his home and hear his own TV.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-40:
Ms. Arnold made the motion that the Commission approve Petition No. 400-00-40 as recommended in the Staff report, which was to cross-reference the ordinance to Section 9.28 of the City Code. The decibel levels and curfew specifics included: Adjacent to Residential zones limited to 55 decibels. Adjacent to Commercial zones limited to 60 decibels Curfew from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. weekdays and Saturday, 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. Sunday and holidays.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows and Ms. Funk were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith then directed the Commission's attention to Petition No. 400-00-41.
Mr. Dansie explained that he had attempted to integrate the Commission's requests from the previous discussion on this petition into his new report. It was difficult to show the original changes and the changes to the changes in a coherent manner. He summarized the Commission's requests and came up with the following changes to the petition:
1. The Administration may authorize up to four additional sites per cart (as opposed to former language that implied the administration must authorize four additional sites, regardless of other conditions). [5.65.050]
2. One permit is allowed per block face, including Main Street, which presently allows two per block face. [5.65.120.A]
3. Spacing from similar "'fixed" uses is increased to 300 feet in all areas (since there will be only one site per block on Main Street, instead of two, the spacing will also be increased from 100 to 300 feet). Vendors have complained that the 300 foot spacing is too large (blocks are generally 660'). [5.65.120.0]
4. Gallivan Plaza (during events) was specifically listed as a site subject to spacing regulations. [5.65.120.0]
5. Two coolers and one water container were allowed, instead of three coolers. The Planning Commission may specifically wish to refine this criteria. The vendors argue that they need the coolers because the refrigerators on the carts are actually iceboxes, which are rendered ineffective during the heat of the summer months. [5.65.140.G]
6. Proposed language, which allows vendors outside the Expanded Central Business District, has been adjusted from the previous proposal. The current draft would NOT allow vendors in zoning districts that presently allow outdoor sales as a conditional use. It would limit vendors to sites of two acres or more within specific zoning districts that allow outdoor sales as a permitted use. The new draft ordinance proposes only the CC, CG, all Downtown zones, G¬MU, Sugar House, and all Manufacturing zones allow vending on private property. A map has been included that illustrates zones where vending on private property could be allowed. Those zones that are presently within the attached draft are marked with an asterisk. Additional zoning districts are also illustrated for discussion purposes. The map includes only those parcels over 2 acres in size (consistent with the draft ordinance).
The Planning Commission is being specifically asked to provide guidance as to which zoning districts they believe should be added or subtracted from the
draft.
The proposed language, as written, is more restrictive than the current administrative interpretation regarding vendors and outdoor sales. Vending on private property outside Downtown and Sugar House was not addressed within the original/existing ordinance. It has been allowed in zones that allow outdoor sales through administrative interpretation.
The Planning Commission is also being asked to give specific policy direction to the entire concept of vendors on private property outside the originally defined sidewalk vending area. [5.65.220]
7. After the Planning commission public hearing, staff checked complaints of illegal vendors. It was discovered that some of the vending carts in question had actually received permits in zoning districts where outdoor sales is not otherwise permitted, without going through the conditional use process. The vendors were approved through the use of the "temporary use" ordinance. To rectify this problem, proposed modifications of the Temporary Use ordinance are included with this memo, Section 21A.42.020. It is recommended that the Planning Commission also include changes to this ordinance, along with the other ordinance modifications, in order to eliminate confusion and clarify that the Temporary use ordinance was not intended to allow vendors in zoning districts where they would otherwise not be allowed. Those vendors who have received pern1its via the Temporary use ordinance will be expected to move to another legal location at the expiration of their existing temporary permit. [21A.42.020]
8. In anticipation of the Olympics, a moratorium on the issuance of vending permits within the geographic area of the Olympics Special Event application, has been included to eliminate potential conflicts The moratorium will expire in March 2002. [5.65.025]
9. Since the Vending Cart ordinance will now be cross-referenced to the zoning ordinance, a definition of "vending cart" is proposed to be added to the zoning ordinance definitions. [21A.62]
10. The issuance of insurance waiver was raised at the Planning Commission hearing. Section 5.65.220.A.1 eliminates the requirement for insurance on private property because the insurance required by this ordinance (5.65.060) is for City indemnification only. It is assumed that if a private property owner enters into a private contract with a vendor, they will have their own insurance demands and that the City is neither participatory nor liable for the private contract. This does not exempt the vendor from other health and licensing considerations. [5.65.220.A.1 & 5.65.060]
Mr. Dansie said that in regards to provision number 3, a vendor would still be allowed to be closer than 300 feet if necessary, but would have to stay as far away as possible.
Ms. Arnold asked why, since toe vendors had asked for three coolers, did the Staff limit it to two coolers. Mr. Dansie explained that the vendors wanted four and the Commission had asked why any at all if the vendors had refrigerators. He tried to take a medium approach to satisfy both sides. Coolers are an issue because vendors are supposed to be mobile and therefore not have access to electricity. The more peripheral things a vendor has, the bigger the space it takes on the sidewalk and the harder it is to move.
Mr. Dansie spent some time explaining provision number 6 and showed the Commission a map of all the zones which allow outdoor sales. If vendors are considered outdoor sales, and outdoor sales are allowed in a zone, the issue is then whether to allow vendors as outdoor sales on property as a conditional use in those zones which allow sales as a conditional use. He asked the Commission to specifically codify which zones the Commission wants to allow vending carts on private property.
Mr. Wilde noted that East 4th South was in a CC zone, but because of the acreage limitation, there isn't a lot of opportunities if the Commission imposes a two acre amendment. Mr. Dansie said in response to the last discussion on this issue, he had added a caveat that limited vendors to only private property over two acres. The map showed only those Commercial zones that had private property over two acres.
Mr. Daniels asked for an idea of the process used to check provision number 7, and those vendors who had received temporary permits. Mr. Dansie did not have all the information at that time, but said that Cheri Coffey had done this investigation for him.
Mr. Dansie directed the Commission's attention to another map which showed the area the Olympics wanted to use for a special event area. Ms. Arnold asked when the Olympics moratorium started. Mr. Dansie said he had written the moratorium to start on the adoption of the proposed ordinance, to which Ms. Arnold objected because it didn't seem fair to restrict people until December of 2001. Mr. Dansie said he had done that because most of the spots in that area are not occupied now.
Ms. McDonald asked if that meant there would be no vendors with hot chocolate or coffee during the Olympics. Mr. Dansie said the Olympics were basically requesting to take over that area and would have their own vendors. Ongoing street vendors would have the option of moving in after March of 2002.
Ms. Arnold wanted to allow the vendors to come into the area if they wanted to until December of 2001. She did not want to implement something now for the Olympics. She suggested the moratorium become effective from January 1, 2002 to March 18, 2002.
Mr. Dansie wanted to make the Commission aware that another issue has arisen about whether to have carts in the Gateway Plaza, similar to the carts seen inside the malls only bigger. They are called "Retail Merchandizing Units" which are portable but very large. At some point, the Commission will need to interpret whether the Gateway complex is a mall. These carts would not be vending carts and therefore could not be included in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Dansie also wanted to make the Commission aware that an issue from the Attorney's office had arisen regarding First Amendment issues. In expanding what the Commission allows on the carts, the vendors were allowed to sell daily newspapers and magazines. The vending ordinance required a fee determined by the administration or by policy, not ordinance. The Attorney's office had a problem about mixing a First Amendment speech thing and then not having definitively set fee schedules. The Attorney's office recommended that the Commission could either put hard guidelines and fees back in, or take out newspapers and dailies.
Ms. Arnold asked for clarification on what the problem was with having a set fee. Mr. Dansie said it had been set at $175 and the administration wanted to have the flexibility of reducing the fees. If the fee is set by ordinance, there is no administrative authority to reduce or increase fees. Mr. Smith said the Commission could certainly request that the fees be consistent.
The Commission turned their attention to provision nun1ber 6 on the Staff report regarding zoning. Mr. Dansie pointed out areas on the zoning map and their zoning requirements. For instance, Foothill Village is a CS zone which doesn't allow outdoor sales. However, they are an area that may want to include some vending carts within Foothill Village. Fred Meyer is also in CS zone.
Mr. Jonas noted that fireworks could be sold at these places. Mr. Dansie said fireworks were covered under a separate ordinance. Mr. Jonas asked about sidewalk sales. Mr. Dansie said yes, Foothill Village could do sidewalk sales, but no vending carts according to the way the draft is written at this point. Conversely, CC zones allow outdoor sales, but there are areas around Redwood Road and North Temple that may not be appropriate to have vending carts.
Ms. Arnold asked if there had been any problems with the area around Sears on 8th South and Main. Mr. Dansie said that Sears was in a 0-2 zone and it is also within the sidewalk vending area. There had been some complaints from the Taco Time in the area and other businesses about the vending carts.
Mr. Wilde asked if the Commission needed more clarification on the map of zones.
The Commission asked Mr. Wilde to walk through the zones, starting from the middle of the map out. Mr. Dansie then explained each area on the map and their particular zoning issues.
Ms. McDonald asked about the 300 foot spacing requirement and if it was possible in the Sugar House area. Mr. Dansie explained that there was a caveat to that requirement that said if there were three or four restaurants in a 660 foot block area which makes it impossible to meet the 300 foot requirement, there could still be a vending cart allowed (one per block). It would just have to stay as far away from the restaurants as physically possible.
Research Park was singled out as a place that could use vending carts. CB and CS zones were not included in the drafts because most areas did not meet the two acre requirement. A few exceptions, such as Foothill Village, were mentioned.
Mr. Jonas expressed his opinion that vending carts belong downtown on the streets where people are walking. Ms. McDonald made the argument that manufacturing areas could also use vending carts.
Mr. Daniels asked about the issue of vendors setting up 200 feet from Taco Time selling tacos. Mr. Jonas said clearly the vending cart by Sears is closer than 200 feet. Mr. Dansie replied that was because the existing ordinance allowed 100 feet. Also, there is no spacing requirement between vendors, which if that were attempted would put the Commission in a position of micro-managing.
Mr. Dansie suggested that if the Commission wanted to drop a zone, the CC zone would be the first one to look at.
Mr. Jonas suggested the Commission look at restricting CB, CS and parts of CG zones for vending carts. He mentioned that Costco has done outside sales for a long time. Mr. Dansie explained that Costco was in a CG zone that allows outside sales.
Mr. Jonas then brought up the issue of vending carts complying with health regulations, i.e., keeping food warm, using thermometers, and using coolers for drinks and ice.
Ms. McDonald asked if the vendors could be required to conceal the coolers in the carts instead of setting them out on the sidewalks. Mr. Dansie said the ordinance did allow for increasing the size of the carts somewhat in the first draft.
Mr. Smith expressed concern for vendors "spreading out" along the sidewalk with coolers card tables and chairs, etc.
Ms. Arnold said coolers were a health and hygiene issue and she didn't think to limit the coolers to two made a whole lot of sense.
Mr. Dansie said the Board of Health has said a minimum of two coolers was reasonable to store food and drinks in separate containers.
Mr. Daniels said the Board of Health was advocating "two or more" coolers. He would prefer allowing 3 or 4 coolers.
Mr. Smith believed the Commission needed to come up with a limit to keep the carts as vending carts and not something that can grow. A logical limit to him would be the ability to store food and drinks.
Ms. Arnold said she wouldn't want to see the same ice used to cool the drinks being used in the drinks themselves. It would be appropriate for the Commission to decide on a size of coolers.
Mr. Smith would like to see the Commission define what a reasonable size for a cooler is and then ask the Board of Health to sustain that decision.
Ms. McDonald said the Commission should also consider the success of the vending cart that it has sufficient supplies on hand.
Ms. Short suggested a "footprint" that would allow four small coolers or three medium sized coolers.
Mr. Jonas asked if 50 square feet was the space a vendor could use.
Mr. Dansie said it was 34 square feet, which is an increase from 24 square feet.
Mr. Daniels asked if Mr. Smith was advocating that the City Health Officials or the Planning Commission should decide the size of the coolers. Mr. Smith said the Commission could define the sizes with Staff's assistance and ask the Health Department to sustain the decision. Mr. Daniels said he would trust the Staff to make the decision on the size of the coolers.
Ms. Short clarified that the decision the Commission makes would have to go to the City Council.
Mr. Smith wants the Commission to make it clear that it is a vending cart taking limited space. Mr. Dansie clarified that he would work with the Health Department to determine what the exact size and number of coolers should be.
Mr. Jonas asked about the insurance waiver provision. He asked if a person operating a restaurant would have to show proof of insurance to get a business license. Mr. Dansie said the way the ordinance is written the insurance is to indemnify the City. If the cart is out on the public right-of-way then the City wants to avoid a lawsuit if someone should trip on a cooler or get sick. The waiver is in the ordinance because if the vendor is on private property, the insurance agreement becomes the negotiating point between the private property owner and the vending cart.
Mr. Daniels expressed concern for the competitive nature of having a vending cart selling tacos in front of a Taco Time. The distance issue is not addressed in this instance because the vending cart is across the street so that the 300 foot spacing would not apply. Ms. Arnold said it was in the spirit of competition.
Mr. Smith then asked if there were any Chairs from Community Councils present. Samantha Francis, Chairperson of the People's Freeway Community Council, addressed the Commission. Ms. Francis expressed concern that originally outside sales was proposed for the downtown area, not down to 8th South and Washington Street (240 West). The vendor in that area is doing a lot of littering and promoting loitering in the community. There is a lot of concern as well about the food that is coming out of the vendor carts -gloves aren't being used, etc.
Ms. Francis did not want to see the vending carts expanding out of the downtown into residential areas.
Mr. Jay Ingleby addressed the Commission next. He expressed his concern over the locations of the carts, noting again that they were originally set for the downtown area. He talked about his concern over health issues, such as lack of liability insurance, food handlers permits and workers not wearing gloves or hair nets, and inadequate restroom and hand washing facilities. He felt that inspecting the vending carts only twice a year was not enough, and that the carts should have to pay more than $175.00 in fees every year. He also expressed concern about the spacing requirements for a cart by a restaurant selling like foods. He then passed around several photographs of vending carts and owners, showing some evidence of violations of health codes and City policies.
Ms. Arnold informed Mr. Ingleby that restaurants are not inspected on a monthly basis in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Jonas asked if there was a consensus among the Commission members that all the zones on Mr. Dansie's map were acceptable for vending carts except CB, CC, CG and CS zones. This would allow outside sales in all downtown zones, business parks, Sugar House, Gateway, light and heavy manufacturing and Research Park.
Ms. Arnold said that CG zone would put them very close to Gateway. Mr. Jonas modified the CG zone to sale "only General Commercial between North Temple and 9th South and 6th West and 3r East." Mr. Dansie explained that the ordinance basically said that already.
Mr. Wilde clarified that Mr. Jonas was asking to eliminate the CC and the CG zones, with the exception of the downtown corridor to 9th South.
Mr. Smith wanted to exclude neighborhoods with residential houses.
Mr. Wilde said that one of the things to consider if the Commission limits it to a 2 acre minimum was that a vending cart would only be allowed on a large parcel.
Mr. Dansie said one way to get around the residential home problem is to insert wording such as "on non-residentially zoned property within the expanded Central Business" area be added to the section allowing vendors on private property. That would take Washington and Jefferson streets out of the picture.
Mr. Jonas said another issue was to come up with wording about the coolers. The Commission suggests 2 to 4 coolers depending on Health Department and Staff recommendations.
The Commission also needs to address the issue of the moratorium on the Olympics and when it will begin and end. The Commission decided to use the dates of January 31 to April 1 of 2002 for the beginning and ending of the moratorium, unless the City has some other agreement with the Olympic Committee.
Mr. Dansie reminded the Commission that the Staff had inserted new language in the ordinance at the September 7, 2000 meeting to say that if the City streets are being closed for a special event, the City can ask the vendors to move outside the boundary.
Mr. Smith asked if a tarp on a vending cart is illegal.
Mr. Dansie said the Staff had tried to put in design requirements for a cart, but that there was only so much they could do to codify good taste.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-41 :
Mr. Jonas made the motion that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a positive recommendation towards the resolution of Petition 400-00-41 by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department, subject to the condition that said recommendation include:
1 Prohibit vending carts in the CB, CC, CG and CS zones, allowing vendor carts in all downtown zones, business parks, Sugar House, Gateway, light and heavy manufacturing and Research Park. Vendors in the CG zone will be prohibited with the exception of the downtown corridor from North Temple to 900 South and 600 West to 200 East, and wording to the effect that vendors may sell only "on non-residentially zoned property within the expanded Central Business" area will be added to the appropriate section.
2 That the Staff be directed to work with the Health Department to determine an appropriate number of coolers and their size for health and safety.
3 That the spacing be increased to 300 feet as specified in the Staff report.
4 That one permit be allowed per block face, including Main Street.
5 That the Gallivan Plaza (during events) be specifically listed as a site subject to spacing regulations.
6 That in anticipation of the Olympics the moratorium on the issuance of vending permits within the geographic area of the Olympic Special Event application go into effect January 31 of 2002 and expire in April 1 of 2002, unless there is already an agreement between the City and SLOC in conflict with those dates.
7 That the definition of "vending cart" be added to the zoning ordinance definitions.
8 That the City may authorize up to an additional 4 sites for each licensed cart.
9 That the Temporary use ordinance be clarified to not allow vendors in zoning districts where they would otherwise not be allowed.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows and Ms. Funk were not present.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-00-33 by Thomas King, Scepter Properties LLC, for an amendment to the "R-O" Residential Office Zoning District to allow office uses in existing buildings on lots less than 20,000 square feet in size. The proposal is to allow a change of use to office uses in existing buildings on 5,000 square foot minimum lots.
Mr. Jonas asked the Commission to decide whether or not he should recuse himself, because he is a member of a company that owns some property that is zoned "R-O" in excess of 20,000 square feet. The Commission did not see an issue with this and Mr. Jonas remained for the hearing.
Mr. Robert Glessner presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting a text amendment in order to allow office uses on properties less than 20,000 square feet within a Residential Office zone. The petitioner would like to locate a law office on site at 452 East 500 South in the R-O zone. The property is approximately 6,000 square feet. The proposed text amendment would require conditional use process for any new construction on a property that is below 20,000 square feet, and for any addition that is over 50% of the actual size of the building footprint within this area. The recommendation within the text also includes the allowance of single family dwellings and two family dwellings on similar lots. The Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council with the proposed changes as listed within the Staff report.
Mr. Wilde commented that as a clean-up, the Staff had also added a square footage for single family homes and added single family homes to the district. Single family homes can function on a 5,000 square foot lot. The Staff has also recommended some reduced yard areas for these single family homes, two family homes, and other small buildings in the area.
Ms. Arnold asked if the Commission would also have to give approval for the elimination of landscaping, because the back would have to be parking space.
Mr. Glessner said the landscaping requirements were still in place. A 10 foot area for landscaping is required between the R-O zone and a Residential zone.
Mr. Wilde said this small area would not require a large parking lot. There wouldn't be side yard landscaping requirements in this case. Mr. Wilde then clarified that any addition to the structure under 50% of the building footprint would be a permitted use.
Ms. Arnold said the whole point was to maintain the exterior integrity of the building.
Mr. Jonas said the purpose statement needed to be changed a bit. The first sentence should be changed from " future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of multifamily dwellings and office use" to "future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use." And the next sentence should have the word "appropriate" inserted to read, "This district should encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings." He believed there are some buildings that do not merit maintenance and rehabilitation.
Mr. Smith agreed and said the Commission was not trying to create a historic district by virtue of this action. He then asked the representative for the petitioner to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Kendall Springer, architect working with Brian and Tom King, spoke next. He also agreed that this was an example of a building who's exterior integrity needed to be preserved. The petitioners would like to maintain the exterior integrity of the front, and replace a two story enclosed porch in the back.
Mr. Smith then opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Thaes Webb, a neighbor of the proposed property. He said the City had required him to acquire additional land to provide 19 parking places. His main concern was that the petitioners would be using his parking for their contractors and customers. He asked the Commission to go look at the house and see that it doesn't have any parking.
Ms. Short asked Mr. Glessner to talk about the parking for the proposed building.
Mr. Glessner said a site plan had been done that proposed 8 stalls in the back with an ADA accessible space. The petitioners have to meet the required 3 spaces per thousand square feet to satisfy the ordinance. Mr. Glessner said the main issue was the text amendment, not the site plan, because the site plan would be reviewed by the Staff to make sure it met all the requirements.
Mr. Smith then closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-33:
Mr. Jonas moved that the Commission approve Petition No. 400-00-33 and forward a positive recommendation to the City Council as recommended by staff with the following modifications to the purpose statement (underlined portions added by the Commission):
A. Purpose Statement The RO residential/office district is intended to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use. This district should encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings and neighborhood scale.
Ms. McDonald seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows and Ms. Funk were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Consider a request by Mr. Craig Mecham for an extension of time regarding Case No. 410-364 requesting a conditional use and a planned development to construct a six story, 90,000 square foot office building located at 2170 South 1300 East in a Commercial Sugar House Business District "CSHBD" zoning district. Underground parking for 214 vehicles was also requested. Original approval was granted September 9, 1999.
Everett Joyce presented the Staff report. The petitioner was required to obtain easements and approvals from abutting property owners, and through U DOT to get a driveway design agreement. UDOT approvals have been obtained in the year since the petition was approved. The petitioner needs more time to finalize the project and to bring it back to the Planning Director to verify that it meets all the other conditions of approval.
Ms. Short asked if Mr. Joyce had received a letter from UDOT. Mr. Joyce said he had and would provide Ms. Short with a copy.
Mr. Jonas asked if in the original process any traffic studies had been done.
Mr. Joyce said a traffic study had been done for the project review process that covered almost two years.
Ms. McDonald said it would be nice to get a traffic plan for the whole area, instead of piece by piece. Mr. Joyce explained that there was a traffic plan for the Sugar House Business District. It indicated that the street system could support these new developments.
Mr. Smith clarified that the Commission was being asked to extend the petition for one more year.
Motion for Case No. 410-364:
Mr. Jonas made the motion that the Commission approve the extension of time for conditional use Case No. 410-364 as recommended by Staff. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows and Ms. Funk were not present. The motion passed.
Ms. Arnold noted a letter in the Staff report that indicated there would be 10 stories on the building on the Hidden Hollow side and asked for clarification on that. Mr. Joyce said the original request was a six story building and the East grade drops significantly just north of the Parkview Plaza. In addition to the six story structure, there would be another two stories of parking structure on the back face of the building.
Mr. Wilde said the overall height on the downhill side ended up being about 110 or 120 feet, just by virtue of the change in grade.
Mr. Jonas and Mr. Smith requested that the issues regarding TCI be added as an agenda item to the next Planning Commission meeting.
There being no further business for the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.