SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Vice-Chair Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, Babs DeLay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Chair Jeff Jonas and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planners Jackie Gasparik and Everett Joyce; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Vice-Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Approval of the Minutes from Wednesday, August 27, 2003
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as stated are reflected in the August 27, 2003 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Noda Made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless abstained. Prescott Muir did not vote as Acting Chair. The motion passes.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze reported to the Commission, regarding Petition 410-644 by Ken Garff Enterprises. He said that when the Commission reviewed this petition, one condition of approval was directing Ken Garff Enterprises to submit a traffic mitigation plan to the Planning Director within 60 days of approval. Mr. Zunguze noted that Ken Garff has done so. The correspondence from Ken Garff, outlining the measures they have taken, has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. He said that, in short, Ken Garff has submitted letters to all of the transport companies that deliver vehicles to the project site advising them to deliver only during business hours, and that they can not park illegally in the middle of 200 East Street to unload vehicles. Mr. Zunguze added that Ken Garff has set up a temporary on-site delivery location. He stated that Ken Garff has submitted the same correspondence to the Manager of the Wasatch Manor. Planning Staff has not received communication from the Wasatch Manor Management in response. Mr. Zunguze said that Staff has reviewed the information and is satisfied that the condition set by the Planning Commission has been complied with. He asked the Commission if they are comfortable with Ken Garff obtaining permits to proceed with the Phase 1 of their project.
Commissioner DeLay said that she appreciated the expedience of that condition being met.
Commissioner Daniels stated that condition 8 of the approval requires a “Long Term Mitigation Plan,” and asked if that mitigation plan is specifically a traffic mitigation plan or a more extensive plan. Mr. Zunguze responded that through condition 8 the Commission requested a more comprehensive mitigation plan that would address other related issues such as landscaping. Mr. Zunguze said that the Long Term Mitigation Plan will be addressed in Phase 2 of the project.
Motion
Commissioner Delay made a motion to approve the Conditional Use, Planned Development and Minor Subdivision for auto sales and a display facility with the conditions 1-8 as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Muir suggested to include in the motion that due to the subsequent traffic mitigation plan that the Planning Director has collected; which satisfies the outstanding conditions of the original approval, Ken Garff may proceed with phase two. Commissioner DeLay accepted the addition. Commissioner Galli accepted the addition as well.
Amended Motion
Commissioner Delay made a motion to approve the Conditional Use, Planned Development and Minor Subdivision for auto sales and a display facility with the conditions 1-8 as listed in the staff report; and due to the subsequent traffic mitigation plan that the Planning Director has collected; which satisfies the outstanding conditions of the original approval, Ken Garff may proceed with phase two. Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir did not vote as Acting Chair. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-19, by Great Basin Engineering, representing Burbs LLC requesting a street closure of a portion of 700 South Street between Bellflower Street and Fulton Street, and a portion of Bellflower Street between the railroad right-of-way and 700 South. The proposed street closures are to facilitate further development of the BFI recycling site.
The hearing began at 6:09 p.m.
Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the petition as written in the staff report. She provided a description of the proposed streets to be closed which are 700 South Street and Bellflower Street. She gave a brief history of the configuration of the streets. In 2001, there was a two-lot industrial subdivision approved by the Planning Commission which excludes a 25-foot wide residential parcel, which the City determined had access rights. The City developed the concept to leave a portion of 700 South and Bellflower through the subdivision to allow legal access for that property. She stated that the need for the two streets has now dissolved because the Applicant has obtained the 25-foot parcel. Ms. Gasparik noted that the two streets in question are “paper streets” which is to say that they have never been constructed, and do not exist on land. She added that the long term Master Plan for the area is for it to be developed as Heavy Industrial “M-2” zoning district. She said that Staff received a telephone call from Robinson Fans West Inc. located at 725 South Gladiola, who is the adjoining property owner to the south of BFI recycling site. They have concerns that their property may be limited in the future if 700 South is closed. Ms. Gasparik explained that City policy will not allow the closure of streets that completely take away a property owner’s access. She added that the Robinson Fans West Inc. currently have street frontage on Gladiola Street and they will not be losing frontage. She stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation of the street closures to the City Council.
Mr. Robert Schmidt with Great Basin Engineering located at 2010 North Redwood Road addressed the Commission saying that the proposal is to eliminate two paper streets. He said that the approval of the street closures will allow the project, which his clients are pursuing, to move forward.
Commissioner DeLay asked Staff why it is not standard procedure to present street closures to Community Councils. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the Community Councils receive all Planning Commission agendas; their opportunity to give input on street closures is at the Planning Commission meeting.
Acting Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Brundle an adjacent property owner to the proposed street closure addressed the Commission giving a brief history of his property. Mr. Brundle stated that he is concerned with being “landlocked” if 700 South is closed. He claimed that the City has been responsible for the construction of 700 South, but has never actually built it, leaving him with no access to his property.
Commissioner DeLay asked Staff if Mr. Brundle’s comments are true. Mr. Wheelwright explained that 700 South is a paper street which was created in a subdivision process. He said that there may have been an access lane used by the abutting property owners, but the City never had control of that. Mr. Brundle’s parcel is a tax sale parcel which he purchased from Salt Lake County. The City never intended to pave the private access lane.
Mr. Zunguze interjected saying that due to the new information that has been presented, of which he was not aware of, he strongly recommended that the Commission table this matter.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Brundle how he intends to develop his property. Mr. Brundle answered that he intends to develop commercial warehouses.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Brundle if he had explored other possibilities of where to purchase additional property. She suggested the possibilities of an easement across a neighboring property to 900 South which is a paved road. She also suggested his neighbor to the east and possibly an easement across their property to Fulton Street which is also a paved road. Mr. Brundle stated that he had not explored those options.
Mr. Schmidt was given the opportunity to rebut the public comment. He stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Brundle’s property does not have legal standing, therefore, access need not be provided. He stated that his client has made an offer of fair market price to purchase Mr. Brundle’s property and it was declined.
Acting Chair closed the public hearing.
Motion
Commissioner DeLay made a motion to table the petition to a later meeting until the Commission has more information. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Seelig asked Staff to include additional information in regard to the notification of adjoining property owners.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Vice-Chair Muir did not vote as acting Chair. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
Subdivision No. 490-03-13, ARKAD Subdivision Amendment, requested by property owner Helen Smith, consolidating four remnant parcels to create one new, 14,706 square foot single family lot, located at 1619 East Blaine Avenue in the Residential R 1 7000 zoning district.
This hearing began at 6:30 p.m.
Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the petition as written in the staff report. Ms. Gasparik gave a brief description of the proposed site and of the surrounding area. She described the previous illegal amendment by deed of a portion of the Glen Arbor Subdivision; which subdivided a portion of the rear yards of lots 18 and 19. She stated that the approval of this plat amendment would legitimize that amendment. She stated that the 100 year flood plain is protected by Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City Public Utilities has requested that the 100 year flood plain portion of the lot be designated as the no disturb area and must be maintained in its natural state. The area is zoned “R-1/5000” and is designated in the Master Plan as “Low Density Residential” which the proposal complies with. The Open Space Master Plan is vague, but shows a future creek corridor in the general area and it does not recommend the corridor to go through this particular property to Blaine Avenue, but rather illustrates the corridor along the North Side of the Creek. Staff is not recommending pedestrian easements at this time for the creek corridor; however, Staff feels that with the preservation of the 100 year flood plain, it leaves an opportunity for a trail to come through this property at a future date. Ms. Gasparik pointed out the recommended conditions of approval. She specifically referred to the requirement that the Geotechnical Engineer design the footing and foundation system that would support the future home to insure that the home will meet City Building Codes. Ms. Gasparik stated that notice was given to the Sugar House Community Council and not until 3:30 this afternoon did she receive written comment. Their concerns are in regard to the Open Space Master Plan and they are requesting an easement for the future Creek Corridor. She stated that this particular Subdivision Amendment proposal is typically approved administratively, but Staff felt that this project may be contested and there may be some issues associated with this approval. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the subdivision amendment with the analysis and findings, and the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Delay said she found it interesting that the Sugar House Community Council is making recommendations in respect to the Open Space Master Plan when the neighboring duplex has stopped the flow of Open Space there. She added that she is concerned with the 11th hour letter and asked Staff to investigate this further. She felt that statements included in the letter are not a true representation of the position taken by the Sugar House Community Council.
Acting Chair Muir referred to the illegal Glen Arbor Subdivision Amendment and asked if the record of sale was recorded with the County. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the rears of two lots on Glen Arbor were sold by deed without City approval, which is in effect a plat amendment and is the nature of the illegality. It is illegal to do that, but anyone can record deeds at the County if they prepare them. If this is approved, the Commission would be legitimizing the illegal subdivision amendment for a portion of the two lots.
Acting Chair Muir clarified that the Commission has no obligation to do that.
Commissioner Chambless noted in the 1983 there was a flood in that area and the flood plain protection is necessary.
Mr. Wheelwright remarked regarding Commissioner DeLay’s comment that the Sugar House Community Council allowed the neighboring duplex to be constructed. He clarified that the Community Council would have had nothing to do with the approval of the duplex; the owners simply filed for a building permit, and it was Issued.
The Applicant, Ms. Helen Smith who resides at 1350 East Princeton Avenue, spoke to the Commission saying that it has been a long and expensive process in order to get the City to recognize that this is a buildable lot. She stated that she and her husband acquired the property by way of a defaulted business loan. At that time, they had no idea that there were problems with the lot being buildable. She felt that rather than leaving this lot to be a possible hazard for the community, she is confident that they could build a home on it without offending the flood plain or the neighborhood.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the Applicant would be opposed to an easement if it were to go across the unbuildable portion of the property. Ms. Smith answered that since that area is unbuildable and inaccessible, if you are unable to construct a bridge over the creek; she sees no reason to oppose that suggestion.
Acting Chair Muir stated that the Commission’s intent is to protect the public trail system and where possible, the City would like to buy property to convey that for that purpose. The Commission’s agenda is not to impede the developability of property, but to work out these incompatible agendas. He suggested another option is to not consolidate the unbuildable portion and suggested that the Applicant give that to the City for future creation of the creek trail system.
Acting Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dean Thomas who resides at 1580 Blaine Avenue spoke to the Commission saying that his concern is to protect the Open Space Master Plan. He stated that his hope is that the City will develop the proposed property to include the Creek Trail system. He stated that he is opposed to a home being built at the proposed site.
Ms. Smith spoke to the Commission to rebut the public comment. She stated that when they acquired the property there was a lot of debris on the site. They have cleaned the property and she believes that a single-family home would fit in well and complete the neighborhood. If it is left as an empty lot, it may become an eyesore with weeds and trash. She referred to the comment that this lot is larger than normal and said that when considering the amount of unbuildable area, it turns out to be a good sized lot. She said that it is a difficult lot because of the steep slope, but that is not insurmountable. With the right planning and design, a single-family home could be a lovely addition to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Smith if she would be the resident of the future home. Ms. Smith replied that she has a prospective buyer who is aware of the requirements that would have to be met.
Commissioner DeLay asked Acting Chair Muir if his proposal is to give, as an easement to the City, the smallest unbuildable portion of the two parcel subdivision. Acting Chair Muir replied that that could happen if the subdivision is approved or denied. He stated that if the petition is denied, they would not necessarily deny the fact that the lot may be built upon; they would just be denying the consolidation of the two parcels. He added that the Applicant seems to be willing to sell the unbuildable portion of the subdivision to the City for Open Space. Acting Chair Muir asked Ms. Gasparik if his explanation is correct. Ms. Gasparik answered that to create the larger parcel, it would require a plat amendment approval, but the Commission could modify the approval to not include the unbuildable portion. Ms. Gasparik added that at this point the County records show the proposed property as two parcels, but the City records show it as four parcels.
Acting Chair Muir clarified that if the Commission were to describe the action accurately, they would recommend consolidation of parcels one and four, and with the agreement of the owner, parcels two and three would be sold to the City and be conveyed consistent with the Open Space Master Plan.
Mr. Wheelwright suggested that the Commission consider making the rear part of lots two and three an alpha parcel. This would allow the parcel to be a part of the plat amendment and provide for that portion to be purchased by the City for future trail consideration. Mr. Wheelwright explained that building lots are typically designated numerically. When you create an alpha parcel, it would designate a lot alphabetically to help differentiate that the lot is not independently developable.
Commissioner Chambless asked Staff if it is envisioned in the future to acquire a continuing strip of property from the neighboring lot that presently has a duplex on it in order to allow a trail connection. Mr. Zunguze answered that it would be inappropriate for Staff to speculate on what the City would do with respect to the implementation of the Creek Corridor Trail System.
Ms. Smith addressed the Commission saying that she feels like she is being penalized due to what the owners of the neighboring lot have done with their duplex and what may or may not occur from a City standpoint as far as a trail system.
Acting Chair Muir asked Staff if a lot is not a legal plat in the City’s view, then would it not have a standing before this body. He said that if that is the case it would not impede the applicant’s progress. He stated that they may have difficulty at the County in terms of platting this, but the Commission is basically consolidating parcels that have legal standing before this body.
Mr. Wheelwright said that frequently property owners have this problem where parcels are created by deeds; someone purchases a lot that they think is buildable. Because the deeds have been recorded and property tax notices get changed and they start getting assessed for property that is based on a residential use, they feel like they are vested in a building permit approval. The way the State Law is understood, the City can not control the deeds that are recorded, but the City can control the issuance of a building permit. This started as approaches for building permits wherein we have looked at a record and become aware of a situation and identify that a subdivision or a subdivision amendment is necessary to legitimize those prior deed actions which require approval. So it does not have status with the City as far as a building permit until the Commission has approved it.
Mr. Kennard Kingston, resident of 2585 South 500 East, asked to address the Commission as the potential buyer of the project site. He spoke to the issue of not consolidating the two parcels together. He suggested that he would rather the Commission allow an easement though the unbuildable area of the lot. He stated that as a potential buyer, the easement is of no great concern because of the walkability of the trail, and although he supports the notion of Open Space, he felt it is not practical in this instance to have a trail up the channel. He stated that this property is meeting every obligation relevant to the public safety.
Mr. Scott Jacobs, real estate agent for the Applicant, spoke to the Commission saying that the flood plain channel is severely steep. He stated that there have been catch basin studies of the surrounding properties that are actually more at risk than this particular property.
Commissioner Delay asked Ms. Gasparik what is meant by the Staff recommendation that all required easements will be dedicated to Salt Lake City. Ms. Gasparik replied that the two easements are required along the front and rear of the property. She added that because the Open Space Master Plan does not delineate the trail location, Staff did not include that easement as part of the recommendation.
Acting Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Mr. Wheelwright responded to Ms. Smith’s reference to the process time that she has spent. He stated that this meeting is the approval body for the proposal; the only remaining process would be the recording of the final plat, which the Applicant would have to do anyway. He stated that the option of the alpha parcel may be a good solution. Whether the City ends up with the alpha parcel or not, can be decided at a later date. By going through with the alpha parcel approach, the Commission would be recognizing that the alpha parcel is unbuildable and it has been split from the rear of the lots, and there is no real desire on the part of the City to see that parcel be reattached to those lots in the Glen Arbor Plat. He reminded the Commission that the Open Space Master Plan map states that the actual construction of a trail will be subject to specific approval by the Planning Commission at a future date where they would actually go through a public hearing process to designate where the trail would go.
Acting Chair Muir added that by including the alpha parcel with the others, the Commission may assign value to the parcel that may not otherwise exist.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Commission could prevent that from happening by adding language that the alpha parcel may be conveyed to the City for Open Space. Acting Chair Muir said that the Commission may add that if it is the will of the Planning Commission, but he did not feel they could make that a condition of approval.
Mr. Zunguze suggested another approach to obtain an easement is to add to the recommendation a condition number 7 that would speak to the provision of perpetual easement on the property. The terms of which could be negotiated prior to the obtainment of a building permit, and the actual possession of the easement would be only occur at the time the City begins to implement the entire Open Space Master Plan Trail process.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Zunguze why the Commission should not delineate the easement now because it is known that they can not build past the flood plain. Mr. Zunguze answered that the understanding of a perpetual easement clearly delineated would be good to have and put on the plat at the time of plat approval.
Acting Chair Muir asked Mr. Zunguze if he felt the easement may not in fact follow this parcel line. Mr. Zunguze answered that that is correct. Acting Chair Muir asked Mr. Zunguze if he felt this is a better position for the City to be in than the other approach of fragmenting the lots and giving it value that it may not otherwise have. Mr. Zunguze answered that that is correct. He stated that we do not know when this Master Plan will be implemented, but this would give the City the rights to have it implemented when the time comes.
Commissioner Diamond suggested having the easement work to the flood plain. Mr. Zunguze replied that the City would impose that when the plans for the home are reviewed for approval.
Motion
Commissioner Seelig made a motion to approve subdivision 490-03-13, amending lots 18 and 19 of the Glen Arbor subdivision and a portion of the Progress Heights Second Additional Subdivision based upon the findings of fact as listed in the staff report, as well as the discussion this evening, and subject to the following conditions 1-6 with the addition of the a condition number 7, “That a perpetual easement, that is consistent with the flood plain, be granted across the property, terms of which will be negotiated before any building permits are issued and the implementation of the easement will occur when the City is ready to realize the plans for the Open Space Corridor as outlined in the Open Space Master Plan”. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Conditions of approval:
1. Public Utilities requires a note on the final plat noting the lowest building elevation line.
2. All required easements to be dedicated to Salt Lake City.
3. The final plat and all developments on the subject property must be in conformance with the geotechnical report and must comply with the recommendations and development approval requirements.
4. A Geotechnical Engineer must design a footing and foundation system specifically for this steep lot and the specific single-family residence to be constructed on this lot. A note on the final plat to this effect will be required.
5. Final plat approval is delegated to the Planning Director or his designee.
6. Compliance with all other conditions of Division/ Departments and relevant Codes and ordinances as listed in the staff report.
7. That a perpetual easement, that is consistent with the flood plain, be granted across the property, terms of which will be negotiated before any building permits are issued and the implementation of the easement will occur when the City is ready to realize the plans for the Open Space Corridor as outlined in the Open Space Master Plan.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Vice-Chair Muir did not vote as acting Chair. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.