SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Robert “Bip” Daniels, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Craig Mariger, Mary McDonald, and Judi Short.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless and Craig Hinckley.
There were no minutes to approve. Mr. Smith welcomed Joanna Going, a temp taking minutes at this Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Daniels asked if it was possible for Varene, who’s last day is Friday, September 22, 2000, to come back and help out if she wants to. Mr. Wilde responded that that was a possibility, the details of which had not yet been worked out.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No 400-00-46 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission amending Table 21A.40.090E of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in the Gateway Mixed-Use “G-MU” and Downtown Secondary Central Business “D-4” zoning districts.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the Staff report and explained that when the Gateway mixed-use GMU districts were developed, provisions to allow wireless telecommunication antennas were not included. This ordinance updates the wireless telecommunications ordinance on Exhibit C to allow wireless communication antennas as either permitted or conditional uses, consistent with provisions for surrounding zoning districts.
Mr. Smith asked for any questions at this time and opened the hearing up to the public. There being no response from the public, the public hearing was closed and the matter brought back to the Commission.
Mr. Daniels stated that he had an indirect relationship with the building, and was working with the company. However there was no loss, gain or profit avenue for him. Rather than recusing himself he abstained from the vote on this petition.
Motion for Petition No 400-00-46:
Mr. Jonas made a motion on Petition No 400-00-46 that the commission approve the ordinance amendment as shown in the table attached to the petition. Mr. Meriger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, and Ms. McDonald voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion
carried.
At this time Mr. Wilde reminded the Commission that the Utah APA conference will be held October 13th. If anyone was interested in attending he asked them to let him know. Ms. Arnold expressed an interest.
Ms. Arnold said that perhaps to save time in the future, agenda items could be set during a block of time, such as between 5 and 5:30 where the petitions could fall as they may. She also would appreciate it if at any time the Commission is dealing with a specific piece of property or land, it be identified with a Sidwell number in addition to an address. It is often difficult to find land with just an address.
Ms. Barrows suggested that this would be useful in the Staff report. Mr. Wilde replied that they would use judgment in trying to supply Sidwell numbers in the Staff reports in the future.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. McCandless to include maps showing other antenna locations in surrounding areas as a part of all future petitions for cellular antennas.
Mr. McCandless said he would do that.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No 410-471 by AT&T Wireless Services requesting a conditional use to allow cellular telecommunication antennas on the roof of Hawthorne Elementary School located at approximately 1675 South 600 East in a Public Lands “PL” zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the Staff report. He demonstrated the proposal on two site plans he had put up on the wall. The proposal is to install two sets of antennas, for a total of four antennas on skids between the skylights on the roof of the building. In addition, the proposal is asking to install an electrical equipment building between two existing buildings near the playground area. The Staff had met with one of the principal architects, who felt it was better to leave antennas as they were, rather than try to screen them with a significantly taller structure. To screen them would add 15 feet to the height and make them much more visible to the adjoining properties. The antennas would be shifted back as far west as possible to make them less visible. The Staff recommends approval of this case subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff report:
1 Painting all antennas and support structure a flat gray color.
2 Horizontal cross bracing between the antennas be as low as possible to minimize visual impacts.
3 The equipment shelter be constructed of brick to match the brick on the school.
4 All utilities and cables leading to the electrical equipment shelter being placed underground.
5. Meeting all requirements of the various City departments.
Looking at the diagram, Ms. Arnold was concerned that there were 8 antennas and how that would look. Mr. Smith expressed the same concern. Mr. Mariger explained that the drawings showed the antennas with the perspective of one standing level with the roof, and that at ground level there wouldn’t be that much showing.
Mr. McCandless passed around a photo of what it would look like from ground level. Ms. Short replied that this was still preferable to a monopole.
Mr. Smith questioned whether these antennas would be high enough to deal with traffic on 7th East. Mr. McCandless assured him that you can see 7th East from the roof of the school.
Ms. Barrows asked if they made any attempt to incorporate antennas into the skylight. Mr. McCandless said no, they were primarily looking at a separate structure. Wall mounts were too low for them, and to use the center skylight would make the antennas too high.
Ms. Barrows asked how big the skids would be and if you would be able to see it from the roof. She also asked about the community council voting to approve but what it meant when it said it was in negotiation.
Mr. McCandless said his understanding was that the negotiation was referring back to the school board’s approval. The skid is an antenna support that is a vertical pipe used to mount the antenna. There are four pipes per skid. Other approved sites have used cross bracing, but that is more visible. The Staff has asked that the cross bracing be put down as low as possible so that from the roof you could see only the antennas and maybe a little bit of the pipes. The support structure mentioned in recommendation is in reference to the skid.
Mr. Smith then asked if the petitioner was present to make any comments. Mr. Leonard Sussman stated that the report encapsulated everything they wanted to say.
Mr. Jonas asked what the range was for these antennas. Mr. Sussman replied that it was between ¾ of a mile to a mile.
Ms. Barrows asked what the closest other facility was. Mr. Sussman said it ties into a monopole that was previously constructed down on 2100 South and 7th East. This just happens to be the pole that Ms. Barrows wants painted.
Mr. Daniels asked if there was a possibility that they were doing a little bit too much because they know what the future might hold. Mr. Sussman responded that it was mainly for quality and consistent service. The goal is to augment the cell sites so that a phone call can be consistently maintained. The four panels on each skid are needed in order for the transmissions to work. One panel would not be sufficient.
Mr. Daniels asked if this had been presented to the Community Council Meeting. Mr. McCandless said it had.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public. A representative of Liberty Wells Community Council, Ms. Tamara Wharton, was present to speak. She stated that the Community Council had approved the petition for the antennas on the school, and thought that this was a great partnership to work with the school and come up with a positive experience where everyone wins. In terms of aesthetics, there were not too many concerns and they defer to the expertise of the Planning Commission on that.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the commission. Ms. Barrows asked how we enforce maintenance of the poles.
Mr. Wilde responded that we would not take enforcement action unless we had a complaint. We could turn it over to zoning enforcement, who would write a citation.
Mr. McCandless said that the company has been good to work with in the past when there has been an issue with a pole that needs attention. They usually take care of it fairly quickly.
Mr. Wilde says we do not have a systematic process to go out and check poles on a regular basis.
Mr. Mariger asked if they wouldn’t lose their conditional use authorization if they failed to comply with a condition. Mr. Wilde said that was correct.
Motion for Case no. 410-471:
Ms. Funk made a motion that based on the findings and facts of the conditional criteria the Commission approve Petition No. 410-471 proposed antenna subject to the conditions as stated 1 through 5 in the Staff report.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald, and Mr. Daniels said “Aye”. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No 410-482 by Cricket Communications requesting a conditional use to allow cellular telecommunication antennas on an existing monopole antenna located in the Salt Lake International Center at approximately 5500 West Amelia Earhart Drive in a Light Manufacturing “M-1” zoning district.
Mr. McCandless presented the Staff report. Cricket Communications are new to the community, the 7th wireless telecommunications company in the city. They are trying to find places where they can co-locate their antennas on existing monopoles and buildings. This request falls under the conditional use category. In the Salt Lake International Center there is a 100 foot high pole originally built by VoiceStream. They want to co-locate a third set of antennas on the 75 foot level. They will be flush mounted. The addition of antennas would have a very minimal impact on what’s there now. They are also looking at enlarging the enclosed area. We want to pull a fence out and do some landscaping on east side of enclosure. The Staff’s recommendation would be approval, contingent upon meeting the conditions listed in the staff report.
Ms. Barrows asked if we are approving the monopole or a co-location on the existing. Mr. McCandless said that this is an amendment to the conditional use approval on an existing monopole.
Ms. Funk asked about recommendations 3 and 7. There looks to be some duplication and wants to combine them. Number 3 can be eliminated.
Ms. Barrows commented that we need more landscaping than just on west side and driveway. It looked like they were depending on visibility being blocked by neighboring trees. Mr. McCandless said that driveway was dead-end and that the only opportunity for landscaping was on east side.
Mr. Smith asked if a representative of Cricket was present. Mr. Charlie Bennetts, present from Liberty Wirestar and representing Cricket, stated that they were doing what the jurisdictions were asking for in regards to co-location and that it is a conditional use because they chose to go to 75 feet.
Mr. Smith opened the public hearing. No one from the public wished to speak to this petition. Mr. Smith then closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission.
Motion for Case No 410-482:
Ms. Short made the motion on Case No 410-482 by Cricket Communications that the Commission approve the conditional use for the proposed monopole antenna, subject to the conditions as stated in the Staff report, eliminating the duplication of the third recommendation for landscaping:
1. Painting the antennas a flat medium gray color.
2. Using dark green vinyl coated chain link fence around the perimeter of the site and eliminating the fence between the electrical equipment.
3. Obtaining approval of a landscaping plan from the Planning Director.
4. No accessory building be constructed.
5. No beacon be allowed unless required by the FAA.
6. Minimal antenna bracing be used and the antennas be flush mounted to the pole.
7. Landscaping, including trees that will reach a height of 60 to 70 feet and 6 to 8 foot high shrubs be installed between the west side of the fence and driveway (Landscaping plan approved administratively by the Planning Director).
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels and Ms. McDonald voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde then explained that when the monopole is established and the antenna is a flush mount co-location application, he believes that it could be approved administratively as a co-location antenna without changing the ordinance. The Staff will run this by the City Attorney to make sure that in fact we do have the administrative authority. There was a consensus on this among the Commission members that even though we’re getting flush mount antennas, we still have to deal with the equipment. The equipment should be the Planning Commission’s authority, especially in residential districts.
Action Item --Mr. Wilde will speak with the City Attorney and come up with a written proposal that would identify which zones to make administrative and submit it to the Commission for their review and approval.
Mr. Goldsmith invited the Commission to a lecture/discussion in Room 126 next Tuesday, September 26, 2000, at 1:30 to listen to Bim Oliver. As part of our humanity series, Bim will speak to the topic of “How traditional commercial centers downtown reinforce the human fabric of a community by integrating its diverse activities.” We are also inviting Keith Bartholomew in a few weeks to come and talk about land use, transportation investments and quality of life issues.
Mr. Goldsmith would also like to coordinate some Planning Commission training sessions in November, around the week of the 13th through 17th. He asked the Commission members to let him know what days they might be available for this.
Mr. Smith recused himself for the next two petitions and turned the gavel over to Ms. Funk.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-34 by Pacific Commercial Properties requesting that Section 21A.26.070 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow additional building height as a conditional use in General Commercial “CG” zoning districts. AND,
Petition No. 400-00-39 by Valley Mental Health requesting that Section 21A.26.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow additional building height as a conditional use in Commercial Corridor “CC” zoning districts.
Craig Hinckley presented the Staff report for the two petitions. Both petitions have to do with commercial zones and both are requesting basically the same thing. However, there are two separate petitioners and they are not linked in any way. The first petition from Pacific Commercial Properties requests that the Commission allow additional height on buildings in the CG zone as a conditional use. The second petition from Valley Mental Health requests that additional height be allowed on a building as a conditional use in the CC zone.
The Staff has evaluated both petitions and has sent out draft copies of the amendments to community council chairpersons who’s community council boundaries are in areas in which either zone is located. A couple of changes since the draft was sent out are described below.
The planning Staff was concerned about opening the door for larger buildings in commercial zones and wanted to make sure they didn’t just get more building and more parking. Therefore, the ordinance includes a provision in both of the draft ordinances for additional landscaping. That provision requires that if an additional floor is approved through conditional use process, one of the conditions will be that an area equal to 10% of the square footage of the additional floor should be provided on the site for additional landscaping over and above what the standard requirement would be.
The proposal is to allow additional building height of 15 feet or one story, whichever is less, in each zoning district.
The Staff recommendation for Petition No 400-00-34 is that the City Council approve the attached amendments to Section 21A.26.070 of the Salt Lake Zoning Ordinance which allow additional building height as a conditional use in General Commercial (CG) Zones.
The Staff recommendation for Petition No 400-00-39 is that the City Council approve the attached amendments to Section 21A.26.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance which allow additional building height as a conditional use in Commercial Corridor (CC) Zones.
Ms. Barrows asked if there were other petitioners who have had problems with visibility. Mr. Hinckley did not believe so. The petitions were submitted because to do what they wanted to do would require a zoning ordinance amendment. There are provisions in the zoning ordinance for increased height, but neither one of them applied to either of the properties in the two petitions.
Ms. Barrows asked how the 10% of floor space became the criteria for determining the amount of extra landscaping. Mr. Hinckley said they had made some assumptions based on sizes of different buildings and came up with that 10% number.
Mr. Jonas asked how it was decided to do 1 story or 15 feet. Mr. Hinckley said there are provisions in various parts of the City’s Master Plan mostly in the urban design element that talks about identifying commercial areas and emphasizing the downtown core having taller building heights to identify it as the center of the city. Buildings get shorter as you go outside the city center. The Staff responded to exactly what was requested in the petitions and did not go above that.
Mr. Wilde said in the CC zone you see few three story buildings. If you allowed more than that you would be allowing buildings out of character with the established development pattern. The same principle applies to a lesser degree in the CG zone.
Mr. Jonas expressed a hope that if more people developed in the commercial zone it would improve and clean up the area.
Mr. Goldsmith asked the Commission to consider that the way the development patterns occurred in the Western United States has always been to grow out and not up. The Commission might want to reconsider that by growing up instead of out is a smart growth strategy for Salt Lake City, now that we understand the long term effects of growing out.
Ms. Barrows asked in regards to the Valley Mental Health petition what the height was in that area before the zoning rewrite.
Mr. Wilde did not have an answer to that specifically. The old CG zone was very permissive – up to 200 feet. The zoning rewrite lowered that height.
Ms. Barrows asked if the Holiday Inn across from Valley Mental Health would be comparable in height. Mr. Hinckley explained that that would be one of the things evaluated in an area to decide a conditional use – what’s around the area being considered.
Mr. Jonas is not concerned about setting heights too high as long as it comes to the Commission to evaluate it according to the neighborhood.
Mr. Hinckley mentioned that an area in 4th South is being studied to be part of the TOD district.
Ms. Arnold asked about how far east on 4th South we are talking about. Mr. Hinckley replied that it would be between 200 and 1000 East.
Ms. Arnold also wanted to know if we were talking about building a brand new building or just adding to an existing building. Unless you had surplus landscaping the 10% condition would not work for all existing buildings. Mr. Wilde explained that the ordinance would accommodate either building additions or new construction, but most likely it would be new construction.
Mr. Daniels noted that feedback from any of the community councils was missing from the report. Mr. Hinckley said they had presented it to the community council chairs about two months ago, promising to send out a draft amendment and asking for input. We gave them three weeks to respond and we have not received any responses as yet.
Ms. McDonald asked how this affects the required parking spaces. Mr. Hinckley said they wouldn’t be affected at all. They still have to have the required parking spaces. TOD will have a lesser parking requirement.
Mr. Wilde said this ordinance does not address the TOD parking requirement.
Ms. Barrows asked if the Commission is to speak to specific requests and their requirements or on the zones in general. Mr. Hinckley said the petitions were initiated for a specific reason but they do affect these commercial zones city wide so it is more of a general zoning amendment at this time. He suggested that people who come to the microphones indicate which of the zones they are concerned about – whether CC or CG zone – and address the broader zoning change issues.
Ms. Barrows expressed concern with the idea of justifying visibility for a single site from the freeway. Mr. Wilde said that both of these projects if approved would come back in the form of conditional use.
Mr. Mariger asked that if the idea is now to grow up instead of out, is that encouraging people to develop office buildings and other structures further south, and wouldn’t that distract from downtown. Mr. Hinckley didn’t feel that would be the case. Downtown allows for higher buildings and that is an advantage.
Mr. Jonas asked if he understood the Staff position to be to ignore the duplicate limitation of stories and feet at this point in time. Mr. Hinckley agreed.
Mr. Mariger asked what was the mid-block height downtown. Mr. Wilde said 100 feet.
Ms. Funk asked if the petitioner for Pacific Commercial Properties was present.
Mr. Lyle Beecher, Principal Architect of Beecher Walker and Associates, made a presentation at this time. Beecher Walker and Associates are the architect of record for this project. He responded to questions about what has changed in the area. The freeway’s gained 15 to 20 feet, and the freeway boundaries are being pushed out and cleaned up. Most of this is positive for the community. This project would create a revitalization in the area. He showed a site plan and elevation to the Commission.
Ms. Barrows clarified that the building in question is called “Union Point.”
Mr. Beecher said the project location is unique in its close proximity to the freeway. It is a step up for the area. We are discovering more and more required landscaping issues and we are already providing enough landscaping to absorb additional requirements. He displayed a rendering of the project to show that main objective is not just height but aesthetic value as well. A fifth floor allows a project of this magnitude. The architects have tried to keep the pro forma down. It is his opinion that this project would be a strong candidate for conditional use.
Ms. Funk asked if the petitioner for Valley Mental Health was present. Mr. Gerald Green, Architect for Valley Mental Health, made a presentation. He showed two site plans that represented their efforts to comply with the zoning requirements. One scheme showed requisite landscaping and parking, but little else. The second scheme represented a three story scheme that had additional landscaping and additional story with 135 parking stalls.
Ms. Barrows expressed appreciation for bringing the schematic drawings. She asked if the first drawing showed more parking. Mr. Green said both drawings showed 135 parking stalls.
Judi Folmer, Director of Real Estate, stated that a member of a community council, Samantha Francis, was there to comment on this project as well.
Ms. Funk opened the hearing to the public. Samantha Francis, Chair of the People’s Freeway Committee, said they were excited to see the landscaping that would come with the Valley Mental Health project. Her committee said they would agree with this project if they could get their 95 trees. They voted for this project as a conditional use. Their boy scouts have volunteered to plant all the trees and do some of the landscaping to make it more community oriented. She noted that the housing authority is building a three story structure on West Temple, so this project is in the same area. This would be very nice for their community.
Tamara Wharton, Chair of Liberty Wells Community Council spoke next. She passed out an invitation to their Garden Party in regards to a community garden at Liberty Wells. A copy of this invitation is filed with the minutes. She expressed concern about the diminishing skyline. She noted that these two proposals are looking at changing ordinances, which was confusing to her. She would like the Commission to consider both green space and blue space. In some instances spot zoning would be more preferable to opening floodgates for people to come in and ask for 3-6 stories for other properties. Children growing up in the inner city area need to be able to see some part of nature from their homes. Give people more stories, but let them bury them below us.
Mr. John Francis, civil engineer in Salt Lake City, spoke next. Current building codes differ substantially from 3 stories to taller than 3 stories. The current residential zones that abut most of these CC zones allow a 35 foot mid gable height. Most of the CG zones abut even higher densities. Mr. Francis believes that the City needs to increase the height of these buildings to entice developers to redevelop some of the vacant fields.
Ms. Funk closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Planning Commission for comments and discussion.
Ms. Barrows asked for clarifications on maps displaying the areas that would be affected by the proposed ordinance amendments.
Mr. Jonas asked about Gateway. Mr. Hinckley stated that the Gateway development is zoned G-MU.
Ms. Barrows expressed appreciation for the information about how the building code changes after three stories. She is more concerned as to where CGs are in this community, why are we pushing buildings to 70 foot as a conditional use. Is there a real need. Ms. Barrows did not have as much problem with the CC.
Mr. Jonas asked how far west the area went. Mr. Hinckley responded that it was 5600 West. He pointed out the areas of commercial zoning on maps, and went over the streets that aligned with the commercial zones.
Mr. Jonas said the CG areas are very impacted by the freeway, and therefore that this proposal was beneficial. He appreciated the impact on residential communities, but would be agreeable to even four stories as a conditional use.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Wilde to comment on additional height issues. Is it needed now or is what the Staff proposed high enough, and then look at it again in ten years if it seemed appropriate.
Mr. Wilde responded that the CC geography didn’t have very many buildings higher
than three stories. We could have a maximum height based on the maximum height in an adjacent zone. That has been done that in the past. There are a lot of options. The Staff is not sure what height limitations will be in the TOD zone. It may actually go a little higher than three stories. At this point three stories seems to be adequate.
For the CZ zone it becomes a question of how liberal you want to get as you move from the downtown area. It is a judgment call.
Mr. Jonas said to keep the height down would make for a lot of “big boxes.” If we allow more height we have the potential for more mixture.
Mr. Goldsmith wanted to address the issue of form and character. We do have to respond to the dramatic changes the freeway has impacted us in terms of form and character. The height of the freeway is significantly different from the development patterns previous to this. The view corridor issues Tamara raised are critical. The gift that we have here is that it is a conditional use. If Tamara’s neighborhood feels that their neighborhood is impacted by a particular project the Commission can make a decision specific to that. Right now we need to address these two specific petitions.
Ms. Arnold expressed concern that the Commission didn’t see this on the field trip. Driving through the neighborhood helps to see the flavor and to see the difference a project would make.
Ms. Barrows wanted to make sure that these projects wouldn’t represent the entire city, but just the areas indicated on the map. Mr. Hinckley said the map represented all the CG or CC areas affected.
Ms. Short felt better about the amendments because they were conditional use so that the Commission can review any petitions building by building.
Motion for Petition No 400-00-34:
Mr. Jonas made the motion on Petition 400-00-34, recommending that the City Council approve the attached amendments to Section 21.A.26.070 Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, which allows additional zoning height as a conditional use in general commercial CG zones, with the following changes to the Staff recommendation: that maximum additional height be limited to 30 feet or two stories, whichever is less; and that the amount of landscaping shall be a equal to a minimum of 10% of the area of the additional floors.
Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Barrows wanted to discuss landscaping. She did not believe 10% landscaping was very much. Ms. Funk appreciated the visuals and felt good about the landscaping. Mr. Mariger believed that the additional landscaping on the Valley Mental Health plan was more than a 10% increase. The Commission all felt comfortable that 10% would give them what they wanted.
Mr. Hinckley clarified that the 10% would apply to each of the additional floors.
Ms. Funk suggested that it be worded “equal to a minimum of 10%.”
Mr. Wilde responded that they get a fair amount of comment on the rigorous nature of our landscaping requirement anyway and that 15 to 20% felt like they were pushing it a bit.
Ms. Funk called the motion to a vote. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk, as acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for Petition No 400-00-39:
Mr. Jonas made a motion on Petition 400-00-39 that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the attached amendment to Section 21A.26.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, which allows additional building height as a conditional use in the Commercial Corridor CC zones with the following amendment: that the maximum additional height listed in paragraph number three be modified to “additional height shall be limited to 30 feet or two stories, whichever is less,” and that paragraph two landscaping be amended to be that the amount of increased landscaping shall be a minimum of 10% of the area of the additional floors.
Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Mariger had a comment on the motion. He believes this zone is different than CG zone and sympathizes with the people. He also thinks it’s a bad planning decision to allow higher buildings down in the Southern section of Main and State. He suggests that we keep the amendment the same as the Staff recommendation.
Mr. Jonas would like to encourage people to look at development along that area.
Ms. Barrows wanted clarification that this motion was for two stories.
Ms. Funk called for a vote. Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, and Ms. Short voted “Aye.” Mr. Mariger, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald and Ms. Barrows voted “Nay.” Ms. Funk, as action Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Amended Motion for Petition No 400-00-39:
Mr. Mariger moved that the Commission reject Petition No 400-00-39. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Amended Motion for Petition No 400-00-39:
Mr. Jonas made the motion on Petition 400-00-39 that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the attached amendment to Section 21A.26.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, which allows additional building height as a conditional use in the Commercial Corridor CC zones and accept the Staff recommendation that additional height shall be limited to 15 feet or 1 story, whichever is less, and that increased landscaping shall be a minimum of 10% of the additional floor area.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonald and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk, as acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith returned to the meeting as Chair.
PUBLIC HEARING – Annexation No 400-95-53 by Romney Lumber, Robert W. Carson, and Honora M. Carson, Petitioners, Location 2982 East Benchmark Drive (47.85 acres), The City Council has requested recommendations from the Planning Commission on the appropriate zoning classification for the subject property if it is annexed to the City and on provisions to be included in an annexation agreement as requested by the petitioners. Some provisions of the annexation agreement as outlined by petitioners may require Master Plan Amendments.
As part of the annexation process the Planning Commission has been asked by the City Council to recommend an appropriate zoning classification for the property if the City Council chooses to annex the area proposed by the petitioners.
Mr. Wilde recused himself because he lives in the neighborhood in question. Mr. Doug Wheelwright joined the meeting at this time. Ms. Arnold also recused herself because Mr. Romney is a client of hers.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the Staff report. The petitioners originally submitted an annexation petition in 1995. The City has since gone through a zoning rewrite and Master Plan amendment for the area. The Planning Commission is asked to evaluate the property and surrounding properties and make an appropriate zoning recommendation. The primary issue is density. Mr. Hinckley presented a conceptual development plan on the board, submitted to Salt Lake County by the petitioners for a subdivision. The plan showed 23 lots. The Staff report makes recommendations based on Salt Lake City’s East Bench Master Plan, which recommends that 3 to 4 lots be located at the south end of Scenic Drive.
In addition, the report suggests a Master Plan amendment, to permit two more lots accessed off of Benchmark Drive and that the zoning in that area be “FP” (Foothill Protection zone). The reason for the FP recommendation is that it is the closest zoning Salt Lake City has to the FR-20 (Forest Residential zone requiring a 20 acre lot) zone in Salt Lake County. FP zone requires a 16 acre lot.
Mr. Hinckley referred the Planning Commission to copies of a letter from Mr. Dale Gardiner, Counsel for the petitioners, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Gardiner’s comments relate to the Staff report sent to them a couple of months ago. Rather than take time to provide additional comments at this meeting, Mr. Gardiner relied on the comments already provided in writing.
Mr. Hinckley passed out a copy of a petition received by fax, signed by 19 property owners in the Benchmark Subdivision, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He read the petition, which stated that the residents of Benchmark subdivision were against further development of property to the north, east and south of Benchmark Drive. Mr. Hinckley had also received a phone call from Robert Steffensen living in the area, who indicated that he was in favor of the annexation and of some development on the property. The Staff recommendation for this petition is as follows:
Master Plan Amendment:
The East Bench Master Plan recommends that unincorporated land in the foothills be annexed in order to ensure City control over foothill development, that the City should expect to accommodate development proposals that can meet applicable development standards, but that such development should be restricted to extremely low density. Therefore, it is recommended that the East Bench Master Plan be amended to allow limited, very low density residential development in the area east of Benchmark Subdivision south of Benchmark Drive consisting of not more than two lots sharing a common driveway.
It is recommended that:
1 sufficient land to accommodate up to four lots at the south end of Scenic Drive (approximately two acres) be zoned “FR-2” Foothill Residential; and
2 sufficient property to accommodate two large lots east of Benchmark Subdivision south of Benchmark Drive (approximately 32 acres) be zoned “FP” Foothills Protection District; and,
3. the remainder of the proposed annexation area be zoned “OS” Open Space.
Mr. Smith asked for questions from the Commission. Ms. Barrows asked why the Commission would have to amend the Master Plan. Mr. Hinckley replied that the Small Area Plan was fairly specific saying that not more than 3 to 4 lots should be at the end of Scenic Drive and that the remainder of the property should be zoned Open Space. If we do otherwise, we will need to amend that recommendation in the Master Plan.
Mr. Wheelwright said that to amend the Master Plan is the less formal method needed in this situation. The other way would be to go into an amendment or update process for the Master Plan.
Mr. Mariger asked why Mr. Gardiner contends that this annexation is not what the petitioners are seeking. Mr. Hinckley replied that the petitioners have submitted a petition and continued to engage in the annexation process. The Staff considers the annexation is active and is being processed. If they would submit a letter withdrawing their petition, that would end the process. The Staff has asked the petitioners if they wanted to write such a letter and they have not.
Mr. Mariger asked if there was parallel activity occurring in the County. Mr. Hinckley stated that nothing was happening on the County level in terms of this application.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification in Mr. Gardiner’s contention that the Staff report has numerous errors, omissions or misstatements of fact. Mr. Hinckley stated that the Staff report was as complete and factual as he could make it. He and Mr. Gardiner disagree on these issues.
Mr. Wheelwright introduced Lynn Pace from the City Attorney’s office. Mr. Pace was asked to comment on the disagreements between Mr. Gardiner and the Staff report. Ms. McDonald asked if the question could be turned around to whether the Staff report is accurate and if the City Attorney’s office has looked at the report to see if it is in line with the City’s procedures, ordinances, etc.
Mr. Jonas said that Mr. Gardiner raises specific issues, such as density (page 5 of Mr. Gardiner’s letter).
Mr. Goldsmith said that the Staff was prepared to address any one of the contentions head on, and invited Mr. Pace to the table.
Mr. Gardiner’s letter stated that the Staff report misstates the density that is allowed by Salt Lake County. Mr. Hinckley said he had reviewed that with Salt Lake County and that the report was accurate. Mr. Pace said that Mr. Gardiner was referring to the East Bench Master Plan, meaning the Master Plan before it was amended by the Arcadia Heights Small Area Plan. Mr. Gardiner believes the East Bench Master Plan governs over the Arcadia Heights update.
Mr. Jonas asked which plan was current. Mr. Hinckley said they both were. The East Bench Master Plan was adopted in 1987. The Small Area Plan was adopted by ordinance as an amendment to the East Bench Master Plan. Therefore, the two plans together are the East Bench Master Plan.
Mr. Mariger recalled that his understanding was that the East Bench Master Plan talks about developable acreage with this density. And what Mr. Gardiner is doing is applying this ratio to the whole site, which isn’t all developable because most of it exceeds 30% slopes. Therefore Mr. Gardiner’s paragraph is inaccurate. Mr. Hinckley
agreed.
Mr. Pace said that the developable acreage/density clarification above also applies to paragraph 3 of Mr. Gardiner’s letter. Mr. Gardiner is using the density number for the whole of the property, only a part of which is proposed for annexation. Mr. Hinckley’s density figure is based on the 47 acres proposed for annexation.
Mr. Jonas asked about paragraph 6 in Mr. Gardiner’s letter, which talked about road development and roads that may not cross areas with 30% or greater slope.
Mr. Hinckley said that in this case there’s an existing road that, if modified, would cross areas of 30% or greater slope and that would be a violation of the Site Development ordinance. Mr. Pace said a road may not be widened beyond what is already there when the slope exceeds 30%.
Mr. Mariger referred back to an ordinance the Commission discussed some time ago which stated that if you had an existing cut through significantly steep slopes and it was done before a certain time frame (the road in question was built before this time frame), that the flat area of the road does not have to be restored to it’s previous condition. This ordinance would not allow petitioners to disturb areas outside of that flat space that exceeds 30%.
Mr. Hinckley said that was, in fact, why the Staff report suggests that the road that is there, while not wide enough for a public road, is wide enough for a drive and can serve as access for up to two lots. The ordinance says there can be “multiple lots” serviced by a driveway. Lots at the end of Scenic Drive would be serviced by a public street.
Mr. Jonas asked if the Fire Department addressed the issue of a width of a roadway being the standard 20 feet. That is an issue that would have to be resolved. Mr. Wheelwright said there were a number of ways that would be allowed by the Fire Department, i.e. internal fire sprinkling systems.
Ms. Barrows asked if the Planning Commission incurred a liability if the Commission, based on a Staff report, gave approval and then the property can’t get water pressure above the 5190 foot level. Mr. Hinckley said that Public Utilities would have to evaluate each lot to verify pressure. Subdivision approval needs to be done through all departments. Ms. Barrows again asked if all the evaluations turned out to be wrong, does the Commission incur a liability.
Mr. Pace said that there are certain obligations made, government and community
statutes, etc, so whether or not the City’s liable is a complicated question. It would have to be reviewed on a lot by lot, building by building basis.
Mr. Hinckley then reviewed the height levels of the land in question with the Commission.
Mr. Pace added in regards to the amendment to the slope ordinance that Mr. Mariger referenced, that the amendment to the slope ordinance has been transmitted to the City Council but it has not yet been enacted.
Mr. Smith then asked if anyone representing Romney or Carson interests were present. There being no response, he opened the hearing to the public.
Ms. TantaLisa Clayton, Chairman of the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Neighborhood Council, then made a presentation. She passed out a letter from the Council to the Commission, a copy of which is filed with these minutes. She said the Council was very much in favor or this property being annexed into the City. The Council strongly recommended that the Commission follow the recommendations currently contained in the Small Area Master Plan. The Council is not in support of allowing two more lots, as that was not in the Small Area Master Plan and increases by 50% what was approved. If these additional lots are approved, Ms. Clayton asked that all necessary easements and right-of-ways for all trails and foothill access be designated as recommended in the Small Area Plan. The Council wants all open space protected by a conservation easement.
Planning Commission Meeting 17 September 21, 2000
Ms. Teri Leineke, a resident at 2546 Scenic Drive, then made a presentation.
Ms. Leineke spoke on behalf of the deer and elk, who use the proposed area as a winter habitat. There is a huge and abusive problem of taking habitat away from these animals. Ms. Leineke spoke against the annexation of this property.
Mr. Bruce Cohne, a resident at 2384 Summit Circle made a presentation next. He made a disclaimer that his remarks were his own and not those of the Utah Money Management Council. Mr. Cohne stated that the owners lose nothing if annexation
doesn’t happen. It would be appropriate to approve the annexation if it was zoned all to Open Space. That would eliminate the road problem, and problems with utilities, and access in general. It should remain open space. Mr. Cohne echoed the previous speaker, saying that elk wintered in his yard, and he had to have 5 dead carcasses hauled away by the City in 1993.
Mr. Mariger asked Mr. Cohne what his position was about the two lots being permitted.
Mr. Cohne said he wouldn’t go with that at all. Mr. Cohne is not in favor of
any lots. It should remain as open space.
Ms. Marlys Later, a resident at 2558 Scenic Drive, spoke against the annexation of the property, most especially the four lots being added to the end of her street. Ms. Later expressed concern about increased traffic. Ms. Later told them that at some point there has to be an end to development.
Mr. James Swenson, a resident at 2954 Benchmark Drive spoke to the Commission next. Mr. Swenson hikes and runs in the area in question and expressed concern for its annexation and development. Mr. Swenson asked how many lots were being considered for land off of Benchmark, and if two lots would grow into many more lots. This would then increase the traffic to more than the road could handle. The narrow road mentioned is only about 8 feet wide in some areas.
Mr. Mariger said that because the road wasn’t wide enough to be a street it could only be a driveway. The maximum development for a driveway is two lots. Anything else would be zoned Open Space, so it couldn’t be developed.
Ms. Debora Riddle, Foothill Canyon Planner for Salt Lake County, introduced herself and offered to answer any questions the Commission may have – although not on behalf of the County.
Ms. Barrows asked if the plan in front of the Commission was the latest plan.
Ms. Riddle said it was not. The County is currently working with the engineer for the petitioner. Currently, the County has taken out the S-loop down from the upper road, and is down to about 20 lots. Current zoning will only allow them 16. The County is still in the feasibility study phase.
Mr. Mariger asked Ms. Riddle for her thoughts on the width of the road. Ms. Riddle said the County doesn’t have an issue with the width of the road as it is proposed. Mr. Mariger asked if there is a 25 foot road with steep slopes that come off going to the west, how high is the retainage? Ms. Riddle said it was fairly significant – around 20 feet or so. The County ordinance does not have any regulations that necessarily prohibits that.
Mr. Jonas asked if they would allow them to widen roads across those steep slopes. Ms. Riddle said yes they would – potentially.
Mr. Smith then asked if anyone else wished to speak. There being no response, Mr. Smith closed the public hearing.
Ms. Short asked Mr. Pace if the Commission would pit itself against the County should the Commission make a recommendation and the City Council annexes the property. Mr. Pace said his impression was that the petitioners were pursuing all of their options at once – with the County, and with the City. The petitioners have filed a lawsuit against the City. It remains to be seen what the petitioners will choose to do when all their options are in.
Ms. Funk asked it the petitioners had to accept the annexation if it was approved by the Commission and the City Council, or if the petitioners still had an option. Mr. Pace said it was always at the petitioners’ option. It will boil down to an annexation agreement with specific terms, which the petitioners can choose to sign or not. Mr. Hinckley said the petition indicates that the petitioners want an annexation agreement. So does the City Council.
Ms. Short asked if the Commission didn’t annex the property and the petitioners take the County deal, will the County abide by the Commission’s requirements. Ms. Riddle said the County has the City’s Master Plan, and will not necessarily implement that. The Foothill Canyon ordinance is very similar to the City’s, and that ordinance would be enforced. If the property isn’t annexed, the petitioner will have to provide water and sewer service some other way. The County will not take action on it until the petitioner is able to do that.
Ms. Barrows asked if septic systems would be acceptable. Ms. Riddle said that was correct as long as each lot passes the Health Department standards.
Mr. Mariger asked if there was a multi-governmental watershed plan that prohibited septic systems. Ms. Riddle said that would be why the petitioner would have to get approval from the Health Department.
Mr. Hinckley noted that this property is covered by the City’s Groundwater Protection Overlay Zone, which prohibits septic systems and private wells in that area, even though it doesn’t belong to the City. The City has extra territorial jurisdiction as far as our watersheds are concerned. Ms. Riddle said the County recognizes that authority.
Mr. Wheelwright commented that the Public Utilities Department has sent the County a letter that clearly states they will not extend water and sewer services outside the City limits.
Ms. Short asked Mr. Hinckley what is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Hinckley pointed out four lots at the south end of Scenic Drive which would be zoned FR-2. The other two lots would necessitate a Master Plan amendment.
Mr. Mariger noted that the main issue is whether or not the Commission recommends the Master Plan amendment. Mr. Mariger is in favor of allowing very limited development at the end of Benchmark Drive.
Motion for the Petition for Annexation No 400-95-53:
Ms. McDonald made a motion on the Petition for Annexation No 400-95-53 that the Commission accept the Staff’s recommendation with the following addition to Recommendation No 3:
3. the remainder of the proposed annexation area be zoned “OS” Open Space. It is further recommended that a conservation easement over the “OS” portion of the property be conveyed to the City, the Trust for Public Lands, or another appropriate non-profit organization
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion and asked if the Commission could ask for a pedestrian easement in regards to the driveway to somehow access the foothills in accordance with the Master Plan for the continuation of the Bonneville Shoreline trail and potential access to these other lands that are still in the County that may or may not have any other zoning.
Mr. Mariger said there does need to be access to the trail system, but that would be part of the subdivision approval process. Mr. Wheelwright said that is correct.
Mr. Smith called for a vote. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms Short,
Ms. McDonald and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye.” Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. Short asked if the City Council does not approve the annexation, does what the Commission just did still stand. Mr. Hinckley said it won’t go to the City Council unless we have an annexation agreement. Mr. Pace believes the City Council will deal with it much like the Commission did – the City Council will vote on something they don’t know whether or not the petitioners will accept.
There being no further business for the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.