SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Vice-Chairperson Max Smith, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Diana Kirk, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows and Craig Mariger were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Cheri Coffey, Margaret Pahl, Jackie Gasparik, Doug Wheelwright 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
Mr. Steed moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, September 9, 1999 subject to the discussed changes being made. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is considering Petition 400-99-12, a legislative action item initiated by the City Council to amend the home occupations section of the City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments include allowing more types of home occupations, including contractors, subcontractors and small appliance repair services as well as additional standards to minimize negative impacts to residential neighborhoods. The Council also requested amending the standard relating to storage of vehicles associated with the home occupation.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Coffey stated that on January 5, 1999, the Salt Lake City Council passed a Legislative Action Item requesting amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance relating to home occupations. The Council requested allowing contractors, subcontractors, vendors and small appliance repair services as special exception home occupations. The Council also requested amending the standard relating to storage of vehicles and signs on vehicles associated with the home occupation. Ms. Coffey continued by
stating that as a result of reviewing home occupation ordinances from other jurisdictions, staff is proposing to allow several new categories of home occupations (such as locksmiths, products grown or assembled at the home for off-premise sales, janitorial services, mail order businesses, sales representative services, masseuse, tailors, etc.). The draft ordinance, a copy of which is filed with the minutes, includes the proposed changes as requested by the City Council, as well as those staff has listed. The draft ordinance also includes more standards and a yearly renewal requirement to ensure that home occupations do not negatively impact the residential areas. Ms. Coffey then stated that staff has "merged" two sections of the Zoning Ordinance that relate to home occupations: Chapter 21A.36.030 (Home Occupations) and Chapter 21A.52.100.B (Special Exception Home Occupations). Staff believes placing all of the regulations regarding home occupations in one place in the Zoning Ordinance will better serve staff and applicants.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Coffey relating to the draft ordinance.
Ms. Funk stated that the ordinance currently limits the home occupation to one room in the house. She feels that allowing only one room is too confining and perhaps the home occupation should be limited to a certain square footage of the house. Ms. Funk then stated that she also has some concerns about limiting signs on vehicles to such a small area because there are some larger logos that look very nice.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Mary Jo Hartmann, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of allowing produce to be grown and sold as a home occupation.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Funk then spoke concerning staff's recommendation relating to reevaluating the changes in one year. She feels that instead of considering funding for more enforcement officers if the new home occupations are not working, the City should just eliminate the home occupations that are creating the problems.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that he believes that it is a mistake to allow contractors and appliance repair of any kind because he feels that it will lead to problems such as increased outside storage.
Ms. Kirk stated that she has some concerns about allowing contractors because once contractors are allowed she feels that people will start pushing the limits. However, knowing that the proposed new home occupations will be on a trial basis and will be reviewed again by the Planning Commission in one year, she supports the proposed changes.
Mr. Steed agreed with Ms. Kirk's comments.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-12:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to Home Occupations, as per the draft ordinance, with the following conditions (underlined portions added by the Planning Commission):
1. In one year from the date of adoption, the City evaluate whether the number of enforcement cases has increased to the point where more enforcement officers are needed due to contractor, subcontractor and small appliance repair services. If it is found that there is a need for more enforcement officers, the home occupation ordinance should be amended to prohibit contractors, subcontractors and small appliance repair services as home occupations.
2. That the home occupation be allowed to operate within a percentage of the square footage of the house instead of limiting it to one room only. (Consider following the IRS Tax Code.)
3. Increase the allowable voltage from one hundred ten volts (110 V) to two hundred forty volts (240 V).
4. Keep "employee" language as it is in the existing Home Occupation ordinance.
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Snelgrove voted "Nay". Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-359 by King’s Point, L.L.C. requesting preliminary subdivision approval of a 12 lot single-family subdivision with a reduced width public street located at approximately 1379 North Redwood Road in a Residential "R-1-5000" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Pahl relating to the case.
Mr. Terry King, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-359:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-359 for a preliminary subdivision with a reduced width public street subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. The addition of a landscaped median and creation of an owner's association to maintain it or the City accept the median as part of the street dedication.
2. The final building design and material approval authority delegated to the Planning Director.
3. Compliance with the technical departmental conditions.
4. The final plat approval delegated to the Planning Director.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-369 by Amal Johnson requesting a planned development for a proposed ten unit residential development located at 2725-2733 South 700 East in a Residential "RMF-30" zoning district.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Tim Ramey and Mr. Otis Aaron, representing the petitioner, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, spoke concerning the development, more specifically, that it is a flag lot development. She is concerned because in approximately January 1998, the Sugar House Community Council requested the Salt Lake City Planning Department to undertake a study of flag lots and the impact of their development upon surrounding neighborhoods. After hearing the development proposal from Ms. Johnson, the Sugar House Community Council rejected
their proposal. The Council recommended that, since the flag lot study had not been completed, a moratorium should be place on all flag lot development applications until such time as the study has been completed and discussed by the Sugar House Community Council, any other community councils impacted by the issue of flag lots and a presentation has been made to the Planning Commission regarding the results and recommendations of the study. Ms. Peters continued by stating that the Council feels that the best policy would be for the moratorium not to be lifted until the Planning Staff and Commission have developed policies and procedures regarding the development of flag lots.
Ms. Andrea Chavez, a concerned citizen, stated that she is not opposed to the proposed development, however, she feels that the height should be decreased because it will abut her rear yard. She then stated that she will lose her privacy because the windows of the proposed development will allow for a clear view into her backyard.
Mr. Carlton Padrick, a concerned citizen, stated that his property abuts the project to the east. He asked if shade trees will be planted around the project. Ms. Gasparik responded by stating that one evergreen per three shade trees will be planted along the boundary of the development.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk asked about the status of the flag lot study. Mr. Wheelwright responded by stating that the results of the study are planned to be on the October 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion for Case No. 410-369:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-369 for a residential planned development subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. Delegate final development approval authority to the Planning Director.
2. Delegate final landscaping requirement approval authority to the Planning Director (this plan must also include the tot lot design).
3. An easement for the public safety and the public utilities departments is required to be shown on the final plat.
4. Satisfactory compliance with the various departmental conditions and subject to meeting all the applicable City standards.
5. Acceptable storm water and drainage plans must be submitted as part of the final plat submittal.
6. Do to the twenty-foot access width, no parking will be allowed at anytime on the private street.
Ms. Kirk further moved to grant preliminary subdivision approval for the proposed eleven-lot subdivision with final plat approval authority delegated to the Planning Director. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels abstained. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Continuation of Discussion and Final Decision – Petition No. 400-99-40 by the Salt Lake City Department of Community and Economic Development to consider a proposed amendment to Section 21A.48.060 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, relative to parkway landscaping standards.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Hinckley then stated that on August 5, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive input on suggested amendments to Section 21A.48.060 of the Zoning Ordinance which establishes standards for landscaping of park strips. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission decided to table the matter and continue discussion at the second meeting in September in order to give community councils and other interested parties additional time to review and respond to the amendments that are being considered.
Mr. Hinckley continued by stating that following the public hearing Staff prepared a packet of information which included a summary of the amendments being considered, a draft amended ordinance and a short questionnaire/survey. This packet was sent to all community councils chairs and individuals who had attended the public hearing. In the memo to the community councils, it was also indicated that Staff would be available to make presentations at the invitation of the community council. Presentations have been made to the Greater Avenues, Sugar House, East Central and West Salt Lake Community Councils. Mr. Hinckley then reviewed the results and comments of the questionnaire/survey.
The Planning Commissioners discussed the ordinance and the proposed changes and/or deletions to the ordinance. Mr. Hinckley then addressed possible solutions to making sure that the park strip requirements are widely known to the public.
The Planning Commissioners commended Mr. Hinckley for doing a great job on the Parkway Landscaping Standards Ordinance.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-40:
Mr. Steed moved to forward Petition No. 400-99-40 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation to adopt the amendments to Section 21A.48.060, Park Strip Landscaping, as outlined in the draft ordinance subject to the additional change being made:
1. In reference to spacing and size for park strip trees, change the wording to read: "Trees size shall be a minimum of a two inch caliper."
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.