SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Judi Short, Gilbert lker, Carlton Christensen, Andrea Barrows, Craig Mariger, Aria Funk, Fred Fife and Jim McRea. Max Smith and Diana Kirk were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Doug
Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Ray McCandless and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Mr. Young. 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. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 21, 1997. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Christensen, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye". Mr. Smith and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Request by Watts Corporation for approval of the Club Condominium for a 49 unit new multi-family residential building located at 150 South 300 East in a Residential "RMU" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Russ Watts, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. He commented on the finding that states that the departmental requirements will need to be completed prior to final approval. Mr. Watts then stated that in the process of developing a new condominium project, typically, the requirements by the various departments (i.e. curb, gutter and sidewalks) are not done until the very end of the project. Before the requirements are completed, the plat is recorded so that some units could be sold. Then, before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued, in order to sell the remainder of the units, all repairs required by the various departments will need to be made.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Watts if the condominium project meets the minimum 20 percent requirement for landscaping. Mr. Watts responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Mariger stated the Planning Commission should require a Completion Bond for the departmental requirements because if the developer were to go bankrupt, a Certificate of Occupancy would not be an incentive for the developer to complete their promises.
Mr. Young 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 approval of the Club Condominium:
Mr. lker moved, based upon the findings of fact, to approve the Club Condominium application, subject to compliance with departmental requirements (or bonded to the satisfaction of the City Council) and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Christensen, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye". Mr. Smith and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-277 by Joe Colosimo for approval of a 10 unit Residential Planned Development located at 2215 East 2100 South in a Residential "RMF-35" 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. She stated that the plan, as currently proposed, shows a sidewalk which requires pedestrians to cross in front of the garages. Members of the Sugar House Community Council expressed concerns about pedestrian protection, particularly children. Ms. Pahl continued by stating that the developers have tried to come up with some feasible alternatives for the sidewalk, without taking away some of the open space, and would be willing to consider suggestions made by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Paul Colosimo, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
The Planning Commission, petitioner and staff discussed various alternatives on where to place the sidewalk that would preserve as much open space as possible.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Beverly Crookston and Mr. Dick Crookston, abutting residents to the proposed project, stated that they were in favor of the project but they feel that 10 units is too dense for this location. If there were less units, it would give the children more open space. Mr. Crookston also feels that an eight foot wall should be built on the north and west sides of the project.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Pahl stated that a six foot white vinyl fence will surround the site on three sides with the front yard (21 00 South) open to the street. There is also a 25 foot rear yard setback on the north where the site abuts single family homes.
Mr. lker stated that he feels that there needs to be more open space to provide a playground area for children. He suggested removing one of the units from the project to accommodate for the playground. Mr. Christensen stated that he also feels that there needs to be a larger playground for the children. His suggestion was to shift Units 8, 9 and 10 to the north and to the east to allow more room for a playground in the northwest corner of the project.
Ms. Funk stated that she agreed with Mr. Christensen and asked the petitioner to respond to that suggestion.
Mr. Joe Colosimo, the petitioner, stated that he agrees with the suggestion made by Mr. Christensen and that he will work with Ms. Pahl to incorporate that into the plans.
Motion for Petition No. 410-277:
Mr. Christensen moved, based upon the findings of fact, to grant approval for Petition No. 410-277 for a 10 unit Residential Planned Development subject to the following conditions:
1. That the three units to the north of the development be shifted further north and east to allow a common area for a playground or open space.
2. That there be some kind of a demarcation to the west of the guest parking for a pedestrian walkway and that it be interconnected as part of the plan.
3. That the facade of the building, facing 2100 South, be made to look like the front of the project.
4. That the final landscaping plan, including the new layout for the playground/open space area, be approved by the Planning Director.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Christensen, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye". Mr. Smith and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Cellular Tower Issues Update Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the abandonment of cellular towers and antennae at their April 17, 1997 meeting. The Planning Commission made a motion to require a $4,000 performance bond on cellular towers and that the requirement should be retroactive for all existing towers. One of the cellular companies has voiced their concern regarding having retroactive performance bonds. Mr. Wright then stated that he would like the Planning Commission to discuss the importance of retroactive performance bonds and if their should be a different approach or should their be further research and discussions with the industry representatives.
Mr. Mariger asked why the company was concerned with the retroactive performance bonds. Mr. Boyd Ferguson, City Attorney, was present and stated that he has spoken with the attorney, Mr. Bob Hendriksen, for the company (U.S. West). They are mostly concerned about setting a precedent with other governmental agencies which could result in a large financial obligation if it were to carry to some of the other western states where they have thousands of towers.
Mr. Ferguson then briefed the Planning Commission on their legal rights for retroactive legislation. He stated that the general rule for retroactive legislation is improper because there could be such things as vested rights involved. There is an exception, however, if there is a compelling police power reason to do something. The concern of aesthetics, the issue being discussed in relation to cellular towers, is a legitimate compelling police power reason. Mr. Ferguson then stated that Mr. Hendriksen said that U.S. West has leases with the property owners, on which the tower is sitting, that requires removal of an abandoned tower within 60 days. Therefore, the Planning Commission will need to justify the retroactive bonds by determining some compelling reasons because it is an unusual and significant request on account of there already being vested rights.
Mr. McRea, a member of the Telecommunication Tower Subcommittee, stated that their main concern, in relation to abandonment, was technological advances that could eventually make cellular towers obsolete. Therefore, the Subcommittee feels that there needs to be some type of guarantee that would require removal of abandoned towers if the technology were to change.
Mr. lker stated that when the industry first started having a need for cellular towers (about three years ago), the City did not have an existing ordinance on how to regulate the towers. The Planning Commission agreed to cooperate with the companies and allow them to move ahead with their business plans while at the same time a subcommittee was organized to work with the industry and develop an ordinance. Mr. lker then stated that various issues were discussed from the beginning, one of which was bonding in the case of abandonment. Therefore, is the bonding issue truly retroactive?
Mr. Peter Feddig, Director of Network Operations for AirTouch Cellular (a.k.a. U.S. West Cellular), was present for this portion of the meeting. He stated that he is against the retroactive bonding, and in the opinion of his attorney, the current ordinance does not support it. Mr. Feddig then stated that because of the retroactive requirement, he has two applications that the City will not process until he has bonded the other towers.
Mr. Wright stated that there is an amendment to the ordinance, which has been adopted by the Planning Commission, that has the retroactive bonding language. The amendment is waiting for City Council approval. All companies, except U.S. West, have met the requirements of the retroactive bonding.
At the conclusion of this discussion, the Planning Commission asked Mr. Ferguson to review the issues and concerns, make any necessary modifications to actions that have already been taken, and then be prepared to come back to the Planning Commission at their October 2"d meeting.
Gateway Master Plan Update
Mr. Joel Paterson reviewed the revised work program schedule for the Gateway Master Plan, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He noted a few upcoming events such as a consultant work week in November and an implementation charette the first week in December; both work weeks will include a public input process.
Ms. Jan Striefel, Project Manager with Landmark Design, Inc., was present for this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Wright, Mr. Paterson and Ms. Striefel led the discussion based on the information found in the two Interim Progress Reports which were prepared by the Gateway consultants following the public meetings held in April and June 1997. The two reports are as follows:
1. Gateway Development Master Plan Interim Progress Report No. 1: Transportation and Land Use
2. Gateway Development Master Plan Interim Progress Report No. 2: Land Use and Urban Design
The Planning Commission reviewed some of the major issues of the reports and then asked staff to continue to place Gateway Master Plan discussions on future agendas.
Mr. Wright stated that the next Gateway Master Plan Update will be on October 2nd and that all future discussions will be broken down into more specific topics.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.