SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Planning Commission Members present were Arla Funk (Acting Chairperson), Robert “Bip” Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Craig Mariger, Mary McDonald and Judi Short. Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows and Max Smith were excused.
Planning Staff present were Deputy Director Brent Wilde, Joel Patterson, Ray McCandless, Margaret Pahl, Doug Dansie and Cheri Coffey.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Funk called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as the Planning Commission heard the cases. 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
Thursday, July 13, 2000
Mr. Jonas recommended the following revisions to the minutes for July 13, 2000 (corrected copy):
Page 13, paragraph 6, last sentence; should state “Mr. Jonas pointed out that the rezone now would encourage residential development whether now or later in that residential development seems to make sense and is encouraged by the public”. Page 14, paragraph 5, regarding the swimming pool. It should be stated that the swimming pool was installed by the adjoining owner rather than the previous owner of the subject property. page 20, paragraph 2, first sentence; should state “Mr. Jonas said that he believes since no one has stepped up to buy the property and preserve it as a single-family residence, a reception center would be the best use for the property.” Regarding the communication tower on 1500 East (page 22), Mr. Jonas noted that he spoke with some neighbors and the property has improved from the condition that was presented (pictures and discussion) at the last meeting.
Motion for approval of the minutes for July 13, 2000.
Mr. Daniels made a motion to approve the minutes with the revisions. Ms. Short seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
Thursday, August 17, 2000.
Mr. Jonas recommended the following revisions to the minutes for August 17, 2000:
Page 3, paragraph 6, first sentence; change the word “zone” to “zoned”.
Page 3, paragraph 6, last sentence; add the word “not” between the words “now” and “allowed”. Page 3, paragraph 7, first sentence; add the words “except in district A” after the word “street”. Page 4, paragraph 2, first sentence; change the word “parceled” to “parcel”. Page 5, paragraph 12, second sentence; change the word “space” to “spaced”. Page 7, paragraph 2, first sentence; add the word “the” after the word “to”. Page 8, paragraph 3, first sentence; change the words “declared about” to “clarified with”. Regarding Gilbert Olson (page 18) stating that he would like to build an addition to his home to convert it to a duplex; Mr. Jonas requested that the Planning Commission reconsider this issue. Mr. Wilde acknowledged the request.
Mr. Jonas asked whether or not Mr. Goldsmith obtained any answers to the questions regarding cul-de-sacs (pages 19 and 20). Mr. Wilde said that he would follow up with Mr. Goldsmith.
Mr. Jonas asked if any one followed up on whether or not an abstention is considered a no vote (page 21). Ms. Funk said that she followed up and an abstention is an abstention and that is all.
Motion for approval of the minutes for August 17, 2000.
Ms. Short made a motion to approve the minutes with the revisions. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Western Transportation Corridor Right of Way Protection Study. Wasatch Front Regional Council staff and project engineering consultant staff (Horrocks Engineers) will present the results of the transportation corridor study, proposed for western Salt Lake County in the vicinity of 5600 West extending south from I-80 to possible connect to I-15 in the vicinity of the point of the mountain. Public comment may be taken, however, the Planning Commission will not take action on this item at this meeting.
Ray McCandless is the Principal Planner assigned to the project.
Mike Brown (representing the Wasatch Front Regional Council -WFRC) and Jim Horrocks (consultant from Horrocks Engineers) were present.
Mr. Horrocks noted the information packet that was presented to the Planning Commission and explained the history and the purpose of the study. The study is a planning exercise for corridor preservation. Preserving a corridor now will significantly reduce the social/economic impact in the future by lowing the overall cost to taxpayers and informing development adjacent to the corridor of its existence. The study also aims for flexibility and wise planning based on life style, land use and growth rate changes. As these changes occur, a freeway facility including bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes, a light rail facility, or a combination of facilities may be needed; all of which are addressed in the environmental impact statement. As the study progressed, some communities asked for specific locations because of the amount of growth occurring which would soon eliminate the ability to preserve a corridor. In developing corridor preservation, the primary goal of the study is to work with each local municipality. Thus, the study asks each community to adopt a transportation corridor within their perceptive master plans and take responsibility for controlling it. Mr. Horrocks noted that public information meetings were held in June and based on the input from these meetings and continuing coordination with cities, it is their desire to select a preferred alignment option so that corridor preservation can take place.
Mr. Horrocks explained that the study was initiated in the mid 1990’s by the Wasatch Front Department of Transportation at the request of communities located in the west portion of Salt Lake County to address future transportation needs. The initial results of the study revealed that a primary arterial would meet their needs; however, as the study progressed, it was determined that a larger facility may be needed. Based on current land use and growth rates, the facility will have to address 100,000 to 150,000 average daily trips by the year 2030.
Initially the study included several lines of options from I-80 to the old Bingham Highway and down through Utah County. Several of these studies have been shelved, but some communities still use them for establishing master plans and preserving eventual transportation corridors. Mr. Horrocks noted that a mid 1990’s draft environmental impact statement discussed a possible need for a connection around the west side of the Salt Lake City Airport tying into Legacy Highway and up to Davis Highway. This connection is not considered in the study. The study is currently limited to I-80 down to the south end of Salt Lake County. A concurrent study is being preformed by Mountain Land Associations of Government which is reviewing areas from Salt Lake County southward to a logical terminus at I-15 and into Utah County. The initial study also reviewed a wide range of general alignment corridors including everything from 3200 West to 8400 West. As the study progressed through the screening process, the preferred general corridor was narrowed down to the corridor defined as Alternative C. Within Alternative C, multiple alignment options need to be determined in two areas which are the West Valley City/Kerns and Salt Lake City areas. Specific to Salt Lake City, two general alignment options, identified as Option 2 and Option 3, are under review. Prior to the Legacy Highway phase, the study identified a third option with 5600 West as an upgrade transportation need. Advantages and disadvantages of all three options were identified and Options 2 and 3 were preferred. All three options were laid out assuming a freeway alternative. A freeway alternative was used because it is the most conservative or the most demanding right-of-way need and provides maximum flexibility in terms of footprint. If it is determined in the future that the need can be met with a lower facility classification, the additional right-of-way may then be used for sensitive design elements such as noise berms rather than noise walls. The additional space also offers opportunities to consider light rail, trails, utility easements or any other combination within the same corridor.
Mr. Horrocks then explained that the Transportation Advisory Board has met twice. At the second meeting, the Board made a recommendation of preference for Option 2 contingent upon any major changes or new information that may develop in the public information process that would warrant withdrawal of their recommendation. Mr. Horrocks noted that the results are in the information packet and he asked the Planning Commission to also evaluate Options 2 and 3 and become involved in the planning process. Another round of public information meetings are scheduled for September 20 and 27, 2000.
Ms. Short asked if there were any existing subdivisions that would be effected, and Mr. Jonas asked if Option 1 was the first preference and if Option 3 was created because of a lesser commercial development impact. Responding to these questions, Mr. Horrocks explained that the alignment of Option 1 is on top of the existing 5600 West and it creates greater impacts on commercial developments along 5600 West that have already been approved prior to the initiation of the study. It further creates a significant amount of conflict with existing utilities. The study also revealed a need to preserve a frontage road system for land access and Option 1 impacts this need more severely than Options 2 and 3. Option 1 essentially eliminates 5600 West and thereby forces the need for additional frontage road to access properties on the east and west sides of the corridor. For these reasons Option 1 has been screened out to date. Mr. Horrocks added that Option 1 was the first option reviewed, but never the preferred option, and it was numbered as “1” because it was the alignment identified in the draft environmental impact statement.
Options 2 and 3 have a lesser impact on commercial development with only one commercial relocation necessary. Option 2 is located approximately 2,800 feet west of 5600 West. Both Options 2 and 3 have wetland impacts with Option 3 having a greater impact. This determination was made by the Corps of Engineers. Avoidance and Federal laws stipulate that if any feasible alternative exists with less wetland impacts, it should then be considered as a number one priority. Mr. Horrocks noted that if Options 2 and 3 went through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process and the environmental impact statement process, Option 2 would probably be identified as the preferred option. The alignment of Option 2 cuts through Zion’s Securities property, so the alignment of Option 3 was developed. Option 3 attempts to reduce the amount of impact to potential future development on this land, but decisions made by the City in the last few months have taken away some advantages of this option.
Mr. Jonas asked whether or not a freeway facility would include controlled access. Mr. Horrocks answered that controlled access would be included. He added that it is not the intent of the study to dwell on any one type of facility because this will be determined in the environmental impact statement. A year ago, a peer review was preformed on the WFRC model and based on the track of modeling, the peer review team produced a long list of recommended modifications. All of the modifications have been incorporated into the latest model and it addresses higher mass transit and multi-model uses than previous models. With updated information, the model must address 100,000 to 150,000 average daily trips on the north end of the corridor and 80,000 average daily trips on the extreme south end. Mr. Horrocks said that he guesses with these kinds of numbers, a freeway type of facility combined with light rail and bus lines will be discussed, and it would be misleading to develop an alternative with a footprint that would not adequately address an interstate/freeway type of a facility. The larger footprint offers flexibility in that it will address grade separation and interchanges needed for a more demanding facility or a no build determination. His concern is that if no corridor is preserved and a no build is determined today, the amount of cost and impact to residential and commercial development in the future would be devastating if some sort of facility, especially a freeway, is needed.
Mr. Jonas asked for the number of average daily trips on Bangerter Highway and I-215 on the west side. Ms. Funk asked whether or not the projected 150,000 average daily trips included the 130,000 that other roads are now carrying, and whether or not the needs change when considering light rail verses commuter rail.
Mr. Brown answered that I-215 handles about 80,000 cars a day since I-15 is under construction and I-215 is traveled heavier now than before. The average daily trips on Bangerter is 40,000 to Salt Lake City and more further south. Mr. Horrocks added that I-15 by Draper is not under construction and handles approximately 80,000 average daily trips.
Mr. Horrocks then explained that the 150,000 average daily trips is in addition to the 130,000 on other roads, so a significant facility is projected by 2030. The long range plan projects that 5600 West will need to be widened to an arterial of a 106-foot right-of-way and 7200 West and 8400 West will need widening along with the widening of the east/west facilities. In addition to these long range plans, the study is indicating a need for another facility based on the current growth continuing as projected.
Mr. Horrocks said that the needs may or may not change when comparing light rail and commuter rail. The study primarily envisions a light rail system on the west side of the valley. Commuter rail is being investigated by the Union Pacific tracks immediately adjacent to the I-15 corridor which interconnects to light rail systems. The Advisory Committee is reviewing and coordinating with UTA long range plans of extending light rail down to and along the old Bingham Highway. The proposal for east/west is to combine light rail with the corridor, then connect to I-80 and the hub at the International Center and Airport. Kennecott is also aggressively pursuing master planning within the South Jordan area. Kennecott owns about 4,500 acres and they are reviewing master planning a community within South Jordan. They are also very pro-active for mass transit and are endeavoring to do whatever is necessary to get the light rail extended down through South Jordan. Riverton, Herriman and Bluffdale also share the vision of getting light rail adjacent to the corridor. Mr. Horrocks said that he feels something in addition to light rail is needed for the ultimate demand. He noted that a 1950 aerial photo of the West Jordan area shows only farm land and now it is a solid mass of subdivisions. With this projected growth rate and alternative modes of transportation that could be developed in the future, the study focuses on corridor preservation and flexibility so that any new transportation facility deemed necessary in the future is not cutting through established subdivisions and commercial businesses at an astronomical cost.
Elliot Christensen of Property Reserve Inc. said that they are the only private land owner on the three-mile corridor segment which consists of one-third of the area. The government owns the other two-thirds. Mr. Christensen explained that he agrees Option 1 (5600 West) is not desirable because of cost and he prefers Option 3 if the alignment was moved to the west. This would maximize the development and improve the integrity of their property while avoiding a salt flat area, which he believes is an environmental impact concern. Mr. Christensen further explained that development of their property has a potential revenue of $5 million for the City and $10 million for the State which would offset any additional routing around their land.
Mr. Horrocks said that the study is open to locating the alignment anywhere between 2,500 feet to 4,900 feet west of 5600 West, but one concern is the further west it is located, the greater the outer direction of travel and the greater the cost associated for future users.
Commission Members asked questions regarding corridor widths and no build issues. Addressing the widths, Mr. Horrocks said that the I-15 corridor is about 215 feet and 300 feet in some sections. The corridor is about 328 feet wide and varies according to topography and could be widened depending on additions and changes. Addressing no build, Kevin Young, Salt Lake Transportation Division, said that as development has occurred along 5600 West, the City has preserved 150 feet for a right-of-way which has been the process for over ten years. The City considered 150 feet as a maximum until this project was developed.
Ms. McDonald noted policies that have already been adopted which may or may not fall in line with the study. Specifically, the Salt Lake City Council adopted a policy on desirable growth and the City Public Transportation adopted a policy in 1994 on moving cars to moving people. She asked that Staff keep these policies in line and in mind as they proceed with this project.
Mr. Wilde said that the Planning and Transportation Divisions have been working together and support tying land use and transportation issues together in the northwest quadrant master plan.
Ms. Funk announced that no action on this issue would be taken by the Planning Commission at this time.
Petition No. 400-00-32 by Russ Naylor requesting an amendment to lots #2 and B of the Scenic Circle Subdivision located at 2034 South Scenic Circle (2797 East). Proposed changes to the original subdivision plat and approval include the following: 1) Combine lots #2 and B and extend the buildable area to the west. 2) Amend and reconfigure the buildable and non-buildable areas on lot #2 to accommodate the site plan for the proposed dwelling. 3) Consider transfers in the existing public open space and vegetation preservation easement areas as determined in the original subdivision approval and plat, and 4) Dedication of a public pedestrian walkway along the east boundary of lot #2 to facilitate public access to the foothills in the vicinity.
(Brent Wilde recused himself and Joel Patterson filled in.)
Craig Larson (Property Owner) and Russ Naylor (Architect) were present to represent the case.
Mr. McCandless noted that the subject petition was tabled at the July 13, 2000, meeting to allow proper notice to adjoining property owners regarding changes to the site plan. Mr. McCandless then explained that the original site plan showed the buildable area extending to the separation between the FP Foothills Protection Zone and the FR-2 Zone. This has since been modified in that the buildable area has been extended 36 feet from the separation between Lot B and Lot 2. The Petitioner also decided not to install a swimming pool in the rear yard area and will construct a patio instead. The depth of the west portion of the also dwelling has been reduced.
Mr. McCandless presented an overlay indicating the proposed non-buildable and the buildable areas of the lots as detailed in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCandless noted that the Petitioner has been working with the neighborhood and Staff, and the amended proposal is consistent with discussions during the July 13 meeting.
Mr. Jonas and Mr. Mariger voiced their concerns about inconsistencies and setting unfavorable precedents when designating non-buildable areas in the subdivision and then the City later supporting plat amendments to change these areas to buildable. Mr. Jonas also asked who built the pool on Alpha Lot A when it was designated non-buildable. Mr. McCandless explained that the slope of Lot B was not analyzed when the original subdivision plat was recorded, but designated non-buildable when it was added to the Scenic Circle Subdivision in 1993. The previous land owner, John Shar, owned a big portion of land and the City was concerned that he would develop the entire hillside to the north of the subject property and access it from the Scenic Circle Subdivision. The alpha lots (Lots A and B) were created to prevent the access. Mr. Patterson added that when Mr. Shar sold the property to Boyer for the subdivision, the sale did not include the alpha lots and the City required Mr. Shar to include this area in the subdivision plat as alpha parcels which would not be developable. Mr. Larson answered that Mr. Shar built the swimming pool 30 years ago; long before the alpha lots were subdivided in 1993.
Mr. Naylor explained that the most recent changes to the site plan were made because of discussions from the July 13 meeting. Mr. Naylor noted that the Commission made a motion to approve the application, but proper notification was not given so the petition was tabled. Since the meeting, Mr. Larson visited the neighbors and changed the proposal per their concerns. The proposed buildable area does not extend as far into the existing non-buildable area as originally proposed and the rear portion of the dwelling has been reduced. The farthest 12 feet of the 20-foot extension is to accommodate the balcony, so the actual dwelling extends only four feet past the lot line that separates lots 2 and B. As they analyzed the original plan with a civil engineer, they determined that the plan would not work after all. The designated buildable area has a slope that exceeds the limits of the Zoning Ordinance and further development problems arose because the slopes did not match. Mr. Naylor said that they have demonstrated to Staff that they are working with the topography and they are not asking for any special exceptions. Mr. Naylor noted that at the last hearing, a comment was made about building a grandiose home on the hillside. The proposed dwelling is no larger than existing homes in the subdivision and it meets all setback requirements, and they have strived to create as little impact as possible and to address the concerns of the neighbors.
Mr. Larson explained that they have done what the Commission and Staff requested including donating an access trail on the east side of the property. The westerly buildable boundary has been reduced to also accommodate those who felt development would extend to Scenic Drive and to ensure Pat Smith’s view would not be impacted. His wife and he visited with as many neighbors as possible and met with the H Rock and Arcadia Heights Community Councils on August 9 to review the proposal. Mr. Larson presented a petition to the Commission with 16 signatures of home owners who support the proposal and he said no one he visited refused to sign it. Mr. Larson said that he believes the amended request is in the best interest of the City and the neighbors, it will not adversely affect the natural character of the foothill area and it does not undo any foothill ordinances. He added that the ratio of the home to open space is ten-to-one in favor of open space. The proposed dwelling is similar in size to the one next door and much smaller than other homes on Scenic Circle.
Reed Holt and his wife own Lot 3 which is adjacent to the east of Lot 2. Mr. Holt said that they have no problem with the proposal so long as it does not interfere with Homer Smith’s (Lot 1) views and privacy. However, they object to the approved ten-foot wide trail proposal. A narrow, natural meandering trail now exists and they have no problem with it as it is, but are concerned should it ever be improved. Improving the trail will make it more accessible and will increase the use. Increasing the use would change the quiet neighborhood cul-de-sac into a congested parking and people problem. Mr. Holt said that he believes another access trail is unnecessary because two other accesses exist on Devonshire Drive and Lake line Drive and the distance of the proposed trail between these two points is not far. Mr. Holt added that they purchased their property about one year ago and there was no disclosure regarding the trail head.
Jerry Bergosh, Vice Chairperson of the H Rock Community Council, presented a letter to the Commission and explained that the Community Council appreciates the Petitioners revising the plan to meet the concerns of the neighbors, but they are concerned about issues relating to consistency. Mr. Bergosh said that he was involved in the 1992 discussion on the alpha lots when Scenic Circle was platted, and it is his recollection that Lot B was not included because open space was being established. The 1987 East Bench Master Plan identifies this location as open space. The neighborhood was aware of the open space areas and they have strived to maintain it. They are also very concerned about good faith agreements not being honored especially in critical areas such as these. Incremental development is hounding the neighborhood and encroachment typically happens. The small area master plan and the 1992 legal agreement was intended to prevent this. Approving the combining of Lots 2 and B opens Lot B as developable and anything could happen including incompatible landscaping. Mr. Bergosh then said that he does not agree with the staff report analysis that the combining of these lots is compatible with the neighborhood. The average lot size in Arcadia Heights is about 10,000 square feet, and13,000 square feet in the H Rock area. The combining of Lot 2 and Lot B creates a lot with over 76,000 square feet. He suggested amending the plat by moving the boundary line of Lot 2 over 20 feet to where the proposed patio ends and maintains the open space of Lot B. This will give Mr. Larson the buildable area he needs and still maintain the spirit of what was intended for open space. Mr. Bergosh then voiced his concerns about trail access. The existing trail is the only public access that people south of 2100 South on Scenic Drive have and it is critical to maintain it.
The Petitioners, Commission Members and Staff discussed the proposed plan and Mr. Bergosh’s suggestion. Mr. Naylor noted that Lot 2 would have to be extended 40 feet; 20 feet to accommodate the patio and another 20 feet for the required rear yard setback. Mr. Bergosh said that he is still concerned about combining the lots because it would open any portion of the combined lot for development and any type of landscaping. Mr. Paterson noted that Lot B is designated non-buildable only and the owner could plant any type of vegetation on all of it. Mr. Mariger asked Mr. Larson if he would be willing to maintain a portion of Lot B for natural vegetation. Mr. Larson said that the buffer area along City property will be natural landscaping and he plans to install a fence along the zoning district boundary line and then maintain the natural vegetation on the rest of Lot B. Mr. Larson noted that he is giving up more buildable area for non-buildable. Mr. McCandless said that the Commission may place a conservation easement on the plat. Mr. Jonas noted that the trail access would be eliminated if the proposed dwelling were built in the existing buildable area.
Cindy Cromer said that she understands the City’s efforts in constraining development on the property, but it is important for the City to establish creditability regarding open space. Changing restrictive covenants now must be carefully justified. Promoting architectural design is not an adequate reason to remove, reduce or otherwise modify covenants. She asked the Commission to state in their motion whether or not there is a gain or no change in the amount of non-buildable space. She also asked that the Commission include in their motion who will be responsible for the trail access. If this is not defined, there may never be access which is important to the community. Ms. Cromer said that she is also concerned about the proposal conflicting with the 1998 small area master plan which addresses incorporation of undevelopable land into lots, and asked that the Commission consider it. She also believes that the encroachment of the deck should be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment which is their purview to interpret the Zoning Ordinance, and that the type of vegetation on the non-buildable area and the style of fencing be reviewed by Staff.
Homer Smith said that his wife and he built a home on Lot 1 and they have no objections to the 40-foot extension of buildable area provided it includes the balcony and no other structures beyond the current building box. Mr. Smith then voiced his concerns about undermining the restrictive covenants by making changes through the Planning Commission. He said it specifically states no building of any kind shall be allowed on Lot B. Anyone acquiring these lots agrees to certain restrictions, and any changes to these restrictions must go through the other land owners. Mr. Homer also voiced his concerns about parking issues that the trail access may cause.
Mr. Mariger explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to amend a subdivision plat and not contract rights under restrictive covenants. Land owners have the ability to sue to obtain compliance from another land owner. Mr. Paterson noted that restrictive covenants may go above and beyond the Zoning Ordinance.
JoAnna Kralian, 1995 South Scenic Drive, explained that they purchased their property in January and it touches the end of the subject non-buildable area. One of their concerns when they purchased their property was development behind them and they understood that the subject area was designated non-buildable and non-developable. When they received their first notice regarding the plat amended they were very surprised. She said she is aware of the great effort by the community to preserve open space and she believes the agreement between developers of properties and the City should be honored. If agreements are not honored, she questions the point of going through an entire process only to have it changed 10 or 15 years later. Ms. Kralian said that open space becomes more and more precious as time goes on, and she asked that the Planning Commission honor all of the time and energy that went into the development of the master plan and what it might mean in the future if things are changed now. She said she too is very concerned about the unfavorable precedent that will be set by the change.
The meeting was closed to public comment and Commission Members discussed the petition. Mr. Mariger said that he is concerned about changing a prior agreement and the unfavorable precedent it sets. He reasoned however that this case is a different situation in that the alpha lot was designated non-buildable to prevent access and further development of the entire hillside. It does not appear to have been an effort to preserve open space the way it is viewed today. He also believes that if the Petitioner is willing to accept a restriction on the amended plat not to landscape the area beyond the separation of the two zoning districts, it would preserve open space, it would protect the neighbor’s view to the west and prevent the Petitioner from developing the property beyond the site plan presented. It should also be stated in the motion that the trail will be located between Lots 2 and 3 and cannot be developed to a degree greater than the existing trail meaning that it will not be concreted or paved. This would satisfy concerns for wanting an access and limiting it at the same time.
Mr. Jonas noted that it is clear the topography of the existing buildable area is steeper than the portion that the Petitioners are attempting to use and he believes the trading of these areas makes sense. He also believes the benefits of maintaining a trail greatly outweighs whether or not the non-buildable area on the subject lot is increased or decreased. Allowing people access is almost a greater hardship for all of the lot owners because the access will create traffic and parking concerns that the owners will need to deal with, and he agrees the trail should be un-improved. The consensus of the Commission is that the proposal is sensitive to the neighborhood and it will not set an unfavorable precedent. Merely omitting the pool indicates sensitivity to the neighborhood in regards to noise, and creating the alpha lots in 1993 was to prevent an access road to higher development.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-32
Mr. Mariger made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the proposed subdivision plat amendment as follows:
1 Allow the combining of Lots 2 and B with a development limit line at the zoning boundary within Lot B with the area to the west to remain open space.
2 Amend and reconfigure the amount of buildable and non-buildable areas on Lot 2 to accommodate the site plan for the proposed dwelling provided no portion of the structure extends farther west than 40 feet from the existing buildable area.
3 Approve the transfers in the existing public open space and vegetation preservation easement areas as determined in the original subdivision approval and plat.
1 Dedicate a public pedestrian walkway along the east boundary of Lot 2 provided it is not improved to a greater degree than the existing trail through Lot 2. The dedicated walkway will extend along the eastern boundary of Lot 2 to facilitate public access to the foothills in the vicinity.
2 The design and materials for the proposed fence dividing the new combined parcel from the open space area must be approved by the Planning Director.
Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short voted aye, Ms. McDonald vote no; the motion passed.
Request by John Meacham for preliminary subdivision approval for a two lot plat amendment of Lots 26, 27 and 28 of the subdivision on the east half of Block 10, Plat C of the Salt Lake City Survey located at 706 South 800 West in a Residential R-1/5000 zoning district. Each lot is proposed to be 6,955 square feet for a total of 13,900 square feet.
Margaret Pahl is the Principle Planner for the project.
John Meacham was present.
Ms. Pahl explained that the proposal is a two lot subdivision amendment of the East Half of Block 10, Plat C Subdivision. The subdivision was recorded in 1889 consisting of lots 33 feet wide that allowed buyers to combine lots for desired sizes. Ms. Pahl referred to a chart showing lots within the subdivision, and explained that combining lots has occurred and the subdivision consists of lots with a variety of sizes and frontages. The subject lot is located on the southwest corner of 700 South and 800 West and consists of 13,900 square feet. A dwelling exists in the northeast portion of the lot and an unimproved vacant area exists to the south. The lot would be divided with an east/west property line creating a new building lot to the south. The new lot will have 70 feet of frontage on 800 West. Ms. Pahl also explained that the proposal was considered at an administrative hearing, and it was tabled and forwarded to the Planning Commission by the hearing officer. At the hearing, the neighbor to the south voiced concerns about the proximity of a new home to his lot. Ms. Pahl said Staff recommends that the Planning Commission establish a buildable area on the new lot as proposed in the staff report to address the neighbor’s concern. The buildable area shows a ten-foot setback from the south property line. The proposal was also reviewed by all City departments, and the Engineering Division identified some curb and gutter needing repair. The owner has already contracted for those repairs. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment subject to compliance with departmental requirements and the property owner hard-surfacing the driveway of the existing dwelling. Ms. Pahl noted that the property owner wishes not to hard-surface because he has already put a lot of money into the property.
Ms. Funk noted the memo from Scott Weiler of Engineering that states “a plat will not be recorded for the proposed request”, and the letter from LeRoy Hooton of Public Utilities that recommends no basement because the water table in this area is high. Ms. Pahl explained that when the proposal was first circulated, she was unaware that the property was within an old subdivision and she was processing it as a minor subdivision. During the hearing, it was noted that the property was within a subdivision and a plat will be recorded. Ms. Pahl then explained that she is familiar with only one other property in the subdivision and it does not have a basement. She noted that the Public Utilities Division has made this call in the past, and developers reported that no water was found after test digs and developers have been allowed to make a determination whether or not a basement should be constructed.
Mr. Jonas asked why Staff is recommending hard-surfacing. Ms. Pahl explained that hard-surfacing is a current standard and the City strives to obtain compliance to the extend practical when properties go through the subdivision process, and it provides an opportunity for the Planning Commission to require obtaining compliance with minimum zoning regulations.
Mr. Meacham explained that the existing dwelling has a shelf basement and it has existed for 98 years, and there has never been a problem with water. Mr. Meacham then explained that he is asking for relief on the hard-surfacing because of financial reasons. He purchased the property with an equity loan on his own home in order to supplement his retirement income. The original plan was to purchase the property, subdivide it, sell the lot, then use the money to repair the dwelling which was in considerable disrepair. He has since spent over $20,000 for repairs including exterior and interior paint, a new roof and uncovering sidewalks. He believes that the improvements he has made benefits the City and the community. Mr. Meacham then explained that the existing driveway is surfaced with gravel, it is solid and does not puddle. He said that he obtained three bids for the required hard-surfacing and it will cost $2,500 to $3,000. An alternative would be to hard-surface from 700 South about 80 feet into the property than provide space for two cars; this would cost $1,500.
Mr. Meacham, the Commission and Staff discussed the proposal. Responding to questions of Commission Members, Mr. Meacham said that the proposed buildable area and restricting construction in the south side yard of the new lot are acceptable to him. Mr. Meacham will not develop the new lot because he does not have the money to do so. He added that the property with the existing dwelling has plenty of space for a two-car garage and this is a good selling point for the property. Mr. Wilde said that it is the intent of the City to bring remaining lots into minimal compliance. The requirement for the lot with the dwelling is two parking stalls with a 20-foot driveway leading to stalls 20 feet deep. The minimum hardsurfacing would be a depth of 40 feet with 18 feet of width which could be tapered. New construction on the south parcel would also be required to provide two parking stalls; garages are not required. Mr. Jonas noted that hard-surfacing could be provided when one of the properties is sold to mitigate the financial hardship. This could further be enforced by recording a subdivision restriction on the parcels.
Jerry Urlacher, 720 South 800 West, explained that he is the property owner to the south and he purchased his property because of the open space between the subject house and his. The open space provides privacy and he is not opposed to construction of a new home on the lot subject to a wider side yard being maintained and no other structures, such as a garage, being constructed in this area. Mr. Urlacher then explained that he is also concerned about potential development of the property. After the administrative hearing, he heard that a potential buyer wished to construct a basketball court on the lot and he would rather have a home than a sports court. Ms. Pahl explained that if the subdivision is not approved, a basketball court could be built on the south portion of the lot without going through any process because it is considered the rear yard. If the subdivision is approved and the lot becomes a building lot, than construction of a basketball court becomes a conditional use for recreation facilities on an accessory lot which requires going through the conditional use process that requires notice to neighbors and approval from the Planning Commission.
The meeting was closed to public comment.
Motion for the Amendment to the East Half of Block 10, Plat C Subdivision
Mr. Jonas made a motion for the Planning Commission to grant the preliminary subdivision approval as requested by John Meacham for a two lot plat amendment of Lots 26, 27 and 28 of the East Half of Block 10 Subdivision, Plat C, Salt Lake City Survey at 706 South 800 West, subject to compliance with departmental requirements and a deed restriction placed on the property with the existing dwelling requiring hard-surfacing for a parking area within six months of the sale of the dwelling or the new lot whichever occurs first. The plat must also show the buildable area with a ten-foot side yard setback on the south along the alley and at least a four-foot side yard on the north side yard, and no accessory structures to be constructed in the required ten-foot side yard on the south.
Ms. Short seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
Case No. 410-410 by AT&T Cable Services/TCI Incorporated requesting a conditional use to install an electrical power supply cabinet with back-up generator at approximately 314 South Post Street in a Single-Family Residential R-1/5000 zoning district.
Case No. 410-431 by AT&T Cable Services/TCI Incorporated requesting a condition use toinstall an electrical power supply cabinet with back-up generator at approximately 823 East Second Avenue in a Special Development Pattern Residential SR-1 zoning district.
Case No. 410-432 by AT&T Cable Services/TCI Incorporated requesting a conditional use to install an electrical power supply cabinet with back-up generator at approximately 173 North K Street in s Special Development Pattern Residential SR-1 zoning district.
Case No. 410-433 by AT&T Cable Services/TCI Incorporated requesting a conditional use to install an electrical power supply cabinet with back-up generator at approximately 1506 West Indiana Avenue in a Single-Family Residential R-1/5000 zoning district.
Ray McCandless is the Principle Planner for the projects.
Brad Groves with AT&T was present to present the cases.
Mr. McClandless explained that the location at 314 South Post Street is a typical site in that it is located in a rear yard and accessed from an interior-block public alley way. The power supply cabinet will be installed in the northwest corner of the subject property.
The second site is 823 East Second Avenue which is located in a historic district and will be installed in the parking lot between two apartment buildings. The cabinet will be located between an existing large tree and a sight-proof fence that runs along the west (side) property line. Staff recommends approval subject to Historic Landmark Commission approval and bollards being installed around the cabinet to prevent vehicles from hitting it.
The third location is at 173 North K Street which is also in a historic district. The cabinet will be installed in the southwest corner of the rear yard. Mr. McCandless noted that it will be about seven feet from the west (rear) property line and Staff recommends it being moved closer to the property line into the trees. This location must also be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission.
The fourth located at 1506 West Indiana Avenue was originally proposed for 1480 West Indiana Avenue. It will be located in the rear yard in the northeast corner and accessed from an interior-block alley way. Staff recommends approval subject to providing landscaping.
Mr. Groves explained that a tree exists on the K Street site and they will relocate the cabinet as close as possible to the tree. He noted that the property owner was going to contact UP&L and have the tree removed because it may be interfering with power lines.
Jay Hale, owner of the property at 1506 West Indiana Avenue, explained that there was no mention of a generator at the time he signed the agreement and he is concerned about the noise.
Mr. Groves explained that the generator will run once a month for about 15 minutes for testing. The test setting can be set for anytime during the day. The generator will also automatically turn on if the power goes out. The noise level is about 52 decibels which is between the noise of a car idling and a lawn mower.
Kevin Gillars, 167 North K Street, said that he was informed that the generators have a noise level of 60 decibels and he believes this is too much disturbance. He said that he was also informed that the cabinet needs to be located within 500 feet of a base station which is across the street, and he believes that AT&T did not adequately review optional sites. He explained that commercial sites would be more suitable and there are such sites available. He noted the 7-11 convenience store on the northeast corner of Third Avenue and K Street. This site has an existing boxed structure in the parking area which screens their garbage cans. The commercial property adjacent to the 7-11 could also be considered. Mr. Gillars also voiced his concerned about the amount of space the cabinet requires. The driveway of the proposed site ends with parking spaces and does not provide much maneuvering space. With the bollards around the cabinet, it would make maneuvering more difficult. This further concerns him because a gas line will be attached to the supply cabinet.
Mr. Groves explained that AT&T did not approach 7-11 because it would be too difficult to run cable to that area. The 7-11 sub pole is on top of a retaining wall and it would require running cable under the wall. The cabinet itself is 30 inches wide by 66 inches long and 31 inches high; it is the easement for the cabinets that is 10 feet by 10 feet which is needed to service the cabinets. It was also noted that the City has not received any complaints about noise on other cabinets that have been installed.
Kathy Segal, 167 North K Street, explained that she asked Mr. Groves if she could listen to one of the cabinets to decide whether or not the noise level would be tolerable. She said another gentleman from AT&T informed her that no other remote boxes of this type have been established yet and this is probably why no complaints have been received. She was also informed that boxes already installed are quieter. She questioned why a back up cable line
would be needed in the first place because no phones or TV’s are operable during a power outage.
Mr. Groves said that some of these types of cabinets are running and they are being tested, but they are not running the system yet. The purpose of the back up line is to continue service for phones especially for 911, fibers to keep data running and battery operated lap top computers. Mr. Groves acknowledged that the boxes are different from the previous boxes approved by the Planning Commission. They are lower profile and are somewhat louder. The previous cabinets were 48 inches tall and 18 inches wide and had a decibel level of 48. The subject cabinets have a decibel level of 50 to 60. Mr. Groves noted that AT&T is purchasing easements for the cabinets from property owners and they are not forcing property owners to have them installed on their properties.
The hearing was closed to public comment and Commission Members discussed the proposals. Mr. Daniels said it concerns him that the noise level of the cabinets has gotten louder and has not been mentioned in the staff report. He suggested that the Commission go out and listen to one that is operating. Mr. Wilde said that this could be arranged for the next meeting.
Motion for Cases No. 410-410, 410-431, 410-432 and 410-433
Mr. Jonas made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the proposed locations of the supply cabinets for Cases No. 410-410 at 314 South Post Street, 410-431 at 823 East Second Avenue, and 410-433 at 1506 West Indiana Avenue based on the findings of fact and subject to Staff recommendations:
1 No propane tanks to be used.
2 Sites located on City property must be approved by all applicable City departments. All City departmental requirements must be met including obtaining the applicable building permits from the City’s Building Services and Licensing Division, public way permits from the City’s Engineering Division, revocable permits from the Property Management Division and resolving any franchise agreement issues with the City Attorney’s Office.
1 The cabinets, including the cement pad, must be removed within 90 days if they are no longer needed or used and any lease with property owners terminated.
2 A surety bond or cash bond must be posted assuring removal of the equipment and pad.
3 All utilities and cables are to be placed underground.
4 If TCI or its related entities install cabinets underground or partially underground in any other community, TCI will retrofit this equipment within one year of availability of this technology, provided, TCI shall not be required to retrofit any equipment before the expiration of five years of the date of its approval. When new technology becomes available, the Planning Commission will no longer accept and/or approve above ground cabinets.
5 All lease agreements with property owners shall contain “hold harmless” language to sufficiently protect the property owner from liability.
AND, because of adverse comments, Mr. Jonas further moved that the Planning Commission table Case No. 410-432 at 173 North K Street until the noise level of the proposed cabinet can be reviewed.
Mr. Mariger seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned for a break and reconvened at 8:10 p.m.)
Petition No. 400-00-40 by Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development requesting that outdoor dining opportunities be expanded and the process for outdoor dining be simplified throughout Salt Lake City.
Doug Dansie is the Principal Planner for the project.
Mr. Dansie explained that two policies address outdoor dining; outdoor dining on private property and outdoor dining on public property. Outdoor dining on public property is handled through an administrative process. The petition before the Planning Commission addresses outdoor dining on private property. Most private commercial lots have a required yard area and a buildable area, and dining is permitted within the buildable area, but not permitted in the required yard area without special handling. A request for outdoor dining in the required yard area is a conditional use process which requires review by the Board of Adjustment as a special exception which is currently being administratively processed as routine and uncontested matters. To simplify the process, the City is proposing allowing outdoor dining in the required yard area as a permitted use under accessory uses in all commercial and industrial zones except the RB, CN, MU and R-MU zones. These four zoning districts will remain in the special exception process because they are most likely to be located in residential areas. The other commercial and industrial districts usually do not conflict with residential areas.
Responding to concerns of Commission Members, Mr. Dansie further explained that the proposal will not exempt anyone from landscaping requirements or allow unnecessary hard-surfacing. The proposal is restricted to restaurant uses, and under accessory uses, the Ordinance states specifically that outdoor dining must be in conjunction with a licensed indoor restaurant (including coffee shops), tavern, brewpub, microbrewery or private club. The language and conditions for allowing outdoor dining in required yard areas derived from the language and conditions currently being used to allow it as a special exception.
Ms. Funk noted the language “live music and loudspeakers must be approved as a special exception or be 300 feet from residential area or it cannot exceed the Salt Lake County Noise Ordinance”, and said that she is concerned 300 feet from a residence may not be adequate.
Mr. Dansie explained that the current approval criteria does not allow any live music or loudspeakers. Staff relaxed this criteria with the intent to allow soft low music and tied it to the County noise ordinance to regulate it. The proposed process would not qualify a request under the accessory use if the outdoor dining is located closer than 300 feet to a residential use. It would not meet the criteria and then it would be required to go through the special exception process. Music and loudspeakers are not regulated for outdoor dining in buildable areas. Mr. Wilde added that the noise level is measured by decibels and he believes the maximum decibel level after 10:00 p.m. is 50. If the noise is within the maximum decibel level and is still disruptive, the situation can then be addressed by the general nuisance ordinance. Mr. Wilde said that he will obtain more information regarding noise levels for the next meeting. Mr. Jonas suggested changing paragraph 5 to “live music and loudspeakers played in the outdoor dining area are allowed only if approved as a special exception”, or perhaps regulating noise per decibel levels rather than distance. Mr. Dansie noted that the proposed language is conceptual and it needs to be reviewed and finalized by the Attorney’s Office. Discussion regarding the proposal could either be tabled and Mr. Dansie could work on the language, or it could be forward to the Attorney’s Office requesting language under certain criteria.
Karen Forsythe, 1516 West Dale Avenue, recited her recent experience regarding noise. She explained that the grocery store on 1500 West and 1100 South had an open house event with a live band over the weekend. Music was played from 10:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and it was so loud it shook her lamp shades. She called the Salt Lake City Police Department and they informed her that it did not make any difference as long as the store had a permit. Ms. Forsythe said she is concerned about regulating noise and not just for restaurants, but also other businesses such as grocery stores and vending carts. She noted that this was the second open house event that the grocery store had because it was so successful, and she is concerned about this kind of situation becoming an ongoing occurrence. It was noted that the Health Department enforces the noise ordinance and the Community Action Team respective to her community could also be of service if the event regularly happens. Mr. Dansie noted that the 1993 ordinance for vending states that the vendor may not do any loud noises, yelling, honking or anything to call attention to the vending cart.
The hearing was closed to public comment and Commission Members discussed the proposal. The consensus of the Commission was that the proposed language may not adequately address or regulate music and loudspeakers in many scenarios. Mr. Daniels requested that the neighbor’s testimony be considered when reviewing this ordinance.
Mr. Jonas made a motion for the Planning Commission to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve adoption of the proposed ordinance text amendments with the recommendation to include conditions for limiting noise to an acceptable level. The motion died due to lack of a second.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-40
Mr. Jonas made a motion to continue discussion on the petition to give Staff the opportunity to provide recommendations on regulating noise. The recommendations are to be presented to the Planning Commission for review before being forward to the City Council. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-00-41 by Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development requesting amendments to the sidewalk vending ordinance to simplify vending in the public way, public parks and private property within Salt Lake City.
Doug Dansie is the Principle Planner for the petition.
Mr. Dansie explained that the City presently has a vending cart ordinance that was originally adopted in 1993, and the proposed changes are to address expansion and concerns of vendors. The current ordinance allows vending carts on sidewalks in the downtown CB District and specific locations in the Sugar House area. Carts are also allowed on private property in any zoning district that allows outdoor sales. One of the proposed changes to the vending cart ordinance expands the CB District two blocks to the west. The CB District is currently located from South Temple to 900 South and from 200 East to 400 West, and would be expanded to 600 West. The expansion is being considered because of recent development in the downtown area which has actually expanded the area, and the City has received requests to allow additional vending carts in these areas. The expansion is intended to include the Triad Center, the Gateway Project and areas above and beneath the newly shortened freeway viaducts.
Mr. Dansie continued explaining that Section 5.65.100 limits items for sale and allows only one product to be sold from a cart. The proposed change would still limit items, but more than one item could be sold from a cart. Daily or monthly news publications have been added to the list of items. Language in Section 5.65.040 also refers to single product type, and it has been eliminated.
Section 5.65.110 currently allows vending carts in the Expanded Central Business District, the Sugar House Business District and specifically lists Pioneer Park, Dinwoody Park and Washington Square. The proposal eliminates “Pioneer Park” and “Dinwoody Park” and simply states “city parks”. In regards to city parks and Washington Square, language was added in Section 5.65.120 that states the number of vendors in these areas shall be determined by administrative policy. The intent of this change is to limit the number of carts. The current ordinance allows several vendors on the Washington Square block that conflicted with the contract between the City and the restaurant located within that block. Allowing vending in parks according to administrative policy, allows the parks to decide on appropriate vendors rather than having an ordinance mandate one.
Section 5.65.030 sets a land use fee of $175 annually. This has been changed so that the fee may be determined by administrative policy for each location. This gives the administration latitude to adjust fees according to sites. Language has been added in Section 5.65.050 to allow a single vending cart mobility. It allows a vendor to pick five places for one cart and move according to changes in activities during the day. The language still ties the vendor to a location and exclusive rights to sites. Ms. Funk expressed her concerns that this language may cause the monopolizing of sites.
The first year that vending carts were allowed, the City received over 80 applications and Section 5.65.070 mandates an elaborate lottery system in order to set up locations for applications. The lottery has not been needed since and vendors who come back year after year usually renew at their existing site. The proposed change does not require it by ordinance, but it may be implemented by administrative policy if ever needed again. Also vendors who come back year after year usually renew at their existing site.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification regarding spacing as referred to in Section 5.65.120. Mr. Dansie explained that no spacing between carts is required, but spacing between a cart selling similar items and a stationary store, such as a food cart and a restaurant, is required. No food vendor shall operate within 100 feet on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South, and all other streets require a spacing of 300 feet. This allows two carts per block face on Main Street and one per block face everywhere else.
Section 5.65.180 addresses vendors during special events. When the ordinance was originally adopted, there was a great deal of discussion. The vendors did not want to be told to move if the event was a parade or of similar nature. On the flip side, special events vendors expressed frustration when they were paying fees to be part of an event and the proximity of daily cart vendors make the appearance that they are part of the event without paying additional fees. The proposed language intends to address these situations by requiring carts to be moved outside the special event boundary if the City closes a public right-of-way for the event subject to the same spacing requirements as on Main Street if like items are sold. If the public right-of-way remains open, the City can not ask the vendor to move. Ms. McDonald asked how this will effect the Olympics vending. Mr. Dansie answered that it depends largely on how the special events process will be applied for the Olympics which is leaning toward geographic
sites. Language for special events including the Olympics will need review by the Attorney’s Office so that it is fair to both cart vendors and special event vendors.
Mr. Dansie explained that it is the desire of the administration to expand opportunities for vending carts, and Section 5.65.220 is added to address expansion by allowing vending carts on private property outside the expanded CB District. Applicants proposing vending carts in these locations currently require permission by conditional use, such as Case #410-489. Section 5.65.220 would allow them as a permitted use on private property in zones that allow outdoor sales. The ordinance would required the vendor to provide proof of permission from property owners.
Jay Ingleby, from the Glendale Community, expressed his opposition to mobile food carts on public streets, and most particularly carts located within neighborhoods on the west side. Mr. Ingleby is concerned that the carts impose unfair competition and create economic hardships for stationary restaurants. He also suggested that the Planning Commission and the City Council consider advertising their agendas in local newspapers. Decisions substantially effecting west side communities are being made and the communities are not getting notice. It is noted that Mr. Dansie reviewed the proposed changes with the downtown retail merchants, downtown alliance, and the community council chair. The meeting was also advertised in the local newspaper. Mr. Wilde added that the City briefs community council chairpersons and then responds to any questions or concerns. After the briefing, Mr. Dansie followed up with a memo and a copy of the ordinance with instruction to distribute. The meeting was held August 1 and the memo was mailed mid-August.
Randy Sorenson and other west side residents in the audience voiced their concerns about food cart regulations and sanitation standards.
Gretchen Faulk was present to respond to the concerns and questions. Ms. Faulk is employed by the Bureau of Food Protection of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department and manages the mobile food program which includes vending carts. She explained that carts are regulated under the same regulations and held to the same standards as other restaurants. Vendors are required to a three-compartment sink at the commissary where the food is prepared. Each cart must have a two-compartment sink on board with hot and cold running water. Carts are inspected with the same frequency as restaurant and if complaints are received, the Division is required to respond within two working days. If complaints are an imminent health hazard, the Division responds as immediately as manpower allows. Everyone who works with food must have a food handlers permit or a management certification which is a higher level of training. The Health Department does not make regulations regarding ages of food workers. Any egregious sanitation error, such as the one described by a neighbor who saw a vendor rinse his knife with gutter water and then cut meat, must be reported to the Health Department. If the Department does not know of incidents like this, they cannot do anything about it. The Department will respond to anonymous complaints and without witnesses. If vendors are operating from car trunks or any other means other than a cart, they may be operating illegally and must also be reported. The vendors are required to have available on the carts copies of Health Department permits and business licenses. By policy, the business name and phone number must be posted on the cart. The temperature of food is regulated and cannot be below 40 degrees or above 140 degrees. The only foods commonly requiring refrigeration are cheese and meats and must be stored in ice chests. Every cart operator is required to have a thermometer designed to be placed right in the food. A pre-opening inspection is required before carts are placed on the street. The carts are then inspected twice a year or more, and certainly when a compliant is received. All carts are required to pay sales tax.
Mr. Dansie added that Section 5.65.040 states that the Health Department may require a permit to be present on the cart along with all licenses. He also added that the design standards of the carts are clear and so if someone is operating out of something that is not clearly a vending cart, it is illegal. Vendors are licensed by Salt Lake City and the City will not issue a business license without a State tax identification number. Applicants for vending carts must also go through a background check.
Ron Rosenlyn noted that a cart is operating on a public sidewalk on Redwood Road and 1000 South.
Annie Lou Gutman, is a cart operator located on 100 South and Main Street, and said that it is unfair for the neighborhood to judge all carts unsanitary and a threat to businesses. She explained that she works closely with the Health Department and the Subway near her site. She follows all rules and regulations and more. No one has ever became ill from her cart and she has received many letters praising the cleanliness.
Jena Bert voiced her concerns about vendors encroaching into the neighborhood. She explained that a vacant lot on the southwest corner of 700 South and 900 West is constantly filled with vendors selling all kinds of merchandise from any kind of vehicle including big trucks. Ms. Bert is also concerned about parking. Mr. Dansie said that carts are primarily oriented to foot traffic, but parking occurs on the street or if the cart is located on private property, then the parking lot respective to the property is used.
Dixie Carter also voiced her concerns about vendors encroaching into the neighborhood.
Greg Reed, from the Public Service Division of Salt Lake City and presenting the Galvan Center, explained that he is in charge of bringing over 200 special events to Block 57 every year, and the language regarding special events concerns him. He requested that the Galvan Center be specifically listed, and wants language that will protect vendors who participate in special events at the Center. Vendors participating in special events must pay a fee and it is a conflict when permitted vendors with like items appear to be a part of the event without paying the fee. He would like the Center to be recognized as a special event venue with the same distance from the entrance as afforded restaurants.
Anza M-Ahmd explained that he has a cart on 200 South between Main Street and State Street. He is required to be 300 feet from the restaurant and believes that this distance is far enough and perhaps too far because there is no space left for anymore carts. Restaurants on 200 South are next to each other and they are selling without any problems. He said that vendors too pay taxes and licensing permit fees, and the 300-foot distance may be unfair when taking in account the scale of their business. He would like to see two carts allowed on Main Street. Mr. M-Ahmd also believes it is unfair to ask vendors to move their carts outside of an event if he is permitted on a daily basis. He said he would rather pay a special fee than be asked to go away. He would also like to be able to operate later especially during special events and the Olympics. Mr. M-Ahmd noted that the ordinance does not address back-up water and asked that carts be allowed back-up water, allowed four coolers instead of one and increase the cart size to eight feet from six.
Mr. Dansie explained that the proposed changes include increasing the length of the cart from six feet to eight feet including the hitch, allowing for a larger umbrella and allowing two coolers instead of one. He noted Public Utilities requested that the language include prohibiting dumping water from carts into the storm water system. Currently, carts are allowed to operate
24 hours on the Day of ’47 Parade.
Bill Roberg, Assistant Coordinator for the Glendale Mobile Watch, said he is also opposed to expanding to the west. This opens more opportunities for illegal vendors in the west areas which is already a problem. Mr. Roberg explained that the Mobile Watch works closely with the Salt Lake City Police Department and they have been informed to be aware of ice cream vendors and trucks that front for selling drugs.
William Hall said that he believes a cart operator who is willing to be in a location day after day maintaining his business and following the regulations should be allowed to continue regardless of special events.
The hearing was closed to public comment and the Commission Members discussed the proposal. Ms. Funk advised residents to contact their Community Action Team Representative in the Mayor’s Office to help with the illegal vending that they have witnessed. Mr. Dansie added that Detective Crowley of the SLC PD works closely with the Business Licensing Division regarding carts and can be contacted, and taking pictures of illegal vending during weekends would help.
Responding to other concerns of the Commission, Mr. Dansie recommended postponing a findings on the proposed changes until case #410-489 has been heard. The case may bring up more concerns regarding allowing carts as a permitted use on private properties in zones that now require a conditional use process.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-41
Mr. Jonas made a motion to continue this petition until the Planning Commission has the opportunity to review concerns arising from the following conditional use application for a vending cart. Ms. Short seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
Case No. 410-489 by Evy Barney requesting a conditional use for outdoor sales and display for a vending cart in the Smith’s grocery store parking lot located at 828 South 900 West in a Community Business CB zoning district.
Cheri Coffey is the Principle Planner for the case.
Ms. Coffey explained that the Petitioner currently has a cart in the Sears parking lot on 800 South and State Street. Because of the number of carts at that location, the administration held a lottery to relocate some carts and Ms. Barney’s was one that was required to be moved. She approached the Smith’s on 800 South and 900 West which is located in a CB Zone. Smith’s agreed to lease a part of their parking lot for her vending cart, but the current ordinance considers this an outdoor sale which is a conditional use and before the Planning Commission for approval.
Ms. Coffey reviewed the conditional use standards and Staff findings: The vending cart is allowed as a conditional use in the CB Zone, and the request is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance and the City’s master plan. The cart will be located in the northeast corner of the Smith’s parking lot and front 900 West. This location will not interfere with the internal circulation system, but the Transportation Division would like final approval on location to make certain the cart will not interfere with circulation of the parking lot. No utilities are proposed. Concerns regarding the application were buffering and hours of operation. Residential uses are located to the south of the Smith’s property on Genesee Avenue and on the east side 900 West. The Applicant originally proposed the southeast corner of the parking lot, but the City’s idea was to move the cart as far from the residential uses as possible and recommended the northeast corner. Currently, news paper recycling dumpsters are located in this area. Complaints were also received about noise from people congregating around an illegal cart during later hours of the day, so the hours of operation were limited to 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The Applicant wanted to stay open as late as midnight. The request was reviewed by the Poplar Grove Community Council and the Council supports the request. Ms. Coffey said that she recommends approval of the application with the following conditions:
• Vending cart be located in the northeast portion of the parking lot.
• The Transportation Division shall have final location approval of the vending cart.
• The operation of the cart limited to 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
• The applicant comply with the proposed design standards of the proposed amended Vending Cart ordinance Section 5.65.140.
• The Applicant comply with the Operational Requirement of Vending Cart Ordinance
5.65.170.
Jay Ingleby said that locating the cart in the northeast corner of the parking lot would hinder traffic. The parking spaces in this area are filled most of the time and create congestion. The cart would further block the entrance.
Jena Bert, Member of the Poplar Grove Community Council, explained that this request was presented to the Community Council in May. She noted that a taco cart is already operating in the parking lot.
Dixie Carter said that she believes the proposed location of the cart will create congestion in the parking lot. She noted that fireworks stands allowed in the lot have created congestion in the past. She also believes that a taco cart is not necessary. A restaurant, Little Ceasars Pizza, a 7-11 store and Campos Market along with Smith’s all serve food and are located in the immediate area. Ms. Carter asked the Planning Commission to voted against the proposal because she feels the neighborhood does not need any vending. She added that she believes the area is not a safe place for a cart vendor or customers.
Richard Denton, lives in the Glendale area, and said that one cart is presently operating in the Smith’s parking lot and also one at the Campos grocery store. Mr. Denton said that he is concerned about the magnitude of vendors moving into the west side neighborhoods and the City has done nothing to stop it. The neighborhood has also had to deal with catering trucks that may be illegal and he is also concerned about safety.
The hearing was closed to public comment and the Commission Members discussed the application. Mr. Jonas reasoned that the proposed changes to the vending cart ordinance would allow the subject vending cart without a conditional use and this concerns him because of the testimony from the neighborhood. He noted that the proposed changes would not require insurance (Section 5.65.060) and he believes that carts should be required to have insurance. Mr. Wilde noted that the intent for some requirements were primarily addressing carts occupying public property. Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Commission may require insurance as a condition.
The consensus of the Commission was the vending cart ordinance was originally adopted to attract and promote activity in the downtown area and to provide a supplementary service. They reasoned that a parking lot location may not address the intent of the ordinance. Also the request does not provide a supplementary service or even a necessary service because of other like stationary establishments in the surrounding area. The Commission also noted concerns about traffic congestion in the parking lot and safety issues.
Motion for Case No. 410-489
Mr. Jonas made a motion for the Planning Commission to deny the request for the conditional use because it is not necessary and it does not contribute to the neighborhood. Ms. Short seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
The case brought up other concerns in regards to the proposed changes of the vending cart ordinance and the Commission discussed these concerns:
The cart in case #410-489 would have been located across the street from other food establishments, but still within 300 feet. The Commission asked Staff to review this, the concerns of the Galvan Center and how the changes will effect vendors in regards to the Olympics. Mr. Wilde noted that Staff has considered a radius rather than a linear distance. Vending carts allowed on private property may present a unique unfairness in that vendors are not required to pay property taxes and the proposed ordinance may be authorizing unfair competition. Mr. Mariger suggested a bidding process. Enforcement on illegal carts, especially during the weekends, must be implemented. All carts should also be required to carry public liability insurance.
Allowing vending carts as a permitted use in CB and CC zones may not be appropriate and should continue to be reviewed by the Commission especially when considering the concerns voiced by the neighborhood in case #410-489. Mr. Wilde explained that the directive of the administration was to liberate vending carts and it may be more appropriate in industrial park areas because of the pools of work force. The Planning Staff will re-evaluate zoning districts and may eliminate the CB and CC zones that fringe neighborhoods.
Other Business
Mr. Wilde distributed housing plans to the Members upon their request at a previous meeting. He also distributed information and the agenda for a one day fall conference scheduled for October 13 at the Daniel Summit Lodge. The City will pay the fee for Planning Commission members.
Mr. Wilde presented a memo from Janice Jardine regarding transitional housing and asked the Commission to initiate a petition to review the feasibility of mandating a minimal number of transitional housing units within each city council district. Mr. Wilde explained that there is an increasing need for these types of facilities and a task force chaired by Palmer DePaulis is working on obtaining commitments from all Wasatch Front communities to accommodate a limited share. The idea is to integrate a certain population back into a functioning society as cost effective as possible. Ms. Short noted that this issue was discussed during an East City Community Council meeting and it was received with a great amount of uncertainty. Concerns included the track record of the Multi-Ethnic Corporation who is involved in transitional housing.
Motion to Initiate a Petition to Study Transitional Housing
Ms. Funk made a motion that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to study the transitional housing issues. Ms. Short seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed.
Mr. Wilde explained that a downtown housing committee is investigating ways to accommodate more housing in the downtown area. One desire is to create more single room occupancy housing by adopting an SRO Ordinance that will reduce parking requirements and other barriers for small square footage housing. Mr. Wilde asked the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to develop an SRO Ordinance.
Motion to Initiate an Petition for an SRO Ordinance
Ms. Short made a motion for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to develop an SRO Ordinance. Ms. Funk seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.