11/18/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18 , 2003
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, November
18, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451
South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy
Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert.
Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; David Dobbins,
Business Services Director; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Lehua Weaver, Council
Constituent Liaison; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and
Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst;
Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Dan Mule' ,
City Treasurer; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use and Transportation/Subdivisions Planner;
Jackie Gasparik, Avenues/Subdivisions Planner; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic
Development Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Mayor Ross C.
"Rocky" Anderson; Wayne Mills, Board of Adjustments Planner; Gary Mumford, Council
Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. REPORT OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
No report or announcements were held.
#2. INTERVIEW BRUCE KALISER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER
CITIES BOARD.
Mr. Kaliser said when the Board was started there were approximately nine cities
requesting affiliation with Salt Lake City. He said in the past month the Board had
recommended two cities for adoption as Friendship Cities. He said that was the step
prior to full Sister City status.
#3. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1665 EAST KENSINGTON AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL
PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-35 (Joseph Knowlton, Kathleen Knowlton) . View
Attachment
Janice Jardine, Doug Wheelwright, Wayne Mills and Brad Stewart briefed the Council
from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked if current regulations
required the development to be hooked to the City' s storm, water and sewer systems.
Mr. Stewart said that was correct. Mr. Wheelwright said if additional homes were
built, they would be placed on a pump sewer system to pump sewer up to Kensington
Avenue. He said the Knowlton home would be put on the same pump at the time of
development.
Councilmember Saxton asked how high off the ground a developer could build a house.
Mr. Wheelwright said if the lowest side elevation was 35-feet, 15-feet could be stilts
and 20-feet could be house and roof structure. Councilmember Saxton asked what the
maximum height of a house in the R-1-5000 zone was. Mr. Wheelwright said 30-feet to
the midpoint of the home.
03 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18 , 2003
Councilmember Jergensen asked if street frontage was different in R-1-5000 and R-1-
12000. Mr. Wheelwright said frontage was 50-feet in R-1-500 and R-1-7000. He said
frontage was 80-feet in R-1-12000. Councilmember Jergensen asked what the actual
frontage was along the Kensington property. Mr. Wheelwright said it was less than 50-
feet.
Mr. Wheelwright said Planning staff recommended that the portion of property not in
the floodplain area be rezoned to R-1-5000 as requested by the applicant. He said the
Planning Commission came up with R-1-12000 because they felt it more accurately
reflected the density of the area.
Councilmember Lambert asked if the Council wanted to keep a portion of the creek
corridor for developing a trail or protecting the streambed, what would the process be
and how long would it take. Mr. Pace said the process was called condemnation and was
initiated by filing a lawsuit in Third District Court. He said decisions on litigation,
acquisition and sale of City-owned property was an executive function initiated by the
Mayor. Councilmember Lambert said zoning should only be changed in conjunction with
development plan approval. Mr. Wheelwright said development approval would have to go
through the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Lambert asked if the City had ordinances in place to provide protection
to streambeds above ground. Mr. Wheelwright said there were provisions applicable to
the Jordan River Parkway which dealt with those issues. Ms. Jardine said two zoning
overlays called a Low Land Conservancy Overlay and a Ground Source Water Protection
Overlay addressed some issues raised about preserving stream corridors.
Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about deterioration of the creek bed.
He asked how close a house could be built to the back property line in an R-1-5000
zone. Mr. Wheelwright said zoning allowed a 25-foot rear yard setback. He said the
Planning Commission could modify a planned unit development (PUD) . Councilmember
Christensen asked if any development under the requested zone had to go through the
Planning Commission. Mr. Wheelwright said that was correct.
Councilmember Christensen said there had been recommendation not to make the zoning
effective until building permits were issued. Mr. Pace said the Council needed to
indicate what zoning designation they wanted and make the rezoning contingent on
approval for development. Councilmember Love asked if the rezone would come back to
the Council once permits had been issued. Mr. Pace said if the Council passed an
ordinance stating the rezone was contingent on approval from the Planning Commission,
the Council would not consider this issue again.
Councilmember Love asked about the notification process. Mr. Pace said in 1991 State
Code required only "published notice" in a newspaper for rezoning. He said in 1992
the State statue changed to remove the requirement of publishing and required
"reasonable notice". He said the City' s ordinance at that time defined "reasonable
notice" as "published notice". He said that remained in effect through 1994 and 1995
when the zoning rewrite occurred. He said the zoning code adopted on April 12, 1995
adopted the requirement of "mailed notice".
Councilmember Love asked about the sewer. Mr. Stewart said it would affect design of
new units on the property. He said the Federal Emergency Management Assistance (FEMA)
flood rules stated that nothing habitable or mechanical could be at or below flood
elevation. He said the lots sat below the public sewer in Kensington so homes had to
be pumped up to Kensington.
Councilmember Love asked if a developer could build a new subdivision with landlocked
03 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18 , 2003
parcels with no public right-of-way. She asked what the process was for a PUD. Mr.
Wheelwright said they had to notify affected community councils, hold a public hearing
before the Planning Commission, have a staff review, and mail notices as part of the
agenda for the Commission. Councilmember Love asked if these parcels would have to go
through that process. Mr. Wheelwright said that was correct.
Councilmember Buhler asked if there was a current petition to rezone property from R-
1-5000 to Open Space what notification would be required. Mr. Pace said under current
ordinance, notification would be mailed to residents within a 600-foot radius.
#4 . RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
View Attachment
David Dobbins and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr.
Dobbins said the protest period ended on November 10, 2003 and protests based on
property value had been tabulated. He gave each Council Member a list of all protesting
properties. He said the rate of protest was 11%. Councilmember Turner asked if monies
would be distributed through the Downtown Alliance. Mr. Dobbins said that was correct.
Councilmember Saxton said the levy was the same as three years ago. She said because
of an increase in property value there would be an additional $200, 000. Mr. Dobbins
said people in favor of the district were in support of keeping the rate the same. He
said they had indicated they knew they could pay a little extra but they considered
the next three years a crucial time for downtown.
#5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 NORTH
1974 WEST FROM PUBLIC LANDS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-
03-16 (PSC Development) . View Attachment
Sylvia Jones, Jackie Gasparik, Doug Wheelwright, Janice Jardine and Lynn Pace briefed
the Council from the attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen said the community
council had voiced frustration about the width of Morton Drive. He asked about street
widths and the closeness of buildings. Mr. Wheelwright said when the applicant first
approached the City with the rezoning and the development proposal, they were
contemplating a reduced width public street. He said Planning staff told the applicant
they would not recommend a reduced width public street to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Christensen asked what residential development would do to the remaining
parcel. Mr. Wheelwright said their expectation was that the Boys and Girls Club would
still locate there. He said it would need rezoning for any residential housing on the
property.
Ms. Gasparik said the community council was glad to see single-family homes and full-
size streets. She said she felt this was in keeping with their recommendation.
Councilmember Turner asked what the difference was between a 5000 and 7000 square foot
lot. Mr. Wheelwright said the change would net three to four less lots if it was zoned
R-1-7000.
Councilmember Saxton asked if the area had been master planned. Ms. Jardine said the
master plan identified the area for public lands because it was part of the school
property. She said for consistency, the master plan would be amended to the future
land use map stating the area would be low density residential instead of public lands.
Councilmember Saxton said there was so little buildable land left in the City, the
City needed to maximize what buildable land they had. She said high-rise buildings
did not need to be built on this property. She said the City did not have to put
03 - 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18 , 2003
single-family dwellings everywhere. She said other alternatives were needed as far as
housing. Councilmember Christensen said there was a lot of multi-family housing in
that area.
Councilmember Lambert said the area was presently designated as a small neighborhood
park or open space according to the master plan. He asked why the City was changing
the designation for housing. Mr. Wheelwright said the school district had determined
the property surplus to their needs. Councilmember Lambert said the community council
was in favor of single-family homes. Ms. Gasparik said the community council did not
want the project to be approved as a planned development with reduced lots.
#6. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO
DISCUSS TWO MATTERS OF PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH
CODE ANN. 52-4-4 AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED
PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. 78-24-8.
An Executive Session was held. See File M 03-2 for confidential tape and sworn
statement.
The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m.
bj
03 - 4
• SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 14,2003
SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-02-35—Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton.
Request to rezone properties located at approximately 1665 East
Kensington Ave. from Open Space to Residential R 1/5,000
AFFECTED COUNCIL
DISTRICTS: If approved,the ordinances will affect Council Districts 5 and 6
STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Planning Policy Analyst
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division
AND CONTACT PERSON: Greg Mikolash,Principal Planner
NEW INFORMATION:
On October 21,2003,the Council received a briefing from the Administration regarding the proposed
rezoning. Issues and questions discussed by Council Members are summarized below.
• A. Process for any future development of the property:
1. Council action is only required for the rezoning request.
2. Demolition or remodeling of the existing structure would require building permit review and
approval.
3. Subdivision or planned development proposals would require Planning Commission review and
approval prior to issuing site development and building permits. (Number of new housing units
would be determined by the maximum density permitted in the residential zoning classification.)
4. Designation of the exact location of the Emigration Trail Corridor identified in the Open Space
Plan trail would require a plan specific approval process with the Planning Commission.
5. The burden would be on the developer or builder to establish that floodplain issues have been
addressed to satisfy Federal and City regulations.
B. Future development,subdivision/planned development issues relating to:
1. Steep slopes
2. Access
3. Loss of open space
4. Potential impacts and protection of sensitive areas
C. Input from affected Community Councils.
D. Public process and notification during the 1995 citywide Zoning Rewrite project.
1. Information provided in notice.
2. Zoning of the property prior to 1995.
3. Zoning of the surrounding properties in this area.
•
Page 1
E. Instances since the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project when the City has changed residentially zoned
properties to Open Space. Council staff is aware of one rezoning in 1999,where property in the Sugar
House Business District located on the north side of Hidden Hollow owned by the Redevelopment •
Agency was rezoned from a commercial zoning classification to Open Space.
F. Floodplain issues:
1. Steps or processes that may be used to allow development in floodplain areas.
2. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA),City Public Utilities and other technical
requirements regarding exceptions and design criteria for construction in flood hazard areas and
possible development of the properties.
a. Chapter 18.68.100 of the City Code,Floodplain Hazard Protection provides specific criteria
and requirements for new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures
within floodplain hazard areas.Planning staff indicated that Public Utilities administers this
section of the City Code and would need to address specifics regarding purpose,
interpretation and application of the requirements. Council staff has asked that someone
from Public utilities be in attendance at the Council meeting to respond to questions.
b. Council staff received information from the Salt Lake office of the U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development(HUD)regarding regulations for flood hazard exposure
and residential Federal Housing Administration(FHA)mortgage insurance. Federal
requirements permit mortgagees to obtain an Elevation Certificate that is completed in
accordance with HUD regulations from builders as an alternative to a final Letter ofMap
Amendment(LOMA)or Letter ofMap Revision(LOMR)for property improvements located
in a Special Flood Hazard Area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Under this approach the lowest floor of the structure must be built in compliance with federal
regulations. Flood insurance is still required for property improvements located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area.
POTENTIAL OPTIONS: •
If the property is to be rezoned,there are several key decisions to be made by the Council prior to having
an ordinance prepared:
1. Does the Council wish to rezone all of the property,or only that portion that is above the
floodplain?
2. What zoning classification would the Council like to apply:
a. Residential R-1/5,000 as requested by the petitioner. (This zoning classification permits
single-family lots with a minimum of 5,000 sq.ft. each and 50 feet of frontage on a
dedicated public street or a planned development conditional use. A planned
development in this zoning classification requires a minimum of 20,000 sq ft and
these two parcels contain approximately 39,839 sq.ft.)
b. Residential R 1/7,000.(This zoning classification permits single-family lots with a
minimum of 7,000 sq.ft each and 50 feet of frontage on a dedicated public street or a
planned development conditional use. A planned development in this zoning
classification requires a minimum of 20,000 sq.ft and these two parcels contain
approximately 39,839 sq.ft.)
c. Residential R-1/12,000 as recommended by the Planning Commission. (This zoning
classification permits single-family lots with a minimum of 12,000 sq.ft. each and 50 •
feet of frontage on a dedicated public street or a planned development conditional use.
A planned development in this zoning classification requires a minimum of 5 acres. In
Page 2
addition,the Planning Commission recommendation would only rezone that portion of
the property which is located above the base flood elevation of the FEMA 100-year
• floodplain,loodplain,approximately.1696 acres or 7,388 sq.ft The property in question does not
meet the planned development 5-acre minimums)
3. Does the Council wish to require a restrictive covenant be placed on the property to note that:
a. A substantial portion of the property may be located in the floodplain.
b. A substantial portion of the property may not be developable.
4. Does the Council wish to include a condition that the rezoning not become effective until a
subdivision or planned development is approved by the Planning Commission and site
development and building permits are issued?
5. Do not adopt the proposed ordinance.
6. Other options identified by Council Members.
7. Any combination of the above.
•
The following information was provided previously. It is provided again for your reference.
KEY ELEMENTS:
A. This is a request to rezone two properties(owned by the petitioners)adjacent to the petitioner's home
• at 1665 Kensington Avenue.This action would facilitate completion of a pending sale option for the
petitioner's home and the two adjoining parcels.The Administration's transmittal notes that the intent
of the petitioner is to sell the land at residentially appraised value to a potential buyer for the purpose
of constructing up to three single-family dwellings.
1. The petitioners have indicated that the Open Space zoning was a mistake or mapping error that
occurred during the 1995 citywide Zoning Rewrite project,that they received no notice of the
zoning change and wish to reinstate the residential zoning for the two properties. (The City did a
mailing to every property owner regarding the 1995 Zoning Rewrite.Prior to 1995,the properties
were zoned Residential R 2 that allowed single-family and duplex residential uses.)
2. This petition has generated significant community interest due to the proximity of the parcels to
Wasatch Hollow Park. Some members of the public have perceived that this property is public
open space adjacent to the park,rather than private property.
B. An ordinance has been prepared based on the recommendation and conditions specified by the
Planning Commission. Key elements are summarized below. (Please see the ordinance in the
Administration's paperwork for details.)
1. The property owner is entitled to develop the portion of the property which is located above the
base flood elevation of the Federal Emergency Management A cy(FEMA) 100-year
floodplain.
2. If at some future date the property owner is able to demonstra that the remainder of the property
is not within the 100-year floodplain,or that the property is otherwise developable
notwithstanding its location below that 100-year floodplain,the City Council is willing to
reconsider the zoning of the remainder of the property.
3. The proposed change of zoning for the portion of the property,which is above the 100-year
• floodplain,is appropriate for the development of the community in that area.
Page 3
4. The intent is to rezone the portion of the property which is located above the base flood elevation
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 100-year floodplain as determined by a
licensed engineer. •
5. The rezoning is conditioned upon the submission of information and/or documentation by the
property owner sufficient to determine and map the location of the base flood elevation of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 100-year floodplain on the property.
6. The ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded
with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
7. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record the ordinance until the condition
identified above(#5)has been met,as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director.
8. Ordinance time limit— 1 year from the date that the ordinance is signed. City Council may
extend the time period for satisfying the condition.
C. Surrounding land uses include Emigration Creek to the east,Wasatch Hollow Park and the Wasatch
Presbyterian Church to the south,and single-family dwellings to the west and north. (Please refer to
the maps in the Planning staff report for details.) The Administration's transmittal indicates that the
larger of the two parcels consists of approximately 25,700 sq. ft.and the smaller parcel contains
approximately 13,939 sq.ft.both are currently zoned Open Space.
1. The purpose of the Open Space district is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open
space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space
areas.(Sec.21A.32.010—General Provisions)
2. The purpose of the Residential districts is to provide a range of housing choices to meet the needs
of Salt Lake City's citizens,to offer a balance of housing types and densities,to preserve and
maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live,to promote the
harmonious development of residential communities,to insure compatible in-fill development,
and to help implement adopted plans. (Sec. 21A.24.010—General Provisions)
D. The Zoning Ordinance identifies the following general standards to be considered when reviewing •
requests to rezone properties or amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance
notes that a decision to amend the text or zoning map is committed to the legislative discretion of the
City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. (Sec. 21A.050.050—Standards for General
Amendments)
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives and policies
of the City's adopted master plans.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing
development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts,which may impose additional standards.
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,including
but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection, schools,
storm water drainage systems,water supplies,and wastewater and refuse collection.
E. On January 22,2003,the Planning Commission identified findings of fact for 4 of the 5 criteria to be
considered for rezoning requests as specified in the Zoning Ordinance and voted to forward a
recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties from Open Space to R-1/12,000 for the
area of land above the base flood elevation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)
100-year floodplain as determined through survey by a licensed engineer(rather than R 1/5,000 as
requested by the petitioner to better match the existing density of the property). (Note,the petitioner
elected not to retain a private engineering firm to conduct a study,although that was required by the
Planning Commission. Please see the attached letter from the petitioner's attorney.In order to •
process the petition,the City Surveyor completed an initial survey working with Public Utilities.) In
addition,the Planning Commission noted that the property below the 100-year floodplain would
Page 4
remain zoned Open Space until it is determined that the floodplain elevation is incorrectly depicted or
an exception is granted to construct in the floodplain in accordance with City Code 18.68 and Federal
• Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)regulations.
F. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission meeting included:
1. Public process and notification during the 1995 citywide Zoning Rewrite project.
2. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA),City Public Utilities and other technical
requirements regarding exceptions and design criteria for construction in flood hazard areas and
possible development of the properties.
3. Loss of open space,master plan compliance and potential subdivision issues.
4. Neighborhood impacts and compatibility relating to noise,traffic,lighting,density and building
scale.
5. Adequate public utilities and services relating to sewer,water, storm water,emergency vehicle
access,snow and garbage removal.
6. Potential environmental impacts and protection of sensitive areas relating to steep slopes,
potential flooding,loss of wetlands and riparian habitat,etc.
7. Various residential zoning classifications that could address potential development and
neighborhood compatibility.
G. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report provide a detailed,technical discussion
regarding to the proposed rezoning and issues relating to establishing an accurate floodplain elevation
boundary specified as a condition of rezoning by the Planning Commission. Major points are
summarized below. (Please refer to the Administration's paperwork for additional details.)
1. The Planning staff report indicates that due to a variety of issues,Planning staff was not able to
make findings of fact relating to the criteria to be considered for rezoning requests as specified in
the Zoning Ordinance. (Please refer to the following sections in the Planning staff report for
• details:Pgs. 3-5—Identification and Analysis of Issues,pgs. 5-8—Code
Criteria/Discussion/Findings of Fact)
2. Development issues relate to:
a. Driveway access limitations due to steep slope topography,
b. Restricted driveway access for fire and emergency vehicle protection,
c. Storm water detention capacity,
d. Water supply,sanitary sewer and fire hydrant availability,
e. Flood control of Emigration Creek during high water periods,
£ The boundary location of the petitioner's properties located in Federal Emergency
Management Agency's(FEMA)floodplain hazard areas and designated floodways
g. Discrepancies between Public Utilities data and private engineering data provided by the
potential buyer's engineer in establishing the base flood elevation level along Emigration
Creek.
3. Chapter 18.68.100 of the City Code,Floodplain Hazard Protection provides specific criteria and
requirements for new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within
floodplain hazard areas. Residential structures are required to have the lowest floor(including
basements)elevated to or above the base flood elevation.In addition,nonresidential structures,
utility and sanitary facilities are required to be designed and constructed in compliance with
applicable building codes and flood-proofing methods certified by a registered engineer or
licensed architect. (Please refer to page 4 of the Planning staff report for details.)
4. The petitioners have indicated they are reluctant to submit documentation to the Planning office
substantiating the developable limits of the property because they are not developing the property.
5. The Attorney's office has directed that the owners are entitled to residential zoning unless the
property is determined to be undevelopable.
6. The properties proposed for rezoning are landlocked and currently only accessible by foot from
1111 the petitioner's single-family residence.
Page 5
7. The City owns an unimproved 66-foot right-of-way(1700 East)located directly east of the
petitioner's property. This section of 1700 East has never been constructed as a street due to
constraints created by Emigration Creek. •
8. Wasatch Hollow Park(located to the south of the petitioner's properties)was expanded and
improved by the City in the early 1990's(implementing recommendations in the East Bench
Community and Open Space Master Plans).
H. The public process included review by the Wasatch Hollow,Bonneville Hills and Sugar House
Community Councils and the Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee.Written notification of the
Planning Commission hearing to property owners within an approximate 366-foot radius of the
proposed rezoning was also completed. As noted by the Administration,numerous a-mails and letters
have been submitted to the Planning Division voicing concern about the rezone request. (Please refer
to the Planning staff report,Exhibit A and E for details and written correspondence.) In addition,
Council Members and the Council office have been contacted by the petitioners,residents and
interested parties regarding the proposed rezoning request.
MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
Council Members may wish to request additional information from the Administration regarding
the following items in order to have a full understanding of the issues relating to the rezoning and
potential residential development.
A. Recent information submitted by the petitioner's attorney indicates that two additional properties,one
with a house located on it,not owned by the petitioner are also zoned Open Space. In addition,there
appears to be portions of other privately-owned properties at the southern end of the park and a
portion of property owned by the Wasatch Presbyterian Church that are zoned Open Space. (Please
see the attached map and page 4 of the Memorandum in support of Zoning Application No.400-02- •
35 submitted by David K.Broadbent,Holland&Hart LLP,attorneys for Joseph S. and Kathy
Knowlton for details.) The Council does not have the option of expanding the petition but the
Planning Commission could have elected to do so at the start of the process. The disadvantage to that
approach is that it may have been unfair to Mr.and Mrs.Knowlton since they paid the petition fee.
The Council should be aware that there could be a future petition for the other properties that remain
zoned as Open Space.
B. The Administration's paperwork contains written correspondence from the Wasatch Hollow,
Bonneville Hills and Sugar House Community Councils and the Mayor's Open Space Advisory
Committee. In addition,numerous a-mails and letters have been submitted to the Planning Division
voicing concern about the rezone request. The Planning staff report also notes that a community
meeting was held at the City and County Building where several City Department representatives
were present to discuss the conceptual development proposal for the properties. Council Members
may wish to ask the Administration to provide an overview of the issues and comments raised at the
Community Council meetings, how they were addressed and whether it is the Administration's
perception that community issues have been resolved
C. Currently,the Administration does not have a mechanism in place to notify individuals who write to
the Administration about a land use issue,attend open houses or subsequent public hearings including
the City Council hearing. Does the Council wish to urge the Administration to expand the
notification to include those who have attended previous hearings?
D. Given that the Planning Commission advanced the petition on the condition that an engineering study
be provided to determine the floodplain elevation,and the petitioner elected not to provide that,the •
Council may wish to add a condition to the ordinance that the petitioner is required to reimburse the
Page 6
City for survey work performed by City staff so that this petition could move forward. This action
would ensure that the general taxpayer population is not covering costs that lead to the benefit of one
• property owner,and would help ensure that precedence is not set that would cause petitioners to
decline to provide information with the expectation that the cost for professional/technical
documentation will be borne by the City taxpayers.
E. In the past,some Planning Commission recommendations and ordinances prepared for zoning
requests have included a condition that specifies that the ordinance rezoning the property would not
become effective until development plans have been approved and a building permit issued. Council
Members may wish to consider requesting that the City Attorney's office prepare an ordinance that
specifies the rezoning would not take place until development plans have been approved and a
building permit issued The Planning staff report notes:
1. The petitioners requested that the Planning Commission process the rezoning petition prior to
planned development and subdivision application and approval.
2. The petitioners have indicated they are reluctant to submit documentation to the Planning
office substantiating the developable limits of the property because they are not developing
the property.
3. Typically,technical information is provided with the Planned Development and Subdivision
processes.
4. Standard practice by the Planning Division is to package all the information and applications
together for Planning Commission consideration.
MASTER PLAN&POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
A. The Planning staff report notes:
1. The East Bench Community Master Plan(adopted in April 1987)future land use designations are
• not intended to be property specific and are fairly general as to the appropriate future land use for
the two parcels indicating low-density residential and park land uses. (In addition,the Plan
identifies a future park site at 1600 East and 1700 South noting that the City plans to develop a
park along Emigration Creek north of 1700 South,access and frontage onto 1700 South must be
obtained,property for access will have to be acquired from the adjacent Wasatch Presbyterian
Church. The City developed Wasatch Hollow Park in the early 1990's with property donated by
the Church.)
2. The Open Space Master Plan Emigration Creek Corridor map notes that development along
Emigration Creek at the Wasatch Hollow Park site may be difficult but is possible and purchase
of residential properties for access points and small neighborhood parks is recommended. The
map is not property specific other than identifying Wasatch Hollow as a future park site.The Plan
also notes increased concerns of many residents and public officials regarding the need to:
a. Conserve the natural environment,
b. Enhance open space amenities,
c. Connect various parts of the City to natural environments,
d. Educate citizens on proper use of open space,and
e. Continued urban encroachment would be very damaging to the fragile ecosystem and
scenic beauty.
B. The Council has adopted housing and transportation policy statements that support creating a wide
variety of housing types citywide and changing the focus of transportation decisions from moving
cars to moving people. The Council's policy statements have been included in the City's Community
Housing Plan and Transportation Master Plan.
1. Housing policy statements address a variety of issues including quality design,public and
• neighborhood participation and interaction,transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use
Page 7
•
developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and
programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities.
2. Transportation policy statements include support of alternative forms of transportation, •
considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation
systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions.
C. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's
image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and
economic realities. Applicable policy concepts include:
1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall
urban design scheme for the city.
2. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability
and building restoration and new construction enhance district character.
3. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city
regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided.
4. Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image.
5. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to
district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian.
D. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if
it meets the following criteria:
1. Is aesthetically pleasing;
2. Contributes to a livable community environment;
3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and
4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity.
E. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a •
prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is
pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental
stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining
and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly,safe environments.
CHRONOLOGY:
> BACKGROUND
The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the rezoning process.
Key meeting dates are listed below.
➢ KEY DATES
• Aug.28,Sept.4,&Oct.23,2002 Wasatch Hollow Community Council meetings
• September 23,2002 Community meeting with City representatives
• December 18,2002 Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee meeting
• January 4,2003 Sugar House Community Council meeting
• January 15,2003 Bonneville Hills Community Council letter
• January 22,2003 Planning Commission meeting
cc: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Rick Graham,Kevin Bergstrom,Alison
Weyher,David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Greg Mikolash,Jan Aramaki,
Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley
File Location: Community and Economic Development Department,Planning Division,Rezoning, •
Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton, 1665 Kensington Avenue
Page 8
• HOLLAND & HART LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER•ASPEN SUITE 2000 TELEPHONE(801)595-7800
• BOULDER•COLORADO SPRINGS 60 E.SOUTH TEMPLE FACSIMILE(801)364-9124
DENVER TECH CENTER SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111-1031
BILLINGS•BOISE David K. Broadbent
CHEYENNE•JACKSON HOLE (801)595-7806
SALT LAKE CITY•SANTA FE (801)364-9124 Fax
WASHINGTON,D.C. dbroadbent@holandhart.com
47037.0001
May 8, 2003
Lynn H. Pace, Esq.
Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
451 S. State Street, Suite 505A
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Re: Joseph and Kathy Knowlton
Dear Lynn:
I am writing to request that you forward the Knowlton's petition
regarding rezoning of their property to the Salt Lake City Council. We have
been informed by the engineers retained by the purchaser of the property that
they believe that the 100 year flood plain mark will be in the gully and not on
the Knowlton's property. However, they have told us that it will require
several thousand dollars to complete the FEMA studies necessary to officially
• change the flood plain line of demarcation. Given the excessive costs, my
clients have determined to proceed with their request that the property be
returned to its former zoning. The issues of the actual location of the flood
plain can be postponed until such time as a future purchaser seeks to develop
the property. Please provide me a copy of the materials that are forwarded to
the City Council.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
David K. Broadbent
of Holland & Hart LLP
DKB:ls
Cc: Joseph Knowlton
3081920_1.DOC
•
a
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 14,2003
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
RE: Public Hearing:Notice of Intent to Create Central Business Improvement District No. DA-CBID-
03
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Alison
McFarlane,Gary Mumford,Michael Sears
This memorandum is intended to address issues pertinent to a November 18 City Council public
hearing and consideration of a notice of intent to create Central Business Improvement District No.DA-
CBID-03.
KEY POINTS
• The proposed resolution is the first step toward creating a source of revenue—through property
assessments—for economic promotion activities for what is known as the Central Business
• Improvement District.
• According to the Administration,the expected three-year assessment for the proposed district would
generate about$2.15 million.The proposed assessment rate for properties in the proposed district is
.001425,the same rate as the City Council adopted for the year 2000.The proposed district's
boundaries also are the same as for the year 2000.According to Alliance estimates,about 2,500
businesses and property owners are located within the current district's boundaries.
• The proposed resolution is a de facto renewal of an economic improvement district that has existed in
one form or another since 1991. The City Council renewed the district in 1994, 1997,and 2000.
• The current assessment district is scheduled to expire on December 31,2003.If the proposed
schedule for creating a new district holds,the City Council would consider the final step of the six-
step process on or about February 23,2004,according to the Administration transmittal.
• Under state law,properties cannot be added to the district if they were not included in the notice of
intent resolution.However,the City Council can delete properties at its discretion.
• Earlier this year,the Administration issued a request for proposals to manage the district.The
district's current manager is The Downtown Alliance.After reviewing two proposals submitted,the
Administration recommends that The Downtown Alliance be awarded a contract to continue to
manage the district.A City Council subcommittee made up of Chair Carlton Christensen,Vice Chair
Jill Love and Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors Vice-Chair Eric Jergensen concurs with the
recommendation.
•
1
• In July the Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees adopted a motion to merge the Alliance with the
Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.According to the Alliance's newsletter for October,the Alliance
and the Chamber have begun"integrating staff and services from both organizations."The integration 110
includes moving five of the seven Alliance staff members to the Salt Lake Chamber offices from the
Alliance's office on Main Street.
POTENTIAL OPTIONS
• Adopt the resolution declaring the City Council's notice of intent to create the district.
• Do not adopt the resolution and let the current district expire on December 31.
• Depending on the number of protests against creating the proposed district,the City Council may
delete properties from the proposed district.(Please see copy of Utah Code 17A-3-307 in this
memorandum under the subtitle Protest Hearing.)
POTENTIAL MOTIONS
• I move that the City Council adopt the resolution declaring the City Council's notice of intent to
create Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District No.DA-CBID-03 to continue to
promote business activity in an area of central downtown Salt Lake City.
• I move that the City Council not adopt the resolution.
• I move that the City Council adopt the resolution with the following deletions and changes as
authorized by State law ...
BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS •
There should be no effect on Salt Lake City's general fund budget.Utah law 17A-3-301 titled the
Utah Municipal Improvement District Act authorizes"the governing body of any municipality"to levy
assessments on property within a district that is benefited by municipal improvements."Economic promotion
activities"are included as improvements under 17A-3-303.Creating the district would earmark assessments
levied within the proposed district for a specific purpose.The assessments would be passed through to the
organization or group that manages the district.
Issues/Questions for Consideration
• Given that The Downtown Alliance officially merged with the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce on
August 1,it may be too early to gauge how effectively the larger organization will function.
• When the City Council created the current improvement district it required the Alliance to emphasize
economic development in its programs.Is economic development still a City Council goal for the
Alliance?If so,how will the Alliance be measured and monitored?
• In July before voting to merge with the Salt Lake Chamber,Alliance trustees and staff noted that
about 2,500 businesses and property owners fell within the boundaries of the current Central Business
Improvement District,but about 10 percent of those businesses and property owners were Salt Lake
Chamber members.Trustees also raised concerns about keeping"an intensity of focus"on the
downtown within the merged organizations.How have the Chamber and Alliance addressed those
concerns,or how do they plan to address them?
11111
Discussion
• As indicated earlier in this memorandum,the proposal to create Salt Lake City Central Business
Improvement District No.DA-CBID-03 is essentially a proposal to renew an improvement district that has
existed in one form or another since 1991.
The proposed resolution would be the first of six steps to create the district.If the City Council adopts
the proposed resolution,the other five steps would be:
• Approve a contractor to manage the district.
• Hold a protest hearing.
• Authorize creating the improvement district.
• Create a board of equalization
• Create the district and start levying assessments.
PROTEST HEARING
Of the steps above,the protest hearing probably will determine the proposed district's future. State
law 17A-3-307 reads in part:
17A-3-307. Protests by property owners—Hearing—Alteration of proposal by resolution—
Conditions for adding property to district—Deletion of protesters'property from district—
Recording requirements—Waiver of objections.
(1)(a)Any person who is the owner of property to be assessed in the special improvement district
described in the notice of intention may,within the time designated in the notice,file,in writing,a
• protest to the creation of the special improvement district or make any other objections relating to it.
(b)The protest shall describe or otherwise identify the property owned by the person making the
protest.
(2)(a)On the date and at the time and place specified in the notice of intention,the governing body
shall,in open and public session,consider all protests filed and hear all objections relating to the
proposed special improvement district. ...
(c)After the hearing has been concluded and after all persons desiring to be heard have been
heard,the governing body shall consider the arguments and the protests made.
(d)The governing body may:
(i)make deletions and changes in the proposed improvements;and
(ii)make deletions and changes in the area to be included in the special improvement district
as desirable or necessary to assure adequate benefits to the property in the district.
(e)The governing body may not provide for the making of any improvements that are not stated
in the notice of intention nor for adding to the district any property not included within the boundaries
of the district unless a new notice of intention is given and a new hearing held.
(3)(a)(i)After this consideration and determination,the governing body shall adopt a resolution
either abandoning the district or creating the district either as described in the notice of intention or
with deletions and changes made as authorized in this section.
(ii)The governing body shall abandon the district and not create it if the necessary number of
protests as provided in Subsection(3)(b)have been filed on or before the time specified in the notice of
intention for the filing of protests after eliminating from the filed protests:
(A)protests relating to property or relating to a type of improvement that has been deleted from the
district;and
(B)protests that have been withdrawn in writing before the conclusion of the hearing.
(b)For purposes of this section,the necessary number of protests means the aggregate of the
following:
(iii)protests representing 1/2 of the taxable value of the property to be assessed where an
• assessment is proposed to be made according to taxable value;
3
(c)If less than the necessary number of protests are filed by the owners of the property to be
assessed,the governing body may create the special improvement district and begin making
improvements. •
It should be noted that the proposed district's revenue would be based on the taxable value of
properties within the district.
PROPOSED DISTRICT BORDERS
According to the Administration,the proposed district's borders are:
• North Temple from State Street to 500 West Street.
• 500 West Street from North Temple to 400 South Street.
• 400 South Street from 500 West Street to 200 East Street.
• 200 East Street from 400 South Street to 100 South Street.
• 100 South Street from 200 East Street to State Street.
• State Street from 100 South Street to North Temple.
• 200 South Street from 200 East Street to 300 East Street.
Properties on the south side of 400 South Street,the north side of North Temple,and the west side of
500 West street are not included within the proposed district's boundaries.It should be noted that the borders
are the same borders as those adopted in the district for the year 2000.The last time the City Council created
the improvement district the district was expanded to include properties along 500 West Street from North
Temple to 400 South Street.(A map of the proposed district's boundaries is included in the Administration's
briefing transmittal dated July 30.)
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT LEVY •
As mentioned earlier in this memorandum,the Administration has proposed an assessment levy of
.001425,the same rate as the City Council adopted in 2000.The levy is expected to generate about$2.15
million. The figure is about$200,000 more than the$1.95 million in revenue generated over the life of the
present district.The reason for the projected revenue increase is the taxable value of property within the
district has increased from about$1.37 billion in the year 2000 to about$1.5 billion in the current year.
When the district originally was created in 1991 the assessment rate was.0017842.In 1994 the
assessment rate was .Q017031.The assessment rate in 1997 was.0016.
DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE MERGER WITH THE SALT LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
In July the Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees adopted a motion to merge with the Salt Lake
Chamber of Commerce after several months of negotiations.The motion included conditions that were to be
worked out before the merger.The vote resulted in a revised letter of understanding between the Alliance and
the Chamber.
Key points in the letter of understanding include:
• Both organizations retain separate legal status as 501(cx6)non-profit entities.The Alliance will
function as a separate organization beneath the Chamber umbrella.
• The current chairs of the Chamber and the Alliance remain as co-chairs through June 30,2004.After
that,there will be a single Board Chair for both organizations. •
4
• Chamber President and CEO R.Lane Beattie serves as president and CEO of the Alliance and
• administers Chamber and Alliance programs.
• Former Alliance Executive Director Robert Farrington serves as executive vice president of the
Chamber and is responsible for Alliance programs.
• Chamber Executive Vice President and COO Craig Peterson retains his post and is responsible for
Chamber programs and all central services.
• The Alliance Board of Trustees was reduced from about 30 members to six.According to the letter of
understanding,"The Alliance Board of Directors will consist of six(6)individuals.Five(5)are to be
tenants or property owners or business owners within the Central Business Improvement District
(and)shall be elected by the(Chamber)Board of Governors and also serve on the Chamber Executive
Committee and the Chamber Board of Governors.The sixth(6th)shall be the President/CEO of the
Chamber.The meetings of the Board shall be held concurrently with the Executive Committee and
the Board of Governors."
• According to the letter of understanding,the current Alliance Board members are:Prescott Muir,
David Jensen,Gary Porter,John Gates,Tom Guinney,and R.Lane Beattie.
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Alliance is one of about 400 similar organizations in the United States.The Alliance
was formed in 1988 by property owners and businesses and through the work of the late John Schumann of
Schumann Capital Management.At the time,Mr. Schumann was chair of the Salt Lake City Planning
Commission and was concerned about the variety of groups that claimed to represent the downtown when
they appeared before the Planning Commission.
Mr.Schumann and others,including attorney John Gates,sought to establish a broad-based
• organization to address downtown issues and"to strengthen our Downtown area by promoting growth,
fostering development,encouraging activities,and improving the general environment of the downtown area
through open communication between property owners,business owners,tenants,residents,and
governmental agencies involved in the downtown district."
The 1988 Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team study noted that an"unfortunate combination of
factors"in years previous to 1988 had"discouraged"the construction of new office and mixed use buildings
in the city's core.One of the factors the study listed was,"The lack of an organized constituency that
promotes continuous and serious renewal in the downtown in a determined and unrelenting way."
When The Downtown Alliance was created it was patterned after national models and sought to
consolidate the efforts of several organizations that represented downtown business interests.The
organizations included the Central Business Improvement District,the Downtown Retail Merchants
Association,the Capital City Committee,and to some extent the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce.The
Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Retail Merchants Association did not relinquish their perceived
roles to the Alliance.However,the chair of the Retail Merchants Association,and the president and CEO of
the Chamber of Commerce were made voting trustees of the Alliance,as was the Mayor of Salt Lake City.
The Capital City Committee,which was formed to build consensus to develop the Gallivan Center Block,
disbanded in favor of the Alliance.The same thing happened with the Central Business Improvement District
whose eight board members were appointed by the Mayor.The latter organization was a non-profit that
performed several functions that were undertaken by the Alliance.Unlike the Alliance,the CBID was funded
voluntarily by downtown businesses and raised about$125,000 a year. When the CBID disbanded businesses
discontinued donations.
5
e
Because the existing district is a special service district created by City Council action,the dynamic
of the Alliance's relationship with the City may have changed from the original relationship before the •
Legislature passed amendments to the law governing municipal improvement districts in 1990.To receive the
annual assessment,the Alliance must sign a contract with the City.In turn,the City has a responsibility to see
that assessment funds are well-managed.One could argue that because of the contract,the Alliance is in some
respects a creature of the City instead of a truly independent organization.However,in the past the Alliance
has taken positions on key issues and has been a sounding board for opinions of downtown property owners
and businesses. Council Members may recall that the Alliance worked to reach a compromise solution among
proponents of a light-rail line on Main Street and proponents of a light-rail loop that avoided Main Street.
In addition,the Alliance has worked to promote the downtown as a regional shopping and
entertainment area.It also developed and manages events such as First Night,the Farmer's Market.It also
was a partner in the year 2000 with the City in commissioning the Thomas Consultant's study of ways to
improve retail business in the downtown.
•
•
6
110 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 14,2003
SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-03-16—Request by PSC Development,representing Utah
Housing Corporation,to rezone property located at approximately 400 North
1974 West,from Public Lands(PL)to single-family residential R-1-5000
AFFECTED COUNCIL
DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted,the rezoning will affect Council District 1.
STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones, Policy Analyst and Janice Jardine, Land Use Policy Analyst
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division
AND CONTACT PERSON: Jackie O. Gasparik, Principal Planner
KEY ELEMENTS:
1. The applicant is requesting that 2.95 acres of land be rezoned at approximately 400 North 1974 West from
Public Lands(PL)to single-family residential R-1-5000. This action would facilitate development of a
• single-family residential subdivision. In addition,the proposed rezoning will require an amendment of the
Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from parks/open space and public/semi-public to
low-density residential land uses. Surrounding land uses include low-density residential development,the
Interstate-215 freeway and the Meadow Lark Elementary School.
2. The Planning staff has indicated:
A. A portion of the property was previously owned by the Salt Lake School District.
B. When the property was first purchased by the school district,the City required major street
improvements on 400 North.
C. The school district agreed to sell the property in the future at a reduced price in lieu of making the street
improvements.
D. The school district determined it no longer needed the property and sold it to the Utah Housing
Corporation.
E. Utah Housing Corporation has now consolidated the property with other parcels in order to develop a
single-family residential subdivision.
The public process included a presentation to the Jordan Meadows Community Council and written
notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners. The Community Council
recommended approval of the proposal and indicated a preference for single-family homes rather than
duplexes or apartments,and a preference for larger lot sizes. (The R-1/5,000 zoning classification requires a
minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. The lot size is consistent with existing residential development in the
area.)
3. On July 9, 2003,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Master
Plan and Zoning Map amendments, change the existing Public Lands"PL"zone to a residential R-1/5000
zone, and facilitate the future development of a residential subdivision with the following conditions:
Page 1
A. The development of the future residential subdivision's streets will be designed to City Standards.
B. Include a note on the final subdivision plat indicating the lowest building elevation line as
recommended by Public Utilities.
C. All required easements and streets are dedicated to Salt Lake City. •
D. The final subdivision plat and all development on the subject property must be in conformance with the
geotechnical report and must comply with the recommendations and development approval
requirements of City Departments.
E. The following items were discussed during the Planning Commission's public hearing:
i. The potential need for additional noise mitigation requirements as part of the subdivision
approval.
ii. Conceptual plans showing the evolution of the proposed subdivision.
iii. The possibility of acquiring the adjoining parcel and moving the east property line.
MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to discuss the rationale for requiring specific conditions for
the rezone as opposed to making the conditions a requirement of the preliminary subdivision. (The rezone
conditions may reduce flexibility for a future property owner if the property is sold.)
MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. As previously noted,the Northwest Community Master Plan's future Land Use Map currently identifies this
property for parks/open space and public/semi-public land uses. The Planning staff report notes that
amending the master plan and rezoning the property for residential development would be in keeping with
the surrounding land uses and would be consistent with the overall character of the area. The Plan notes that fb
construction of new housing should be emphasized but,preservation of the existing housing stock is also of
paramount importance. The Plan emphasizes preservation of the urban form and character of the Northwest
Community and improving the living and working environment in the Community.
2. The Council has adopted housing and transportation policy statements that support creating a wide variety
of housing types citywide and changing the focus of transportation decisions from moving cars to moving
people. The Council's policy statements have been included in the City's Community Housing Plan and
Transportation Master Plan.
3. Housing policy statements address a variety of issues including quality design,public and neighborhood
participation and interaction,transit-oriented development, encouraging mixed-use developments,housing
preservation, rehabilitation and replacement, zoning policies and programs that preserve housing
opportunities as well as business opportunities.
4. Transportation policy statements include support of alternative forms of transportation, considering impacts
on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all
neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions.
5. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it
meets the following criteria:
i. Is aesthetically pleasing;
ii. Contributes to a livable community environment;
iii. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and
iv. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity.
•
Page 2
6. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a
prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian
• friendly, convenient,and inviting, but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or
neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new
affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly,safe environments and creating attractive conditions for
business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses.
7. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,
neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities.
Applicable policy concepts include:
A. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall
urban design scheme for the city.
B. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability.
C. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character.
D. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city
regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided.
E. Treat building height, scale and character as significant features of a district's image.
F. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to
district character,neighboring buildings, and the pedestrian.
CHRONOLOGY:
The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed Zoning
Ordinance text amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for
• details.
• February 19, 2003 Jordan Meadows Community Council meeting
• July 9, 2003 Planning Commission hearing
cc: Dave Nimkin,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,
Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Janice Jardine,Cheri Coffey,Jackie Gasparik,Marge Harvey,Barry Esham
File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division, Rezoning and Master Plan
Amendment, PSC Development/Utah Housing Corp.,approximately 400 North 1974 West
S
Page 3
ALISON WEYHER SIV ,L i) CL V Vl �•� ®t
fa� ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON
• DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITT ,(„
TO: Rocky Fluhart, hief Administrative Officer 'l DATE: September 5,2003
FROM: Alison Weyher)
RE: Petition 400-03-16: A request by PSC Development,representing Utah Housing
Corporation, to rezone property located at approximately 400 North 1974 West, from Public
Lands (PL)to single-family residential (R-1-5000),to accommodate a future single-family
subdivision.
STAFF CONTACT: Jackie O. Gasparik,Principal Planner
E-mail: iackie.gasparik@ci.slc.ut.us
Telephone number: 535-6354
• DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DISCUSSION: The applicant,PSC Development, is proposing to rezone 2.95
acres of property from PL to R-1-5000. This rezoning would facilitate a future single-family
residential subdivision. The requested rezoning will also require a master plan amendment. The
Planning Commission is recommending a master plan amendment for the subject property
because of its current ownership.
ISSUE ORGIN: The subject property was previously owned by the Salt Lake City School
District. The school district decided that did not need the property, so it sold the property to the
Utah Housing Corporation. Now that the property is in private ownership and the developer has
consolidated it with several other properties to create the future development of a single-family
residential subdivision,the City may consider amending the zoning map and the North West
Jordan Community Master Plan to facilitate the proposed subdivision.
PUBLIC PROCESS: This item was presented to the Jordan Meadows Community Council on
February 19, 2003. The council favored approval of the proposal. The community residents
indicated that they preferred single-family homes rather than duplexes or apartments and they
prefer larger lot sizes.
•
457 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 4D4,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 64171
TELEPHONE:807-535-6230 FAX:SDI-535-600S
4).
MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: The Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master plan
identifies this area as parks/open space and public/semi-public. This was because the subject
property was owned by the Salt Lake City School District. Now that the school district has sold
the property to a private owner,the Planning Commission recommends that this property we
rezoned as "R-1-5000",the predominant surrounding zoning classification.
The Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master plan emphasizes the construction of new housing
stock. The Northwest Community is mostly developed and a majority of the housing stock
consists of single family dwellings. The proposed project complies with the intent of the master
plan with respect to,the need for additional housing stock and is consistent with the predominant
single family land use in the area.
At their July 9,2003 hearing,the Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable
recommendation on the requested rezoning to the City Council.
RELEVANT ORDINANCE:
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50. Zoning Amendment Process.
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Chronology
2. Ordinance
3. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
4. Mailing Labels and List
5. Planning Commission
a. Hearing Notice and Postmark
b. Staff keport
c. Agendas/Minutes
6. Original Petition Packet
i
i
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY
• May 15, 2003 Petition assigned to planning,
• June 3, 2003 Petition assigned to Jackie Gasparik,
• June 3,2003 Petition routed to departments for review,
• July 9,2003 Planning Commission Hearing,
• August 8,2003 Prepared transmittal.
• August 11,2003 Sent transmittal to Lynn Pace for preparation of Ordinance,
• August 15,2003 City Council Transmittal completed by project Planner.
•
i
•
ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
• No. of 2003
(Rezoning property located at approximately 400 North 1974 West)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 NORTH 1974
WEST FROM PUBLIC LANDS (PL)TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1-
5000),PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. #400-03-16.
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public
hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic
details of the area,the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as
part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations,the City Council has
concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at approximately
400 North 1974 West, is appropriate for the development of the community in that area,
NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at approximately 400 North 1974
West,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and
hereby is rezoned from Public Lands (PL)to Single Family Residential (R-1-5000).
SECTION 2. Conditions. The rezoning identified above is subject to satisfaction
of the following conditions:
a. All streets must be designed to City standards.
b. The final subdivision plat must contain a notation identifying the lowest
building elevation line.
c. All required easements and streets must be dedicated to Salt Lake City.
d. The final subdivision plat and all development on the subject property must be
in conformance with the geotechnical report and must comply with the
recommendations and development approval requirements of all City
departments.
•
SECTION 3. Amendment of Master Plan. To the extent necessary,the
Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended consistent
with the rezoning identified herein.
SECTION 4. Amendment of Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as
adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning
districts,shall be; and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date
of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The
City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions
identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director.
SECTION 6. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been satisfied
40
within one year from the execution of this ordinance,this ordinance shall become null
and void and of no effect. The City Council may, for good cause shown,by resolution
extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified herein.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of
,2003.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
•
2
11,
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
=--
SeU. Ciiy i`z C'Mar7
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
natr6
Sy
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2003.
411 Published:
G:\Ordinance ORRezoning Property at 400 North 1974 West-Aug 14,2003.doc
3
Jordan Meadows May 8, 2003
ILO
A part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34,Township 1 North, Range 1 West,
Salt Lake Base and Meridian, U.S. Survey in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah:
Beginning at a point on the West Line of 400 North Street being 536.93 feet
North 0°03'34"East along the Section Line and 243.22 feet South 89°51'50" East from
the West Quarter Corner of said Section 34; said point of beginning is also located
679.20 feet North 89°51'50"West along the Monument Line of 400 North Street; and
10.00 feet North 0°04'28" East along the West Line of said Street from an existing
Monument at the Intersection of 400 North Street and Morton Drive; and running thence
North 0°04'28"East 23.00 feet along said West Line to the North Line of said 400 North
Street; thence South 89°51'50"East 205.70 feet along said North Line of 400 North
Street; thence North 0°04'28" East 289.00 feet; thence North 89°51'50"West 417.95
feet to the East Line of Interstate Highway I-215 as Monumented by an existing Right-
of-way fence; thence along said Right-of-way fence the following Two courses: South
5°00'34"West 135.35 feet; and South 0°14'12"West 154.14 feet; thence South
89°51'50" East 224.40 feet to the point of beginning.
Contains 128,562 sq. ft.
or 2.951 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION
• HEARING NOTICE & POSTMARK
• STAFF REPORT
* AGENDA/MINUTES
A. LOUIS ZUNG UZE SALMI 1M I v t lS/�V` vll�.�lf�ml,
�.. Ames ROSS C. ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• MAYOR
BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING ANO ZONING DIVISION
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday,June 24, 2003
RE: Petition No. 400-03-16, by PSC Development, representing Utah Housing
Corporation, requesting a master plan amendment and zoning map amendment of a
property located at approximately 400 North 1974 West.
Dear Property Owner/Resident
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is holding a public-hearing on Petition No_ 400-03-10, by
PSC Development, representing Utah Housing Corporation, requesting a master plan amendment
and zoning map amendment, for 1.58 acres of property located at approximately 400 North 1974
West. The request is to change the existing Public Lands "PL"zone to a residential "R-1-5000"
zone, to facilitate the future development of a residential subdivision.
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the issue and invites your participation.
Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission concerning this request will be given the
opportunity to speak. The public hearing is scheduled for:
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003
SALT LAKE CITY & COUNTY BUILDING
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
AFTER 5:00 P.M., PLEASE USE THE EAST ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING
ROOM # 326
6:00 P.M.
Since it is difficult for us to inform all interested persons about this issue, we would appreciate
your discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the hearing. If you have
any questions or would like to review the proposal, please feel free to contact Jackie Gasparik at
535-6354.
If you have any questions,comments or would like to review the proposal you may do so at this meeting.
If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to comment please call
Jackie Gasparik,at 535-6354.
Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided
with a 24 hour advance notice. Please call 535-7757 to re uest.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 VAX: 801-535-6174 .
•
•
NOTICE OF ILEARINO1'-j'1-4
•
•
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 rik
...r.-•55-4)
. _
DATE: Wednesday, July 02, 2003
•
TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM: Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner
RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE,JULY 9, 2003 MEETING-
CASE NAME: Petition# 400-03-16, PSC Development zoning
amendment.
APPLICANT: PSC Development
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Developer/Agent
PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately 400 North 1974 West
Sidwell Number 08-34-151-024
O
Gib
R-1-5000 :
{L
o
1:1? `` , __ R-1-5000
400 N
co I
w R-1-5000
J R11:5.000
co
re
o � :
o :.:..
0 •
PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: The entire site is 2.95 acres;the area to be rezoned
is 1.58 acres.
COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 1. •
Staff Report,Petition#400-03-16 July 9,2003
By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -I-
REQUESTED ACTION:
The authorized agent PSC Development,representing Utah Housing Corporation, is
•
requesting an amendment of the zoning map,reclassifying the property located at
approximately 400 North 1974 West from Public Lands "PL"to single family residential
"R-1-5000".
The subject rezone property was previously owned by the Salt Lake City School District.
The school district determined that the subject property would not be needed in the future
for school site purposes and subsequently sold the property to the Utah Housing
Corporation.
PROPOSED USE(S):
The applicant is seeking the proposed zoning amendment to facilitate the development of
a single family residential subdivision.
APPLICABLE LAND
USE REGULATIONS:
1. 21.A.50 The Zoning Amendment Process of the Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Title 21A.24.060 R-1/5,000 Single Family
Residential District.
Zoning Amendment
•
Approval of a zoning amendment may be given if findings are made on the following
standards.
A. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purposes,goals, objectives, and
policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City,
B. Is the proposed amendment in harmony with the overall character of existing
development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property,
C. To what extent will the proposed amendment adversely affect adjacent properties,
D. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards,
E. Are public facilities and services adequate to serve the subject property,including
but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire
protection,schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and wastewater
and refuse collection.
SURROUNDING ZONING
DISTRICTS: North—PL
South—R-1-5000
East—PL/R-1-5000
West—I-215
Staff Report,Petition#400-03-16 July 9,2003 •
By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -2-
SURROUNDING LAND
USES: North—Meadow Lark Elementary
South—State property/LDS Church
East—Meadow Lark Elementary
West—I-215 freeway
MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS:
The Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master plan identifies this area as parks/open space
and public/semi-public. This was because the subject property was owned by the Salt
Lake City School District. Now that the school district has sold the property to a private
owner, staff supports this property being rezoned as"R-1-5000",the predominant
surrounding zoning.
SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY:
Subject rezone property- Vacant land,no previous development
proposals.
The subject R-1-5000 property- Demolished single family homes (3).
ACCESS:
The owner of the subject property will need to construct and dedicate an extension of 400
North Street,to provide the required street frontage.
PROJECT DISCRIPTION:
110 The proposed rezoning of the subject property is to facilitate the future development of a
residential single family subdivision.
COMMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
I. COMMENTS
The Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master plan emphasizes the construction of new
housing. The Northwest Community is mostly developed and a majority of the housing
stock consists of single family dwellings. The proposed project complies with the intent
of the master plan and is consistent with the single family predominant land use.
Comments from City departments:
All City departments have reviewed the rezoning request and have no objections to the
proposed zoning amendment. Conceptual subdivision plans have also been circulated to
the City Departments for review. The future subdivision will need to be designed in
conformance with City regulations and requirements and all departmental conditions.
Future subdivision feasibility is good. Staff has made suggestions for modifications to
the concept subdivision design. The subdivision will be considered in the future, under
an administrative hearing or Planning Commission process. Freeway and airport noise
impact will have to be mitigated.
•
Staff Report,Petition#400-03-16 July 9,2003
By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -3-
Community Council Concerns
This item was presented to the Jordan Meadows Community Council on February 19,
2003. Cheri Coffey, Community Planner was present and provided the following
•
information. Overall the council favored approval of the proposal. The community's
concerns were noted to be the preference for future development to be single family
rather than duplexes or multi-family and increasing the projects minimum lot sizes.
Planning Staff wanted to point out that the proposed future subdivision is for single
family lots, that meet the "R-1-5000"zoning district criteria and which is compatible
with surrounding development and planning staff does not think that a jump up to "R-1-
7000" is necessary based upon the existing surrounding zoning and development.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Master Plan Amendment
The requested rezoning will also require consideration of a master plan amendment.
Planning Staff is recommending a master plan amendment for the subject property
because of its current ownership. The subject property was previously owned by the Salt
Lake City School District. The school district decided they did not and would not need
the subject property, so they sold it to the Utah Housing Corporation. Now that the
property is in private ownership and the developer has consolidated several properties to
create the future development of a single family residential subdivision, the City may
consider amending the master plan to facilitate the proposed subdivision. A
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council on the proposed
master plan amendment from parks/open space and public/semi-public to low density
•
residential is necessary.
Zoning Amendment
The Planning Commission must also make a determination on whether or not they will
transmit a recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property as
requested(which will create a zoning map amendment)based on the Analysis and
Findings as stated below:
Analysis and Findings
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,
goals,objectives and policies of the adopted general plat of Salt Lake
City.
Discussion: The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the current
master plan. However planning staff is recommending a master plan
amendment that would make the rezoning and the master plan consistent.
See above section about master plan amendment.
Finding: Rezoning the subject property from Public Lands"PL"to a
single family residential "R-1-5,000"use would be in keeping with
Staff Report,Petition#400-03-16 July 9,2003 •
By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -4-
• surrounding land uses and is compatible with the elementary school, the
LDS Church meeting house, and the State offices in the area.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall
character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property.
Discussion: As shown on the zoning map, the surrounding land use is
residential "R-1-5000". Immediately surrounding the subject property is
zoned predominantly"R-1-5000"with the exception of the school district
property that is zoned Public Lands "PL".
Finding: Rezoning the subject property from Public Lands "PL"to
Residential "R-1-5,000"is supported by the surrounding zoning and land
use and would be harmonious with the overall character of the existing
development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect
adjacent properties.
Discussion: The proposed single family residential subdivision will be a
supporting use for the school and no adverse impact is anticipated from
• the proposed use.
Finding: The rezoning of the subject property would facilitate the future
development of a residential subdivision and would be an upgrade of the
site. There would not be any adverse impact to adjoining properties.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of
any applicable overlay zoning districts,which may impose additional
standards.
Discussion: Airport noise impact area zone"C", extends over the
property up to Redwood Road. Single family residents are permitted,
subject to noise mitigation and granting of an avigation easement.
Finding: An avigation easement will be required as part of the
subdivision consideration. Single family homes are permitted, subject to
noise mitigation and avigation easements.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the
subject property,including but not limited to roadways,parks and
recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools,storm water
drainage systems,water supplies,and waste water and refuse
1111 collection.
Staff Report,Petition#400-03-16 - July 9,2003
By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -5-
Discussion: The use of the subject property as the future development of
a residential subdivision will require the installation of all related public
facilities such as streets, street lighting, fire access and hydrants. The Salt 4111
Lake City School District has determined that the subject property is not
needed for schools.
Finding: The pertinent City Departments and the Salt Lake City School
District, and the Salt Lake City Planning Commission have determined
that the subject property is not needed to provide public facilities other
that what is needed to support the development of a future residential
subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff is recommending master plan amendment from parks/open space
public/semi-public to low density residential and rezoning of the property from Public
Lands"PL"to single family residential "R-1-5,000",with the following conditions;
Conditions of approval:
1. The development of the future residential subdivision's streets will be
designed to City Standards.
2. Public Utilities requires a note on the final subdivision plat noting the lowest
building elevation line.
3. All required easements and streets are dedicated to Salt Lake City.
4. The final subdivision plat and all development on the subject property must be •
in conformance with the geotechnical report and must comply with the
recommendations and development approval requirements of City
Departments.
Jackie O. Gasparik
Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Conceptual plan of the proposed subdivision.
2. Other
S
Staff Report,Petition#400-03-16 July 9,2003
By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -6-
T
elementary school ,
CA"ECT1'4IL PAth 1D M_'4A0l1OOD
56.5 FT 92.2 FT 65.0 FT 76S FT 41$6!FT
- - - i — ice= - - - - - -
1 - - \^ a y 1
6 g!
1 t:x4iw eoxz
m ..e.
• ~ •
11
J 4 \l\ `� / Tee
to I / ievei
N h\ ' —r i.k7.1"" . . '..; : \ .—..--.
W r.;, 't' • / / /7tr------ .—I.1 • 1 \ LI
ci
MI
J1.`
(7k 114
IL �� Iii. 13 I 1L
10
z =Tarr_ , - - - - - - - - -
622 F7 I 62.0 FT 1 82.0 FT 8076FT
kf
ll
I — _ - - — 16 RE. . I�
r.
� 1 Ijl 1 ` 1 1
• • •
I• 8ZZ
'M11:1 'NI1 t7 '03S 0/MN z/IM 11-i7S-8
.00 3>117'l l i v S 0 14,,, s
f S: -1 Ewa 8 `O.1xa : bst Y�„i
2 6.., s �.c ' I�OIpe14". 4,' S.
C•/yp/ r.lo�vl-•`d
-_ 6£/ E�
�1 a If el aBf/k° rcro• A. z• - "v 99nr 1
GLid 8 °
a
oio• 400••6 4;..o• 4v i -t „ . in
58z/9�t/t S cn eoC'ELO 6 Fg ifl
rt'• uv' , ozo- ,a ,1
co, --..a.-; }:2a t�0 3. I E
a G/o• Ate• g Gr' �,./eb•/
O£/ p// • po• 6po• Dj
r `8Evl 7fi• a ° w b Lo/ ---- $ ,;
4 GOO• /Oo- .. L g�a 6W CA a` '� ,uc- F00- u 'I ,0�S �np
, „,. �- ° y$y 4` O4Qv, Pp/ "bad.'o n A G
J!i s H 004 p
is an 'El 004 "w, y - oc w+c �e}o-- 1•,,.��.,z WV RI
.I, .I ! 0 b ua oc ac8•.°.rf " c.. LZEI wwfvsm .,aa,• •1 I
a'I' °6eo• a '%u Feo Ov°0v.'Ok.s/o•a �' ,,,,i 6�. I ilj
1 v O6/ �9/41Q O e.!pP/ Y� n�,v 3 ao• J� z
°CC dp-Q Ya,,Coo- 'Yq/o-o"Da 4'2, 0 t'00• 0• 4y0 }
, csj 09/k rt ° bL/048/AM Got:, cr ! Q'
I I., a
/Co• 600•° 410• g
{ y 5 /9/ '/ca• b o ,> ,to C
�� ' 6"a
a ° BG/ 5Pi° pot
os e,s
1 b/o• LOo -;/b/D- LLO• oat
csO/' �t/ LPi ooL.
I O i;
g/ BPr a
. L/o• Soo. , Lvf/ 668r' R"66/
• 05/ 5o/ - t
ova• qoo-„ , o/o- .. - • •LOo- ,,
b.;/ 6� FL/ pbr Gb/.
_q/0-1' C00- = 04,- Coo-0, Coo-
I '; L4r P9r a /L/ nor Q,/
�- - tt
c.v og .w.v .v.v . a.� /N �� I
I
01f C yg N ODS Q #yT"I N W
NI
i; a u
„0„ 33S ----- ' 6Co• #
LPt ,' c �1\
a lid oalloo { eso- D-
1s3ao OOO .'-.: ,gPb,1 ��p pp {{{A��a r.'--
s , I ` ' `L��: • tfa- o-% a&•-• la "' ",U+ .e\ .4V gl1 1.
z
78:: ' 'b' �ra4.1e, b/d 1d380d/ d/S t.4 a •sr•rs•oD3 Ir - i 6Fit Sco o< . Bb, cl•ranno,nvz,_vac,
4.
CHd OFo• &•q• 4.00 ' /G0 ot40 y /6'rf P4, 0�+�Y, f`. OON00• ,r. SAS 9£0 ` sv .� ore. \ No- 2
1S3a0 G --� S/' LGo- a 'sLtb Go-� 7 t8d C/o•6Ly Z • t
000M £'Hd 'id p0 • •
4Fo- I LF}' b/4 t 1 '0/s I
' • FFo.i jeep: 'CI,' 8/0 .. £Pb u
". 9Fq' r'n z/o•LSy wa a•ev/a a arr wales-m+r xnarr
„9„ 33S .I-- „fCo• p/p. ~ FfO• LO 1O C'Hd '00N00 1S32C 000m
�8Z'$" a LFn• co- ° qLC UO e Y•*BC aa4,14 •r/a6�ry LP..
'� L. NN _ -OOf•a6•i�
I 'Hd '00ND0 ,
1S30 000M /Fe- o. au�- bao� „Lzo• "a t n+v0i F
/8r. vo e "'CO. ,� (71 �" t8t�"pL08
/00- : (CC 09£p 4 , 0ia-460'
0. 1 soo.g. ' I
,' --) �s n o09 94.'��0 �89 °�C� w ,.664 Ill, 4 a
� oLr °f �`
♦ I •
a ?vow
'pw �w ' pw $W: O1D�F 64E LLO 4i6 LPY /�,.f.
r. Cot %tn k 6� oao b o• 6v- e � t - b 9
i ♦ v Od�w • be- Coo- PLC PA" 66+0loAr,,404 % LooL6bK O arsie'Cvi»x,svte�aKlzrR
a Wqq Qt ram,MC ,W /L E BLE' C L'Hd '00N00 153d0 DOOM
" W 'd�a %�p 6�m it SG? S Ir b ' n0„
" A y v`J a o/o- fie • 'b64 trF� 1, 9iCq 9}0 •van H001...
I•K•� ..
,. �.. va:s ocE Lc£' r.
-
Q • on
s ., AC ,(3b'_423/'8/S bo ap). ;Lore,ea"DF i p80,h,LFf X,s 6'L , L
69£ oL£' //0"1 I.
f ee•a. .. .. vax -srs a
-
4OI" .p O'U �fl At moo- 0,.. "ifes FooO" �b0 �OLe' Ce�b9d 3• r .$
v p� t„ m n vi m ' 80; 6LF° oiq a
O c,o- -1
b _
t O w ��I W W uLao- /oo• �1 • L£0 bP0° �y �tbC �69C` •Iro?b A a v
pw U p� o a g �� G9£ yc£� a," �ra�sa�sRr4a��e�a�mr
4 y. a 6 ' ,Q 0'0. .rtv Of I 'Hd 'OON09 LS3lq 0002,
4 W O' /op• I/o•
Aj S3WDY t1IS £F4 Bpyy + fbC /D�90+ '/9449.9 „8
t i , s.1 00,1 "'- A'1 09 Asa H 1a1d sMoOraw N01a0w
T-111421C— 1 r---r- —I
^" it-LZ-9
k V,,_
lir
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
Message Page 1 of 1
Gasparik, Jackie
• From: Larson, Bradley
Sent: Wednesday,June 25, 2003 12:02 PM
To: Gasparik,Jackie
Subject: RE: Jordan Meadows Subdivision
Jackie,
This looks good except that the Code only requires 20 feet of clear width on access roads as a general rule,not
24 feet. The 36 foot roadway surface would allow 8 foot parking on each side and still give the 20 foot clear width
for access. Please feel free to contact me should any questions arise.
Thank you.
Brad
•
•
6/25/2003
S'.�, ' t` Icif( PO I;JN1
TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. m ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON
TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION •
June 11,2003
Jackie Gasparik
Planning Division
451 South State St,Rm 406
Salt Lake City,Utah 84111
Re:Petition 400-03-16 at 400 North 1930 West area for zoning amendment from Public lands to Residential R-I-
5000.
Dear Jackie:
The Division of Transportation review comments for the zoning amendment are as follows:
In response to the petition to amend the zoning from public lands to residential R-1-5000 we recommend
approval to change the area to a residential use generator as compatible and in keeping with the existing residential
local roadway system.
Curb&gutter exist along the existing frontage of 400 North,but sidewalk and updated street lighting does
not and is required as part of the subdivision development.
The 41 foot right of way shown on the proposed subdivision does not comply to City roadway design
standards.
We require that the new development proposal comply to current city standards for road width and public •
way improvement's.We recommend a 36'roadway on 56'foot ROW for a local residential classification to provide
for vehicular circulation and on street parking.Where sidewalk is proposed to be located at the back of curb a
minimum of a 5'walk and added I'buffer to the ROW line is required.In keeping with the area street scape a
minimum 4'park strip is recommended.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
ofini
\DL-)(112
Barry D.Walsh'
Transportation Engineer Assoc.
cc: Kevin Young,P.E.
Scott Weiler,P.E.
Gordon Haight,P.E.
Brad Larson,Fire
Craig Smith,Engineering
File
•
349 SOUTH 200 EAST,SUITE 450,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE:B01-535-6630 FAX:B01-535-6019
fr. Rce.t,Eo PAPER
_ . ____ _____
(ii Q of the Division of Transportation 1 'a
,....
y ry POLICY
Lake City Public Works Dept Section 1
5 n..l:
ice'.
,�mArt�;..' �Timothy „ps PE-�>;,�„e� Harz
• Typical Street & R/W Cross Sections page 1of1
St aria ards
50' R/W< }
<10'r< --- 30' >-<10'r
'--\I 1:.I,$ 1 I r 1 M I Single Family Cul-De-Sac
< 56' R/W
<1 o'ri< 36' >< 10'r Local Residential
.-\I ,I'>11 I iI."1•I Multi-Family Cul-De-Sac
<8'). 40' ><8'
10' 10' 10' 10'
r�I 11 pking I ,i. I ,t, I pking 1'.l Industrial Cul-De-Sac
r-
< 66' R/W r
<-11'->< 44' >411'>
10' I 12' I 12' 11 o Multi-Family Local
r')1;.,15.I pking yeA, pking I =1 w,1 Residential Collector
• 1 1 `� I
s> It
•ii 1 W6' I �r<1 2'' I 16' 11 II' Commercial/Industrial Local
s' 48' s•
t 2' 12' ' 12' I Commercial/Industrial/Bus Collector
m1-, pking ( W I 1'1•2 I Pking I.5..1„':
l<
84' R/W
<10• 64' 10'> Minor Arterial
14' I 1�2 I y2 I 1t2 I 14' (No Parking Version)
t o' it' 11' t 1 1 1' 1 o Minor Arterial
,z 1 _ pking I * I �. I 4, I ,I, I pking-s..I� (Parking Version)
< 110' R/W >
F t t' >c 88' 1 t•> Major Arterial
14• 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 14' (Continuous Left
1=.1 pking or*I `i' I * I v' I 9. I 4 I.1,or pking 1I I Turn Version)
1 a' 12' 12' 16• 1 2' 12' 14' Major Arterial
s < 92' ` s•
'>1 :. pking orb I I * I median I . I . 14.or pking _.1.'- (Raised Median Version)
fazr —
Date Revisions
8/12/91 changed layout/assigned I
LEROY W. HOOTON,JR. S T r a� ITy CO:•,l•r TO D e `10Nk
��®'��"� ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERS°,
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR
�'J
WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS •
June 17, 2003 WATER RECLAMATION AND STDRMWATER
Jackie Gasparik
Salt Lake City Planning
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
RE: Preliminary Plat Review— Petition#400-03-16
Jordan Meadows Subdivision, Appx. 400 North 1930 West
Dear Jackie,
Salt Lake City Public Utilities has reviewed the preliminary plat for this
subdivision. The following outlines Public Utilities' requirements that must be met in
order to receive. approval for this project from our Department:
General Requirements:
All design and construction must conform to State, County, City and Public
Utilities standards and ordinances. Design and construction must conform to Salt Lake
City Public Utilities General Notes.
A Water and Sewer Utility Plan must be submitted for this development. The
plan must show all proposed pipe routings, sizes, types, boxes, meters, detector checks,
fire lines and hydrant locations. All meter, hydrants and catch basin must be located
outside of drive approaches. Individual culinary water and sanitary services are required
to each lot. Our records indicate two existing meter connections within this subdivision. •
One or both of the services may need to be relocated with the service taps disconnected
at the main. Any existing sewer laterals must be capped at property line. All water,
sewer and drainage mains must be shown in plan and profile. All gravity pipes must be
designed and constructed to meet minimum allowable grades. Any potential conflicting
private or public utility must be designed to meet minimum State and City separation
standards. A minimum 1.5-foot vertical separation must be provided for between water
and sewer crossings. All other utilities should have a minimum 1.5-foot separation with
a larger separation required between larger structures and pipes. Minimum Public
Utilities'pipe zone standards must be met. The engineer or contractor must obtain
approval from Public Utilities for dewatering or dust control activities required during
construction. All water and sewer mains must be a minimum of 8-inch diameter and
located within public road section as determined by Public Utilities.
A Grading and Drainage Plan must be submitted for review and approval for this
development. This development will be restricted to a maximum storm water discharge
rate of 0.2 cfs per acre. Detention must be provided as needed to meet this flow
requirement. Calculations must be approved by Public Utilities showing these conditions
have been met. Public Utilities will not be responsible maintaining landscaping
improvements within a detention area, only the function of an approved detention facility.
A pipe connection from this subdivision to the City Drain ditch west of this subdivision
will be allowed. Proposed ditch sections or detention facilities must have 3:1 or flatter
side slopes with minimum two-foot bottom. Concrete roll gutters are recommended at
the bottom of new ditch facilities. Bubble-up inlets or sumps used as control structures
in detention areas will be discouraged. Temporary and permanent erosion control within
detention areas or ditches must be detailed. The developer must comply with UPDES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 15
TELEPHONE:801-483-6900 FAX: BO1-483-6818
-h w[c+ct[o PAnS
• Construction Storm Water Permits. At a minimum, silt fence must be provided along
open drainage ways, hay bales must protect any existing grates or inlets and the City's
clean-wheel ordinance must be followed. A copy the proposed Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan required for the UPDES permit must be submitted to Public Utilities for
review and approval.
If habitable floors are proposed below the top of bank of the City Drain ditch running
along the west boundary of this subdivision, then a stamped geotechnical report must be
submitted to Public Utilities identifying the highest expected groundwater elevation for
this area, assuming the ditch full to the top of bank. This evaluation must include
groundwater conditions based upon historical well records near the area, if available. All
habitable finished floor elevations must be at or above the highest expected groundwater
elevation or the top of bank of the City Drain ditch.
A 20-foot minimum drivable access along the east side of the City Drain ditch
facility must be provided. Additionally a gated drivable access from the end of 400 North
to the City Drain ditch must be provided_ Easements as needed to accommodate these
maintenance roads must be provided and coordinated through Public Utilities' Property
Coordinator Karryn Greenleaf(483-6769).
The existing well within this property may in no manner be connected to the City's
water system. This includes any cross connections to City fed irrigation systems. It is
desired that the well be capped meeting State requirements.
All environmental and wetland issues must be approved by the appropriate
governing agency prior to Public Utilities approval. The developer must provide written
documentation to Public Utilities showing these conditions have been met.
Fire Department approval will be required prior to Public Utilities approval. Fire
flow requirements, hydrant spacing and access issues will need to be resolved with the
• fire department.
All existing and new easements must be clearly shown and described on the plat
prior to final plat recordation. If a sewer lateral or water service crosses through an
adjacent property, an easement for that utility must be provided. If power lines, gas
lines, communication conduits, etc. exist within this the property, any relocation of these
utilities and related easements must be approved by Public Utilities. No buildings,
structures, trees, islands, etc. may be constructed within easements dedicated to Salt
Lake City Public Utilities.
Agreements and Fees:
Mainline extension and service connection agreements must be entered into
between the developer and Public Utilities for all water, sewer and storm drain mains
and services. The agreement will outline developer and Public Utilities' responsibilities
related to construction, maintenance and warranty of these mains and services. Based
on an approved engineer's estimate, work for all the above-mentioned improvements
must be bonded by the property owner. All agreements must be executed and bonds
received by Public Utilities prior to full construction plan set approval and plat sign-off
from our department. Prior to full plan set approval and plat recordation all utility fees
must be paid in full. A$343 per quarter acre drainage impact fee will be assessed on
the platted area for this development.
•
Public Utilities will approve this project if all the above-mentioned issues are
addressed. if you should need further assistance with this matter, please contact Jeff
Snelling at 483-6889. •
Sincerely,
411 t/U' /
LeRoy W. ooton, Jr.
Director
Cc:file
LWH/jn/pg
•
• SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, July 9, 2003, 5:45 pm
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, Robert
"Bip" Daniels, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy
Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planners Doug Dansie, Jackie
Gasparik, and Joel Paterson and Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro.
A roll is being kept,of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Jonas
called the meeting-to order at 5:52 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not
necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting
will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be
•
erased.
Approval of the Minutes from Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Chair Jonas requested the following changes to the minutes:
• Page 1, the third paragraph, the fourth sentence shall be corrected to read, "Chair
Jonas was strongly opposed to that idea."
Page 15, the second line in the second paragraph from the bottom regarding the
neighborhood shall be changed to read, "Neighborhood where there are mature trees."
Page 26, the third paragraph, the second line shall be corrected to read, "but said there
were some communities that disallow sponsorship."
Commissioner Scott requested the following changes to the minutes:
Page 26, the second paragraph from the bottom, the second sentence from the bottom
shall be changed to read, "Chair Jonas asked for confirmation that for the rest of the
City the program would be administered by the City Transportation Division."
Page 14, second paragraph, second to the last line, shall be changed to read "willing to
reduce the size of the flag."
Commissioner Scott moved to approve the minutes for June 25, 2003, as corrected.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless,
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted "Aye".
Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Noda abstained. Chair Jonas, as Chair,
• did not vote. The motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 July 9,2003
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was discussed at 5:55 p.m. Mr. Zunguze informed the Commission that two
•
new Planning Commissioners were confirmed at the City Council meeting the previous
evening, Tuesday July 8th. He went on to say that he will be meeting with them and
they should be ready to attend the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
August 13th
Mr. Zunguze reported to the Commission that the Land Use Appeals Board took the
matter up of the Highland Park Dental Plaza and remanded it back to the Planning
Commission with instructions to reopen the hearing from the beginning of the process
based upon errors made by the Planning Commission, including: Improper reopening
of the hearing, process problems with the testimony during the hearing, and improper
application of the standard. He informed the Commission that this item will be
scheduled for the Commission to rehear it.
Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission if they wanted to schedule a time for the dedicated
meeting to discuss Long Range Planning Issues tonight or wait until the full compliment
of the board. Chair Jonas said he would rather schedule a meeting time now due to
ever changing schedules and availability. Commissioner Daniels asked the
Commission to consider a time at or past the end of the general work day preferably
from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. or if not that late then 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Seelig
agreed and suggested 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Commissioner Scott mentioned that for the sake of the general public, after work hours •
would probably be most beneficial.
Commissioner McDonough asked what the expected frequency of the Long Range
Planning Issues meetings would be. Chair Jonas replied no more than one a month.
Mr. Zunguze added that due to a backlog of things, he envisions the frequency will be
one meeting a month for a while.
Chair Jonas asked the Commission if they would like to have a Long Range Planning
meeting on Thursday, August 21st from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. The Commission agreed.
LONGRANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Long Range Planning Issues were discussed during the Report of the Director.
Chair Jonas welcomed Kathy Castro as the Planning Commission Transcriptionist.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-16, by PSC Development, representing Utah Housing
Corporation, is requesting a master plan and zoning map amendment, for 1.58
acres of property located at approximately 400 North and 1974 West. The request
•
Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 July 9,2003
is to change the existing Public Lands "PL" zone to a residential "R-1-5000" zone,
4111 to facilitate the future development of a residential subdivision.
This hearing began at 6:02 p.m.
Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the petition as written in the staff report. She
referred to an aerial photo of the subject property and the proposed area for the rezone.
She mentioned a condition that Commissioner Daniels brought up on the field trip,
requesting an added buffer anywhere from 30-50 feet from the proposed development
to the freeway.
Mr. Jeremy Jensen, from PSC Development, representing Utah Housing Corporation
spoke to the Commission regarding their intentions for this property. He explained that
they promote affordable housing for people in this area. Mr. Jensen described that
Crown Homes allows people of lower income to have the opportunity to rent to own
without a down payment plan. Utah Housing Corporation is offering school students an
educational/work opportunity where they can take part in building the homes where they
will be fully supervised by licensed contractors. He noted that they met with the local
Community Council and they were given a positive recommendation.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Jensen if he was concerned about an added landscape buffer.
Mr. Jensen replied that they are happy to comply with a landscape buffer concept and
they would explore that on a more detailed basis when they get into the site planning
• stage.
Chair Jonas asked what past practice had been done with respect to buffering for
subdivisions bordering the freeway; specifically, to the subdivision in the north vicinity of
the proposed project. Ms. Gasparik replied that a specific subdivision by Ivory Homes is
50 feet to the boundary of the subdivision with an added rear yard setback.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that most of the land in the Ivory Homes subdivision was
reconfigured through land trades with the school district. The park and the new
elementary school were built abutting the freeway, rather than the single family homes
to help buffer the noise. Mr. Wheelwright added that he was not aware of UDOT plans
for a noise barrier wall on this portion of the freeway and maybe that is an option the
applicant might explore with UDOT as part of the subdivision analysis.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Jensen to speak to the issue of noise mitigation. Mr.
Jensen replied saying that they have had noise studies done in previous projects and in
most cases, adding triple pane windows as well as additional insulation to the walls
abutting the high noise area has proven sufficient to the noise analysis. He also said
that berming or dense landscaping will help deflect sound. Commissioner Daniels
asked if the applicant had a problem with an additional condition for noise mitigation at
the request of the Planning Director. Mr. Jensen said they would be happy to comply
with the general concept that has been described.
•
Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 July 9,2003
Mr. Jensen presented several conceptual plans showing the evolution of the
subdivision. There was discussion regarding the subdivision and that the actual plan
will be presented at a later date.
•
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
No public comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas inquired if the proposed rezone is consistent with that of the adjoining
parcel. He made reference to discussions during the field trip relating to the possibility
of moving the east property line depending on how much land the adjoining property
requires. Ms. Gasparik replied that at this point, the applicant would like to continue
through the process with the property that theycurrently own. If the applicant decided to
purchase the adjoining parcel, they would most likely have to come back with another
rezone application unless the Planning Commission would be willing to allow wiggle
room with the eastern property line.
Mr. Zunguze clarified that the petition before the Planning Commission at this time is the
request to rezone property only and that the subdivision process should take its full
course at a later time.
Commissioner McDonough asked what the suggested amount or range of linear feet
going east would be recommended in thinking that the applicant may gain a portion of
the adjoining property. Ms. Gasparik reiterated that she did not anticipate that •
happening. When she spoke to Mr. Jensen, he thought less than 10 feet would be
sufficient, but he is proceeding with the property that they currently own.
Ms Gasparik added that because this project receives federal funding, they are under
strict guidelines for noise mitigation. They will need to meet federal standards as well
as city standards.
Chair Jonas indicated that the adjoining property was not included in this petition and
would not be dealt with at this time.
Motion for Petition 400-03-16
Commissioner Daniels moved to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City
Council for the master plan amendment for Parks/Open Space, Public/Semi Public to
Low Density Residential; and the rezoning of the property from Public Lands to Single
Family Residential R-1/5000 with the conditions 1-4 as listed in the staff report, and
adding the words"including the Planning Director" to the end of condition #4. As well as
adding an additional condition #5 for appropriate buffering including tri-pane windows
and possible berming and landscaping to mitigate noise.
•
Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 July 9,2003
Mr. Zunguze mentioned that he is currently a part of the approval process for the
subdivision plat approval, and as such, there was no need to specifically call out the
Planning Director's involvement in the motion. Commissioner Daniels withdrew his
recommendation for#4.
Commissioner Noda seconded the Motion.
Chair Jonas was concerned with adding language about a buffer to a rezone application
and felt it would be more appropriate when the subdivision is dealt with. Commissioner
McDonough concurred. Commissioner Daniels withdrew his recommendation #5.
Commissioner Noda accepted the amendment.
Amended Motion for Petition 400-03-16
Based upon the analysis and findings of fact and conditions as listed in the staff report,
Bip Daniels moved to pass on a favorable recommendation to City Council to approve
the Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment, to change the existing Public Lands "PL"
zone to a residential R-1/5000 zone, to facilitate the future development of a residential
subdivision.
Analysis and Findings:
• A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and policies of the adopted general plat of Salt Lake City.
Discussion: The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the current master plan.
However planning staff is recommending a master plan amendment that would
make the rezoning and the master plan consistent. See above section about master
plan amendment.
Finding: Rezoning the subject property from Public Lands "PL" to a single-family
residential R-1/5000 use would be in keeping with surrounding land uses and is
compatible with the elementary school, the LDS Church meeting house, and the
State offices in the area.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of
existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Discussion: As shown on the zoning map, the surrounding land use is residential
R-1/5000. Immediately surrounding the subject property is zoned predominantly
R-1/5000 with the exception of the school district property that is zoned Public Lands
"PL".
Finding: Rezoning the subject property from Public Lands "PL" to Residential
R-1/5,000 is supported by the surrounding zoning and land use, and would be
Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 July 9, 2003
harmonious with the overall character of the existing development in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent •
properties.
Discussion: The proposed single-family residential subdivision will be a supporting
use for the school, and no adverse impact is anticipated from the proposed use.
Finding: The rezoning of the subject property would facilitate the future
development of a residential subdivision and would be an upgrade of the site. There
would not be any adverse impact to adjoining properties.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards.
Discussion: Airport noise impact area zone "C" extends over the property up to
Redwood Road. Single-family residents are permitted subject to noise mitigation
and granting of an avigation easement.
Finding: An avigation easement will be required as part of the subdivision
consideration. Single-family homes are permitted subject to noise mitigation and
avigation easements.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject •
property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,
water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Discussion: The use of the subject property as the future development of a
residential subdivision will require the installation of all related public facilities such
as streets, street lighting, fire access and hydrants. The Salt Lake City School
District has determined that the subject property is not needed for schools.
Finding: The pertinent City Departments and the Salt Lake City School District, and
the Salt Lake City Planning Commission have determined that the subject property
is not needed to provide public facilities other than what is needed to support the
development of a future residential subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff is recommending master plan amendment
from parks/open space public/semi-public to low density residential and rezoning of the
property from Public Lands "PL" to single-family residential R-1/5000 with the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval
•
Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 July 9,2003
• 1. The development of the future residential subdivision streets will be designed to city
standards.
2. Public Utilities requires a note on the final subdivision plat indicating the lowest
building elevation line.
3. All required easements and streets are dedicated to Salt Lake City.
4. The final subdivision plat and all development on the subject property must be in
conformance with the geotechnical report and must comply with the
recommendations and development approval requirements of City Departments.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner McDonough,
Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted "Aye." Jeff
Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No. 410-642, a request by Post Office Properties, for conditional use
approval of a commercial surface parking lot at 43 and 45 West 300 South, in a
Downtown D-1 zoning district.
This hearing began at 6:32 p.m.
Pla er Doug Dansie briefly discussed the highlights for the proposed 'onditional use.
He ex. ained that the existing site accommodates two buildings tha ouse two
business ; an antique store and Ya'buts pool hall. He discusses the historic nature of
• the two struc . es and concluded that although both buildings :re eligible for historical
designation, the • ner has decided not to list the structure •n the historic register. As
outlined in the staff r- sort, the applicant is proposing to 9 -molish the two buildings and
expand the existing surf. .a parking lot (which is adja nt to the Ya'buts building).
Because this parcel is locat- s mid-block, the zonin. does not require a 70 to 75-foot
landscaped setback. Mr. Dans : referred to a m. • showing the layout of what the
combined parking lot would look Ii . The app ' ant intends to put in bermed
landscaping, which would require abo• five -et along 300 South. This would eliminate
the current situation where cars are park- , immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. Mr.
Dansie explained that technically ingre . a o egress are required for each separate lot;
therefore, the Salt Lake City Transpo'ation Di ' ion has asked for cross-easements.
Staff recommends the approval of e parking lot ith the following recommendations:
The Commission require cross-easements or the to 'nes to be eliminated to deal with
drainage and access across to ines; and the recomm- Idation to have the Planning
Director's final approval of th- landscaping.
Commissioner Chambles- asked if there are indications as to •w long the existing
parking lot has been the e. Mr. Dansie replied that the historic re.ords survey from
1979 only contain infor ation for the two structures on the lot, whic leads him to
believe the existing p:rking tot was there at the time the survey was t. en.
Commissioner Cha► bless asked what the envisioned length of time the • oposed
parking lot may re, ain. Mr. Dansie answered by saying the applicant has 'dicated that
• they intend to u the parking lot for the newly renovated Zephyr building an• ere is
the possibility J .t it could be there a long time. Commissioner Chambless felt ,at
Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 July 9,2003
WORK SESSION ITEM#A-5
S Jackie, 11-18-03
Regarding Pet. #400-03-16, PSC Development's request to rezone property at
400 North 1974 West, Council Member Carlton Christensen mentioned that several
residents have approached him recently to voice the following concerns:
In the developments surrounding this area, the lots are small and the streets are
small, causing congestion and creating a situation where there is a solid mass of cars
parked on the streets.
During tonight's Work Session, would you please be prepared to respond to the
following questions?
1) How are these concerns and issues addressed in the subdivision?
2) What was the Planning Commission's response to the Community Council's
preference/request for larger lots and larger streets?
3) How many lots would the developer lose with R-1 7000 versus R-1 5000?
4) Please be prepared to discuss road widths.
5) If the Boys & Girls Club sells their property, what type of housing would be
appropriate for this lot space/size?
6) From a community standpoint, what is the best practical use of the Boys and Girls
Club property?
Thanks. Sylvia
cc: Council Members
Louis
Brent
Doug
Janice
•