Loading...
10/11/1990 - Minutes PROCEINGS "THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT IKE CITY, UTAH REGULAR SESSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Thursday, October 11, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Wayne Horrocks Nancy Pace Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Don Hale Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and S. R. Kivett, Chief Deputy Recorder were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES adopt Ordinance 86 of 1990 per- taining to the Northwest Estates, #1. The Council led the which motion carried, all members Pledge of Allegiance. voted aye. PUBLIC HEARINGS Councilmember Pace moved and Councilmember Hale seconded, to #1. RE: Receive comment and adopt Ordinance 87 of 1990 per- consider adopting an ordinance taining to the Northcove area, rezoning the property located at which motion carried, all members approximately 1100 East Capitol voted aye. Boulevard, approximately 10 Dorchester, and west of Ensign DISCUSSION: Councilmember Peak at approximately 1000 North Godfrey said the item he read was Street from "R-1" to an "R-1A" what the Council would be taking classification. action on. He said the Council (P 90-317 and P 90-318) would deal with the rezoning and had the authority to ask the Mayor ACTION: Councilmember to hold a public hearing if there Whitehead moved and Councilmember was a real property issue. He Kirk seconded to close the public said both hearings would be heard hearing, which motion carried, all at the same time and as people members voted aye. spoke they could address either or both issues at the same time. Councilmember Pace moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to Bill Wright, City Planning adopt Ordnance 85 of 1990 pertain- Director, said the rezoning pro- ing to Dorchester with instruc- cess for this area began in about tions to the City Attorneys Office January of 1990, when a proposal to revise the effective date from was submitted to the Planning May 1 1992 to November 1, 2003, Commission by Ensign Downs Incor- which motion carried, all members porated. He said they wanted to voted aye. pursue an amendment or a new master plan for the Ensign Downs Councilmember Pace moved and area. He said a master plan was Councilmember Kirk seconded to originally prepared in 1953 and 90-324 PROCE INGS OF CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LA CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 the plan outlined all future garbage collection. The master developments within the area. He plan proposes that a gate be said in 1980 a new master plan was installed and that there would be submitted to the Planning Commis- restricted access to the area sion and was subsequently ap- because it would be a planned unit proved. Mr. Wright said the area development under private owner- was privately owned and had devel- ship with private streets. He opment rights in the area. He said the Planning Commission had said in January, 1980, a proposal specifically reserved the right was submitted to the City and was to further deliberate on the type reviewed by the planning staff, of access permitted to the North and other city departments that Cove area. The type of access were involved. would focus on pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access. Vehicle Mr. Wright said a task force access was an acceptable item with was put together to review the the planning commission but the master plan and other issues commission still wanted to reserve relating to development in this the right to deliberate on pedes- area. He said the important trian access issue. points of the 1990 plan was that it guides ( 1 ) the development of Mr. Wright said the second the areas which were presently planned area is known as the vacant and privately owned, (2) Dorchester PUD. The proposal for the development of a public park this area is for 14 lots. He said in the area, (3 ) the development similar provisions for this area of an open space area which was exist as in the North Cove area. part of the land trade proposal (4) the proposal for foothill Mr. Wright said the third trail access and trail heads in planned area is known as the the Ensign Downs area. He said Northwest Estate PUD. It is the plan also guides the land use planned for 13 very large lots. development patterns; which land He said similar provisions for uses would be proposed for the this area exist similar to the subdivision of land into lots with North Cove area, with the addi- public streets, and planned unit tional provisions for pedestrian developments. and bicycle access onto a trail system and some limited vehicle Mr. Wright said there were access. three areas which were planned unit development (PUD) areas. The Mr. Wright said the 1990 first was known as the North Cove master plan also provides for a area and was located at the upper total of 83 new single family lots end of East Capital Boulevard. approximately 1/2 acre in size. He said there was current develop- He said the new master plan pro- ment in the area. The plan pro- posed 155 new lots, compared to vided for approximately 44 new the 1980 plan which approved 250 lots, each lot would be 2 to 2 1/2 lots. He said the new plan re- acres on private streets. He said duced the number of proposed lots the new owners had to provide by about 100. He said the plan- public services except police and ning staff and Planning Commission fire. These private services felt this is a significant benefit would consist of plowing roads, to Salt Lake City for developing maintenance to the water and sewer in this sensitive area. He said lines and private trash and gar- the entire area is overlaid with 90-325 PROCIPINGS •THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT tKE CIO UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 the F-1 overlay zone and is a very Mr. Wright said the planning sensitive area for development. commission requested several He said the Planning Commission conditions for approval in their felt that the new plan was benefi- recommendation. These conditions cial to both the public and the are contained in the ordinances environmental issues of this area which are before the Council for of town. consideration. The major condi- tion the ordinances require is Mr. Wright said the original that the rezoning will not take master plan provided land be set effect until the PUD plat is aside for a park. He said that approved by the Planning Com- the only development of the park mission and Planning Director. were tennis courts, which had not been maintained, and that the Mr. Wright said the North proposed master plan would result Cove area had some additional in a six acre public park consist- conditions in addition to the plat ing of an upgraded grassy park. requirements. He said part of the He said about half of the proposed conditions included the exchange site was developed by the LDS of deeds between Salt Lake City Church as a ward house location. and Ensign Downs which is proposed It was developed under an arrange- in the land trade. ment with the Salt Lake City School Board who owned the proper- Mr. Wright said the Northcove ty at the time. The School Board area will be developed in a series declared the property no longer of phases primarily because of its necessary and sold that property size. He said there would be a to Ensign Downs. This piece of preliminary approval for the property will be part of the entire area and that when the proposed land trade to the City. first plat or phase was approved this would trigger the rezoning Mr. Wright said the 1990 for the entire area. Master Plan proposed a nature park in the area. He said the plan Mr. Wright also said another primarily focused on Ensign Peak condition for the Northcove area and the City presently owns about was the time element of one and nine acres on the top of Ensign one half years to develop and have Peak. the area platted and recorded. He said this time period equated Mr. Wright defined the R-1, to about May 1, 1992. He said R-1A, and P-1 zoning which are the this time had an extension clause three zoning designations being of 1 year if granted by the Mayor. considered for the proposed rezoning. Mr. Wright said the other two planned unit developments, Mr. Wright said the rezoning Dorchester and Northwest Estates, was necessary to implement the had similar recommendations. master plan. He said the planned unit development requested by Councilmember Pace said she Ensign Downs in the North Cove, thought there was an error in the Northwest, and Dorchester areas Dorchester area, she said the could not be developed without condition date of May 1, 1992 those areas being rezoned. should read November 1, 2003. 90-326 IIP PROCEINGS "THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT IKE CI UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 Mr. Wright said the date Commission recommended the City would have to be corrected. He stay with the 40 percent slope said the conditions must be met by which is currently in the City's November 1, 2003. He also said ordinances. He said the Planning there are provisions for two Commission made recommendations additional two year extensions for some changes to the site which must be certified by the development ordinances, whereby a Mayor. He said the longer period building will have a greater set was suggested because of the back if the building is on a 40 different rate of absorption of percent slope line. He said the the lots in this area due to setback will take in consideration location. the slope line as well as the property line. He said the scar- Mr. Wright said this was a ing issue is complicated. He said long term master plan and that within the city' s site development completion of the plans will not ordinance there are allowances for take place right away. He said it a vertical cut of 15 feet and is important that the elements of fill. He said there are re-vege- the master plan be set in place tation requirements on the cuts now. He said the full development and fills. He said most of the of this master plan is between scaring which exists on the hill- thirteen and twenty years into the sides was done prior to the adop- future. tion of the site development ordinance. He said he felt there Mr. Wright said the Planning were requirements in existence to Commission found the rezoning an keep the scaring to a minimum. appropriate action and recommended the Council approve the rezoning. Councilmember Horrocks asked about the requirement for re- Councilmember Hardman asked vegetation and if the ordinances Mr. Wright if the Council was to were enforceable. take any action on the master plan. Mr. Wright said the plan provides for lots to be placed on Mr. Wright said the Council the uphill and downhill side of was not required to take action on all streets. He said this would the master plan. He said it was a take care of the re-vegetation subdivision development master requirement and the scaring issue. plan not a public policy master He said it appears that all work plan. He said the Capitol Hill planned can be done within the Master plan had been previously parameters of the existing ordi- adopted by the Council. nances. He said the Planning Commission was concerned about Councilmember Horrocks asked the scaring of the hillsides and Mr. Wright how the developers were that it may be seen from the going to mitigate the hill side valley floor. He said the Plan- scaring and how the 30 and 40 ning Commission was looking at percent slope issue would be changing the ordinances to allow handled. the planning staff to address the placement of homes on the hill- Mr. Wright said the planning side with more detail than exists commission had made its recommen- in the present ordinances. dation on the 30/40 percent slope issue. He said the Planning 90-327 PROCEINGS O"THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT IKE CIO UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 Councilmember Horrocks asked designated as a grassy park. Mr. Wright about the preservation Another area will house a five zone, and whether the P-1 Zone million gallon water tank to allowed for only one single family provide water for the development dwelling unit per 16 acres. and other parts of the city. He said the developer will pay for Mr. Wright said that in the and use 7% of the water. The P-1 Zone that was correct. He remaining 97% will be utilized by said the P-1 Zone was established other residences of Salt Lake in 1976 after a moratorium was put City. He said there were other in place. He said the P-1 Zone areas which are called administra- was originally created as an tive adjustments which provide for ordinance. He said the P-1 Zone the park to totally front on the had only one unit developed in it. abutting street and to provide for He said the properties which are the trails to stay in public in this proposal consists of ownership. He said the Planning fourteen acres. He said the Commission has reserved the right property was in the P-1 because of to do further study on the area city ownership not because the known as Little Ensign if needed. land is developable. He said that He said the Planning Commission although this 14 acres would be approval of the master plan ex- removed from the P-1 overlay zone, cluded this area. through the land trade the City will be adding 66 acres to the P-1 Mr. Wright outlined how the Zone. values of the property were estab- lished. He said there were three Councilmember Whitehead asked appraisals done early in 1990 of the 66 acres added into the P-1 which generated a series of fig- Overlay Zone, how much could have ures. He said the appraisals were been developed. done by MAI appraisers. Mr. Wright said approximately Councilmember Horrocks asked 27 1/2 acres of the 66 acres could how much land was contained in 51 not be developed. He said this unimproved lots and how they could was due to the 40 percent slope equal 1 million dollars. criteria of the ordinances. He said it would leave 38 1/2 acres Garth Coles, Real Property that could be developed under Manager, said the preamble to the today' s guidelines. handout which Mr. Wright had provided the Council, titled "Land Mr. Wright outlined the Trade - Salt Lake City and Ensign proposed land trade. He said one Downs Inc. " , and which is on file of the primary goals of the Plan- with the City Recorder, contained ning Commission, when the Capitol the methodology used to obtain Hills planning documents were the values. He said the appraisal developed, was the preservation of was based upon the lots available certain lands around Ensign Peak. that could be developed, rather During the present master plan than the amount of acreage that review it was determined that could be developed. He said this there could be a public benefit if method was more beneficial to the a land trade could be made with city. He said the lots varied Ensign Downs. He outlined the from 1/2 to 1 acre in size. He areas proposed to be traded. One said the appraiser went to neigh- of the areas is the area to be boring subdivisions in the area 90-328 PROLE INGS OF CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE E CI, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 and obtained prices of sales for develop and plan a community. He lots of half acre size and deter- said there are 162 similar exist- mined the value based upon today' s ing home in the area and the 155 prices. He said the cost derived new homes will be high income included cost of development. homes which will give the city a good tax base. He said that the Mr. Wright said the value of plan calls for 100 less homes than the Ensign Downs Property is is legally allowed by current $1, 130, 556. He said the differ- ordinances. He said the plan ence between that value and the called for an additional 50 acres value of City property is 478,457. be added to the P-1 Zone. He said Ensign Downs is providing 1.4237 value of land to the Cities Councilmember Hardman asked 1.0 value of land. Mr. Turville to outline the Little Ensign area and what part it Ralph Becker, Planning Com- played in the master plan and who mission addressed Councilmember owned it. Horrocks concern about the scaring and re-vegetation. . He said that Mr. Turville said Ensign this was a major consideration of Downs owned the area and the plans the planning commission during the were to develop the area and build evaluation of this request. He houses on it as sensitively as said the commission had included they can. He said the Planning in the master plan far beyond what Commission has withheld this area is required in the site develop- from the proposed master plan so ment ordinance. He said those that specific site planning can be areas which are specifically discussed. visible from the valley will require the developer to meet Councilmember Hardman asked specific controls as to where how many acres were involved. Mr. those structures can be located. Turville said the area would He said he feels that what the consist of eight lots of about one planning commission has recommend- half acre each. ed has balanced the public inter- ests and values with that of the Councilmember Hardman asked legitimate property owners inter- what the current zoning was for ests. that property. Mr. Turville said the zoning for Little Ensign Peak Scott Turville, Ensign Downs was R-1. He also said the majori- Representative, said the plan ty of the property in the proposed conceived was to work under prin- land trade was zoned R-1. ciples which were to consolidate city owned land and to consoli- Councilmember Hardman asked date the developers land to a if the area had any overlay zones. point where the city could pre- Mr. Turville said that it had an serve their land and the developer F-1 overlay as did all of their could develop his land. He said property in that area. the reason the City is getting land that can not be developed is Glen Saxton, Ensign Downs because the City was in the busi- Incorporated, said he felt they ness of holding land and preserv- have a carefully and sensitively ing foothills and preserving views conceived project plan which is and areas from being scarred. He good for the city and good for the said Ensign Downs had set out to residents of the area. He said he 90-329 PROCE INGS OF CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 believed the developers were Mr. Morris said the neighbor- creating open spaces and trail hood would be divided by those who head opportunities which created live in the PUD's. He said those benefits to the public while residents would have all of the developing a project in a sensi- benefits of living in Salt Lake tive way. City but would not have the same kinds of issues or problems as the Cindy Cromer, 816 East First rest of residents. Especially South, said she supported the land those who share the single access trade and the rezoning for the PUD road, East Capitol Road. He said status, because of the reduction the issue is the single neighbor- in street width. She said the hood, but by creating the PUD' s, City was buying back Ensign Peak, three enclaves are being created. and asked the Council and the Mayor that upon its purchase some Teresa Overfield, 172 kind of restrictive covenants be Braewick Road, Second Vice Presi- placed in the deeds that will dent of the Ensign Downs Home prohibit future governments from Owners Association, expressed the selling this property. anger in the neighborhood about the creation of exclusive en- Patricia Peterson, 130 claves. She said the neighborhood Braewick Road, said she supported was divided over this issue. She the plan, the land exchange and said the owners within the en- the rezoning for the PUD. She claves would be able to come into said she had reservations about their neighborhood but they would the proposed location of the gate. be unable to enter the enclaves. She said she applauded the devel- She said she does not agree with opers for their consideration of the rezoning question, but does the area. agree with the land exchange. David Morris, 172 Braewick James West, 820 East Capitol Road, said he opposed the rezoning Boulevard, said he was concerned proposal. He said establishment about the residents in the en- of the PUD created free walled claves who can utilize the street enclaves within the Ensign Downs in front of his house but he was area, and created a divergence of unable to use the street in front interest. He said it was not the of theirs. He said the idea of a role of the government of Salt community is not a place where a Lake City to create special inter- wall exits between you and your ests which would ultimately become neighbor. He also discussed the a problem for the community. He issue of trails into the foothills also said it was difficult to and said access to an area is one understand why the Northcove area, thing but access to a 40 degree which belonged to Salt Lake City slope is not access. He said the and consisted of approximately 14 overall idea of the development of acres, was appraised at just under this area was good, but the devel- $210,000 when the area of approxi- opment which seals the residents mately 39 acres, belonging to out was not a pleasant thought. Ensign Downs, was appraised at $1,000,000. Tony Thurber, 129 Braewick Road, said there was a great deal Councilmember Pace asked Mr. to commend in the plan. He said Morris to elaborate on his comment he approves of much of it but said about the problems which would be he has some concerns. He said created by the three enclaves. 90-330 1PPROCEINGS O"THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALTE CI UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 most of the neighbors are against Shirley Hanrath, 139 Braewick a closed enclave. He said another Road, said that in 1980 there was concern was the ridge line prob- a ruling for emergency exits in lem. He said the Little Ensign new developments. She said parcel should be withdrawn from Braewick Road is narrow with consideration. He also said he curves and cannot accommodate the was disturbed about the park being additional 800 vehicles which cut in half, and the 14 acres would require access to the new being removed from the P-1 preser- housing. She also said emergency vation zone. He said the trade is vehicles would not have access to not a good trade for the City. the area. She said that vehicles will use the closest access road Hermoine Jex, 272 Wall, spoke which in this case is Braewick in opposition of approval of the Road. new master plan. She read a prepared speech which outlined ten Councilmember Godfrey read a items of concern. (Her comments comment submitted by Ms. Erlinda are on file in the City Recorders T. Davis. She said she opposed Office) . She requested a contin- the development on Little Ensign uance of the public hearing and a Peak and asked that the space not 90 day moratorium in which to re- be developed. study the Little Ensign question. Kim Anderson, 768 North Paul Wise, 856 East Capitol Redwood Road #18, spoke in behalf Boulevard, First Vice President of SLACC. He read a statement of the Home Owners Association, from the Executive Committee of said at a meeting held in April SLACC stating "SLACC has still not members of the association voted seen final land trade and feel on the revised master plan. He that changes made day to day, said the vote was 2 to 1 in favor minute by minute are not in the of the plan. He said as a private best interest of the City and citizen he shared concerns with there should be a better public some of the other people about process, therefore SLACC can not access to parts of the planned endorse either the land trade or unit development especially the the zoning change for the Ensign Northcove area and requested that Downs neighborhood. " access to this area not be re- stricted. Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. Anderson if SLACC was involved in Marie Schulthies, 1015 N. E. the planning process. Mr. Capitol Boulevard, said when they Anderson said SLACC was involved purchased the home the street was in most of the meetings but was open to the public and now it is not kept informed of the land proposed to be closed by a gate trades and therefore could not being placed adjacent to her home. support the master plan. She said she does not want the gate in front of her house. Jim Othroe, 1080 East Capitol Boulevard, said he agrees with the Ron Schulthies, 1015 N. E. land trade, and is in favor of the Capitol Boulevard, said he had gates. He said he feels this will contacted an appraiser who stated help control traffic in the area. that the gate would reduce the He said he has a concern with the value of their property. placement of the gates but feels they are needed. 90-331 PROCEPINGS "THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALTE CITE, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 Councilmember Kirk said it ap- the extent that a subsequently peared there was a lot of negotia- approvable PUD for that develop- tion which took place during the ment may require some form of three month planning process. She easement access thru Dorchester to asked Councilmember Pace if every- the Little Ensign development. one was now satisfied. Mr. Bill Wright did not Councilmember Pace said not agree. He again outlined the every was satisfied but that is areas on the map which the pro- part of the negotiation process. posed ordinances affected. He She also praised the Planning said none of the ordinances affect Commission and everyone who was Little Ensign and ordinances did involved in the negotiation and not change the zoning of Little planning process. Ensign. He said the Council was not taking any type of action on Councilmember Whitehead said Little Ensign or to force it to be the most controversial thing that developed. was discussed during the hearing was the issue on the placement of Councilmember Pace asked Mr. the gate. He asked if the sugges- Scott Turville about the task tion to place the gate at the force document which recommended bottom of the existing neighbor- setting a two year period before hood area and make the whole thing development could take place on a PUD had arisen. Little Ensign so further study could be accomplished on the area. Mr. Baird said the gate issue will come back before the council Mr. Turville said Little when the plat is submitted for Ensign had always been an area of amendment. concern for some people but Little Ensign was not part of this devel- Councilmember Hale said there opment process. was an indication that the city is giving a 1.4 value versus receiv- Councilmember Godfrey said ing a 1.0 value. He asked for a the work of the Council was com- comment on the differences in plete as far as the rezoning. He values of the various properties said they were asked by the Mayor in the land trade. to hold a joint public hearing to discuss the land trade and there- Garth Coles re-addressed the fore he asked Mayor DePaulis if he appraisal process. He said the would care to comment on that appraisal process was very compli- portion of the hearing. cated. He said the City used what is called an "absorption value in Mayor DePaulis said that as appraisals" system. Mr. Wright presented the land trade issue, and as the comments Councilmember Kirk said she were heard from the public most was still not sure whether Little concerns dealt with the zoning Ensign would be effected by the issue. He said at this point the Dorchester or Northwest ordinanc- recommended proposal of the 1.4237 es. She asked Mr. Baird to com- to 1 value was the proposition ment on these ordinances. that was on the table and was recommended to the Council. Mr. Baird said that Little Ensign would only be effected to 90-332 PROCEINGS "THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT IKECI UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 Councilmember Hardman asked Mayor DePaulis about the comment made by Cindy Comer and the possi- bility of placing a comment in the deeds to make the new property perpetual public property. He said he would strongly recommend that possibility be pursued. Mayor DePaulis said part of the rational behind all of this process was to preserve as much of the Vista and Ensign Peak area as possible. He said the perpetual land statement was an item that could be looked into. The meeting adjourned at 8: 54 p.m. Ohl", COUNCIL AIR CIT R CO R 90-333 A2LA\ aTtyr co °5°i0'° a jai OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7600 AGENDA Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis 11:00 p.m. Thursday, October 11, 1990 City and County Building 1151 South State Street Room 325 Members of the City Council will meet informally with Mayor Palmer DePaulis. 1 . Councilmembers will request from the Mayor an update on the status of the development of a more comprehensive lobbying effort for the City. 2. Councilmembers and the Mayor will receive a briefing from Ken Bullock of the Utah League of Cities and Towns relating to legislative issues. 3. The Mayor will brief the Council on an agreement relating to the Olympics process. 4. Prospective topics for future Mayor/Council discussions. 5. Other issues and questions which result from the discussion of the foregoing and/or which relate to the conduct of City business. cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Mike Zuhl , Emilie Charles, Roger Cutler, Kathryn Marshall, Department Heads, SLACC staff, Press L \ '. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Thursday, October 11, 1990 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State 1. Report of the Executive Director. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council . 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: E. NEW BUSINESS: F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7600 AGENDA Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis 4:00 p.m. Thursday, October 11, 1990 City and County Building 451 South State Street Room 325 Members of the City Council will meet informally with Mayor Palmer DePaulis. 1 . Councilmembers will request from the Mayor an update on the status of the development of a more comprehensive lobbying effort for the City. 2. Councilmembers and the Mayor will receive a briefing from Ken Bullock of the Utah League of Cities and Towns relating to legislative issues. 3. The Mayor will brief the Council on an agreement relating to the Olympics process. 4. Prospective topics for future Mayor/Council discussions. 5. Other issues and questions which result from the discussion of the foregoing and/or which relate to the conduct of City business. cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Mike Zuhl , Emilie Charles, Roger Cutler, Kathryn Marshall, Department Heads, SLACC staff, Press L ; � SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Thursday, October 11, 1990 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State 1 . Report of the Executive Director. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: E. NEW BUSINESS: F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 . Rezoning: Ensign Downs Petition #400-768 and #400-842 Receive comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning the property located at approximately 1100 East Capitol Boulevard , approximately 10 Dorchester, and west of Ensign Peak at approximately 1000 North Street from "R-1" to an "R-1A" classification. (P 90-317) Staff recommendation: Adopt in concept . H. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: The Mayor's Real Property Issue relating to Ensign Downs will be held at this same time. FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA. DATED: October 11 , 1990 BY: CHIEF EPt}1 y CITY RECORDER STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 11th day of October, 1990 I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 343. HJEE Y CITY RECORDER Subscr .'6ed and sworn to before me this 11th day of October, 1990. / • Notary Pu `1\ic residing in the State of Ut My Commission EMxppi��-rA BAAFr es: Y . 451 So.Stele St.Rm 415 Q Salt Lthto ctty,Utah 1JG1^2, My Ccawnisslon c Al!r..it 1. !) 1 APPROVAL: TI DIRECTOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION For the ENSIGN DOWNS REZONING PETITION 400-842 October 5, 1990 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Bruce Eggleston, Community Development Coordinator ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Hold a public hearing and an enact an ordinance to adopt the Ensign Downs rezoning petition as recommended by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This rezoning petition represents the one of the last City actions regarding the development of the upper Capitol Hill neighborhood by the petitioner, Ensign Downs, Inc. (There will obviously be building permits issued by the City over the years, and a plat amendment is also pending. ) This hearing will be held in conjunction with the Mayor's hearing for the real property transaction of a land trade between Ensign Downs, Inc. and the City. These issues are both integrally linked to the Ensign Downs Development Master Plan, petition # 400-768, which was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year. The master plan approval represents what is possible for this development of the neighborhood. The land trade will determine if it can financially be accomplished while maximizing the buildable land in the area. The rezoning decision will determine the ultimate residential density of the area, and the landowner's profitability, given an increase in the units per acre for these proposed developments. STAFF ANALYSIS: The primary land use goal of the Ensign Downs Development Master Plan is to plot out the optimum number of residential parcels suited for large-lot single family homes, and in the Dorchester Planned Unit Development, single family condominiums with the shared grounds and common areas. The present master plan and subdivision plat are considerably different than those approved in 1953 and 1981. This present plan has approval for 155 new single family building lots, which is down from the 305 lots approved in the 1981 plan. This lessening of the lots will make the proposed neighborhoods less imposing on the existing neighborhoods. It is also a response to the changing real estate market trends in the last nine years. The petitioner feels that the market will be more favorable to large lot single family development in an exclusive secured planned unit development., verses the denser more public: neighborhoods approved in the 1981 plan. How does the rezoning petition help Ensign Downs, Inc. accomplish their marketing strategy? The rezone will allow them to build a private security- controlled planned unit development with limited access, and an extensive set of conditions, covenants and restrictions for the residents. This is a type of development favored by the higher income families to afford them more protection for their families and properties. This rezoning petition will enable Ensign Downs, Inc. to achieve their marketing goals. This private security-controlled planned unit development with limited access has a public price to the citizens at large. This exclusivity will deny access to parts of the Ensign Peak foothills and the access from this area to City Creek Canyon. The petitioner argues that the public has had access through their private property for years, but that access must come to ( 1 ) an end with the proposed development. This has been one of the main points of contention for the proposal. There is a plan in the works known as the Salt Lake City Open Space Plan which has as a part of the program the hiking trail linkage from the Ensign Downs area to City Creek Canyon. This hearing might be the last best chance to settle this hiking trail issue. An alternative solution to a trail link might be found south of the Ensign Downs, Inc. property in the existing neighborhood. The other issues of contention with the proposal are the significant increase in traffic and the negative impacts of that, and the lessening of the view of Ensign Peak as a result of the building of homes. The traffic will be significantly increased, but the East Capitol Boulevard was designed to handle the greater traffic flow. The individual subdivision streets will see greater traffic, but no single street will bear a disproportionate share of it. The issue of obscuring the view is one of a small increment compared to what is already there. The site visit demonstrated that the visual impact will be minimal to Ensign Peak and the hills north of that monument. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Ensign Downs rezoning petition as is proposed and recommended by the Planning Commission. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that we adopt the ordinance to rezone the areas as described in the petition 400-842. ( 2) 1 , MIKE ZUHL SALTLAKE'CITY/ CORPORATION LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council September 11, 1990 Re: Petition No. 400-768 and 400-842 submitted by Ensign Downs, Inc. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on October -1-6-7 If 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition Nos. 400-768 and 400-842 submitted by Ensign Downs, Inc. The petitioners are requesting that property located at approximately 1100 East Capitol Boulevard, approximately 10 Dorchester and west of Ensign Peak at approximately 1000 North Street be rezoned from "R- 1" to a "R-1A" classification. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The petitioners are requesting the zone change to allow three separate planned unit developments within the Ensign Downs development master plan area. The current zoning is "R-l" (Single Family Residential) and P-1" (Foothill Preservation District) . The requested zoning will allow Planned Unit Developments. Additional information will be provided to the City Council before the public hearing date. A briefing and a tour have been scheduled for September 24, 1990. Legislative Action: An ordinance will be prepared and submitted for your review prior to the public hearing date. Submitted by: 7frii,,_ji"334,X_, MICHAEL B. Z Interim Dir SALT'LAKE;.CITY CORPORATION: ALLEN C. JOHNSON. AICP - _--• - -. - PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 October 2, 1990 Mike Zuhl, interim Director Community & Economic Development 451 South State Street, Room 218 Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 RE: Rezoning of areas within the Ensign Downs area to allow 3 Planned Unit Developments. Petition number 400-842 Dear Michael, Attached is petition number 400-764 from Alexander Robinson and Scott Turville, representing Ensign Downs, Inc. ( attachment a ) . Three separate areas are requested to be zoned to include, approximately 1100 East. Capitol Blvd area, an area south of Dorchester Drive, and an area west of Ensign Peak as indicated on the maps within the staff report . The request is being made to rezone these areas from R-1 and P-1 to R- lA in order to allow three individual Planned Unit Developments. This rezoning will implement a portion of the approved development master plan for the Ensign Downs area, which plan was approved by the Planning Commission on August 2, 1990. The approved development master plan indicates these areas for Planned Unit Developments which specifies rezonings to R-IA. The staff report for this petition was prepared on August 28, 1990 basically recommending approval of the rezoning request with conditions that the zoning remain as it currently is until the Planned Unit Development plats are approved and ready for recordation ( attachment b) . The Planning Commission held an informal hearing on September 6, 1990 and the decision was tabled. The final motion from the Planning Commission was made September 20, 1990. ( attachment c ) . 310 notices were mailed to residents of the Ensign Downs area and the Capitol Hill Community on August 29, 1990. The motion of the Planning Commission found that the recommended rezonings to R-- lA are consistent with the master plan for this area. Based on the findings the rezoning was approved based on the following, 1 ) Recommendations within the staff report ( attachment b) 2 ) In regards to the North Cove PUD, that the Planning Commission reserves the issue of pedestrian and bicycle access specifically until final BUD approval, 3 ) That the south boundary of the North Cove PUD be established based upon the actual inclusions of land from the existing subdivisions so that the final R-lA zoning line will abut to the P-1 zoning, 4 ) In regards to all approvals, that this rezoning is subject to final PUD approval with respect to specific location of public and private streets and accesses, size and location of specific lots as well as the conditions of specific lot development and final densities for the PUD ' s as contained in the final PUD approval process. 5 ) If the land trades do not go through, the rezoning of the North Cove PUD area will be reconsidered after further master plan action for the entire North Cove area. This petition now requires a formal hearing and motion from the City Council . Sincerely, jl (, Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director attachment b SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION 400-842 FROM ENSIGN DOWNS INC. FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL R-1, AND PRESERVATION P-1 TO R-lA FOR PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS OVERVIEW Mr. Alexander Robinson and Scott Turville, representing Ensign Downs Inc. , is requesting a zone change in the Ensign Downs area. Three individual areas are requested to be zoned to include, approximately 1100 East Capitol Blvd. , an area south of Dorchester Drive, and an area West of Ensign Peak as indicated on the following zoning map. The property owners are requesting the zone change to allow three separate planned unit developments ( PUD ' s ) within the Ensign Downs development master plan area. The current zoning is R-1 ( Single Family Residential ) and P-1 ( Foothill Preservation District ) . The requested zoning allowing Planned Unit Developments is R-1A ( Single Family Dwellings and/or Planned Unit Developments ) . ?!/ 1 ;% //,! - �' ' • ' North Cove Are: i, // R-1 to R 1A P-1 t - 3777 r '''' P A ► Northwest Estates Area , A R-1 to R-1A j > Ang%n5 - qit/%h. - t 11-&- '16orchester Area E. [`T NOR r. 1 n_ ._ . i A A ,/// r...4......_____....: r/, %�' R-1 to R-lA .. �' � ^� � . P GENERAL INFORMATION Owners: Christopher Robinson, et al Salt Lake City Corporation Parcel Numbers: North Cove PUD: 09-30-200-005, 09-30-200-015, 09-30-200-003 Dorchester PUD: part of 09-30-351-024 Northwest PUD: part of 08-25-200-011 City Owned Parcel: part of 09-19-400-001 -1- Current Zoning: R-1 ( Single Family Dwellings ) P- 1 ( Foothill Preservation District ) Overlay Zoning: F-1 ( Foothill Development Overlay Zone ) Proposed Zoning: R-1A ( Single Family Dwellings and/or PUD BACKGROUND The Ensign Downs area has received much attention and discussion over the past years . The first master plan for the area was presented in the mid 1950 ' s and recently has received approvals for amendments to the 1982 master plan by the Planning Commission. The starts presentation for this rezoning request will be largely based upon the approved 1990 development master plan ( see attachment A). A brief summary of past events is presented. Oct 22, 1981 - a revision to the 1953 development plan was approved by the Planning Commission. Mar 28 to Jun 19, 1990 - Ensigm. Downs Task Force meeting series . Jul 19, 1990 - First informal public hearing held by the Planning Commission. Aug 2, 1990 - Second informal public hearing held by the Planning Commission. Final decision on the proposed development master plan. ANALYSIS North Cove PUD. The proposed North Cove PUD is located on East Capitol Boulevard. This area is bounded physically by foothills to the west and north of this area. City Creek canyon is located immediately east of this area. The vehicle access to this area is possible only from East Capitol Boulevard north into this area. Single family lots are indicated for this site by the development master plan. The development consists of 44 single family estate lots averaging two acres in size. A Planned Unit Development in this area would have privately owned and maintained streets, benefiting the City in decreased maintenance. Snow removal and garbage service is contracted with private service providers . Fire and police protection remains as with any other residential development . Approximately 14 acres of City Owned property is planned to be traded for inclusion with this development. The city property is on the north edge of the development and currently is zoned P-1 . A zoning change from P-1 to R-lA for this particular piece of city owned property should be contingent upon the final approval -2 - of the proposed land trades as proposed by the developer . The zoning for the balance of the site should be also contingent upon the recordation of a planned unit development subdivision. The boundaries for the south edge of this area is still in question. There will be a need to amend Ensign Downs Plats H, K, and I to accommodate the proposed planned unit development since it will involve some existing homes along East Capitol Boulevard. There should be flexibility with the southern zoning line until the stated subdivision plats are actually amended. Dorchester PUD. The Dorchester PUD is planned on a gently south sloping parcel of ground located south of Dorchester Drive. The development consists of 14 detached condominiums with common open space and maintenance. The site has existing homes to the immediate north of the site. Access would be south from Dorchester extension as indicated on the development master plan. To the south of the site exists an unimproved graded dirt road that is no longer in use except for occasional foot bicycle traffic. The site is under 40 percent slopes and is developable. This site is also in a very prominent area and will be seen for a distance from areas below. Although only 14 residential units are planned, building materials, heights, walls, landscaping, should receive careful consideration at the time of design because of its visibility. Designs and styles should be compatible with existing sizes and styles of homes . Some of the view area for existing homes on the north edge of the site will likely be affected by this development, depending upon the heights and sizes of the buildings and landscaping. The current zoning for this area is R- 1 with F-1 overlay zone. Northwest Private Estates PUD. The Northwest PUD consists of private estate lots with the entrance through a locked access gate. The gate is planned to allow access to residents, to communications towers personnel, and to hikers/mountain bikers. All other traffic would be prohibited. A gate will also be installed on the north side of the service road to prohibit vehicle traffic from Davis County. The access to this area will be from the Dorchester extension/cul-de-sac. A staging area for the communication towers personnel would also need to be provided for equipment . Like the Dorchester PUD, this area is also prominent and will be viewed mostly from areas to the west of the site. This area likely will be the northern most end of residential development due to the steep topography beyond this area. The site is gently sloping to the west and south, is under 40 percent slope, and though a narrow area is buildable. Current zoning for this area is R-1 with F-1 overlay zone. - 3- - Capitol Hill Master Plan. The map from the 1981 Capitol Hill Master Plan prepared by Williams, Platzed, & Mocine generally specifies the undeveloped portions of Ensign Downs as "Area of potential development subject to strict site development requirements. " Access to and Use of Private PUD Areas. Many persons now use the privately owned lands for casual walks and for access to higher foothill areas, and have enjoyed this opportunity for a period of time. A private property owner may choose to restrict the use of the land as legally allowed by law. Access to the general public has been limited by owners in private residences, apartments, condominiums, and other private developments in Salt Lake City. The Dorchester and North Cove PUD areas are planned to be privately owned and maintained properties as indicated in the development master plan, and therefore may choose to limit the use of the privately owned lands with zoning that allows for Planned Unit Developments. Although the Northwest Estates PUD will be privately owned, the intent is to allow access to Hikers, Bikers, and communication tower personnel through the PUD to the foothills. The developers have indicated that in the remaining two PUD areas, access will be limited to private property owners and guests. The public access issue to the north Cove PUD could be resolved at time of Planned Unit Development review by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION The staff finds that these three individual zoning requests to change the zoning from R-i and P-1 to R-IA are in accordance with the development master plan as approved by the Planning Commission on August 2 , 1990. Therefore the staff respectfully recommends to the City council approval of the three rezoning requests with the following conditions. Regarding the North Cove PUD Area: - The zoning be approved to R-1A, but remain R-1 for the entire PUD site ( including the city owned property ) until such time that individual subdivision( s ) located within this specific PUD area are ready for final approval and ready for recordation with the County Recorder. The exact boundaries of the subdivision( s ) and zoning lines will then be established, with the understanding that the general location is to remain as indicated on the approved Ensign Downs development master plan. The adopted ordinance should be a conditional zoning ordinance which would take effect in phases and becoming effective only upon planned development approvals: -4- - The approximately 14 acre city owned parcel to the north side of the North Cove PUD also be approved to R- lA zoning, but remain as P-1 until the land trades are accomplished and titles are transferred. - The southern boundaries of the zoned PUD area remain flexible to enable establishment of the southern boundary of the PUD. This boundary will affect existing residences, and will include amendments to existing subdivision plats . Regarding the Dorchester PUD Area and the Northwest Estates PUD Area: - The zoning be approved to R-1A, but remain R-1 for the entire PUD site until such time that individual subdivision( s ) located within this specific PUD area are ready for final approval and ready for recordation with the County Recorder . The exact boundaries of the subdivision( s ) and zoning lines will then be established, with the understanding that the general location is to remain as indicated on the approved Ensign Downs development master plan. The adopted ordinance should be a conditional zoning ordinance which would take effect in phases and becoming effective only upon planned development approvals . Allen G. McCandless Environmental Planner August 28, 1990 -5- [�tl.3C�"`R•.Erl` A �.., 1r Y .`-i �'a` i • ,- . __ \ . ;'_.-..L1 - '1 r._-i is I I I I 1 A , _ ,�^ f 1: ,1 !{Mor1n Core�'1.1,�-�"..- f P.U•�. 1' �1 r • � I f aA Lols-..c.c.t2 ry y 6 .,w cam.‘ , / -� ', i it ')I/� i ( i : II ,\ 1I , \ /L.11 � jjj...rA 1 I' � 1 i t '. ! -� ,i np '\ . N�iE{ GOVK r /r 1 , I I 1 �� ,-- T?..R 1 '\v,, �I ' t 1 , 1'r' /I I 1FTy� P. • i.7. I 1 % / f 1 I; 1 1 1 \ i'a$aR"1av QN QY,L I :'` \_.A— ''1 l r �' / I'1 .. _';fl( u. A,.atl • 1 \ \\1\'it'— I I I I \ `"\- i ��11[/S� -I / -� ;�/ • / ��i , vim IVAv �A ), � I r � 1 77-7 `, •t I \_ r____L,.. l I , t �i • r , -;1 s1fJ I\t.`'`..i ` `1 r r , I , '\ ,.-2, Jy��_ _ 1 .1' — -�, / _—/ , ,;— �1`_- �,:_ e\ '. 1 `li, it __ y �i �w 1 / , � • =-�� '111 \ ,j`i%• \ \\ �. Z Sad La,ON V CaraSW L]?,t cly //� / ,/ \ ' i • \II _1�' e +L' _ /,,___, ` "� Ena On Downs Inc_•na.Io Sall La..CUT.Cora. it 1 I /L /+ /; SUt Lew.Clty!naa to En.10n Oo..na Inc LDet04 $i1i{Z L P�'_l. ',I / - / E11at'Y- 2 Lata P.v:o. : olat rlSLat. I /'II 'C' e Lota __ 1 -1, PC 44 IOtS•Aopc�WL `C\ ^,\ ,,I•I lam, / Oln.r H.II ACfa 63 Lot • -`^ _'h_- _l I \ _. i �\�'� - :- � !,.,\ ..` - ,-' DU.D.Waat 13 Lata \ -\....,_� -.-�T _' ,,II !I" ` (..' I'^_-=+.`, 1— a P.U-D. SInOI. Famlly Dacn.o T to L.OIS '�` _ 1,..) I1l e i7\-' \\1 -1 yr', II ,� � Plat'4' -] Lots �1li '.`^t L.�^ 1•P,' i/1� 1 "- ' 1\ -' --� I =Plat'K'-1 Cat I,1 \\\\\ yip - `-'_'1 /"\' - 1- _.. ,_ i( I! . 1 II 11 u1._. . -'" ie.,1 1 � L__/ . - i ce. I _ 1 �' _- a 1--• v i ,' Sal take C y,()tan L,7�,/ - The Erssi�l Dawns Partnership rlt Lam' ;- - 1 UI r. l', , ' . t ,r': / I 11 ll 1U •11 I 1. rbV+ o 50 Aa 200 500 1000 •• j .'\\ sc,.... r-no \,-;� _ IL I -— attachment c 5C MINUTES - 9/20/90 Page _ The Planning Staff reds that the Planning Commission approve the request to reduce the parking requirement and allow shared, leased, and cn-strcet parking for the arena. This approval requires no additional parking to be constructed to support arena events conditioned upon evidence of a ten vr-r lease arrangement for 500 parking stalls located on Block 85 be submitted to the City. _ Howe ocened the hearing to the and arced =nynne e:_: ' t address the _ lannlrc Commission. Ys. Teri Jensen, rccresennc 7,tah Pao=r Scx _ : __.. _ th=y _ :he parking requirements cared rear_r. the sane .,`_.ruse tnev feel th___ _s a srortace of car'k_rc _n the Pewntown area. Ms. Jensen sa_. the_ nave to nave cars towed awa-; from _ne_- business _.. a recu_ar cask in Order to _tv:'_ gar;k_ng for their em:levees. She also exores w' an i,.7_erest in entering a lease agreement with L.ar ", Miller : r use of r.care Mr. Skedros, representing the Creek Irthodox Chef.-, sated _ _._ .eY suorcrtive of this -=r' _=t. Mr. 5 :e:ass E7.11aed t_.a_ there is barkingtre vicinity cf the Creek Crt--cdek Church that =did ce mot' -Pr at times =or are arena events. Mr. Erdce Reese, bmre, ___e lnte_nat_ona_, �stated that they in _=usoort of this reddest and _e-el _:ere is amcie Carkinc in the northern_ end f one !cwntown area. hr. Care Teenier, a concerned cit_:en, snccevted sett'hd Ccecca_ _sick for those cecole attending :he arena events who were willing t_ encourage increased ridership per vehicle. Mr. :Ewa closed the hearing to the outlio and ocpned it oc for Planninc �ot�anissicn discussion. A discussion followed on _;c. edvant=ces and pCsE_vi -_-' of a future _ rail systarl, the ccss_hi i of increased TJTA services, additional oar:ki. lets that mae develop in the insure en currently vacant lets, and carki c for arena support staff. Mr. Pecker noted that the chance in :ve ordinance and the staff r=�'mmencat_an _s consistent with the Pccrtowr :'nap __ Plan, the amended glad :Master _ The =rtan Pes1Gn Element and the transeortation clans. hr. Pecker then moved to approve the reddest to reduce the ar'.-._nc r ec.;__ement to allow shared. leased and on street par:c:nc_ for the new Ja:: .`ren_. This aocroval rem v__=s no additional par _nc to ce onst_ _.oted to succor_ arena events conditioneo coon evidence Cf a ten lea_ lease ar once rent for ACV parkinc stalls located cn flock 85 be submi_ted to the Cite. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion; all voted "Ave" with the esceocion of Mr. Ellison who abstained from the vote. The motion passes. °et'ion No. 400-8a2 bvi Alex Robinson =.._ Ensign Ec'Nrs, Inc , remest_rc halt Lake Cite to Cr-CCI-7.7 _located at apercx:Vate_ , __:C East Capitol PC MINUTES - 9 20/90 Pace 17 Boulevard, aooroximatelo 1C B Lrches:er Streer and west oL iris_ __ak a- accroximate_-. 1000 hor_h from ..eedent_al „R-, ,, c �__^2n a_ "_.—LA". My. Bill Wright s:a:= ' a: the cct'mcer 6, lacC _ rennin_ �cr neeting duri. the _.-_ i;cwrs -- ____-,_nc h`,rioc, an Ron Schulthies ccrcern he the mate—ma,te-Lal darrace he fel-_ El were amender and the prccdsed _ .-_^c _-' chicht Yf. rlr' Slued that Ms. L:.dd__ ;a; c%a- .had f=desTed tho= __.__:c , e_ add_ ^t .._.. meetinic in order to crovLdethe r_aro-oti S _e tLire do ocr's_ .,e_ the legal asrects of t.e_ Mr. Bruce Baird, t..hn `e_---._ C l ._ -_::orne. was oreek`- for _._-c r o_or. the Pl apeonc ct i _ Ter,ttinc and _hut paeip-Ilv, -- rezoning, _here is virtually sc _s of iiac_litto the City. He added that someone claiming they were materially damaged by a __:oo:rc ,.s not grounds to raise a " ,.a;l. issue. Baird stated that uc until 198 Peon illegal to amend a plat without 1 C% of the property owners affected _n agreement. Mf. der .__Hued that :he new State ',t�tute =s that the City Council be _. ed that nc one be by the plat amendment. He said it is the - Council who will deter.__.-_ wre :per or not actual material -. cook pace. The mere fact that someone material :.n, v .___ d'honc or. the . tv Cour_ci_. Ba__ ab ..= _ material incori is no: defined in the statute and would be defined cv the City Council. O Mr. Allen McCandless -esented the staff resort and Mated that _- . Alex Robinson is requesting a cone change in the Ensign :owns area to allow tree separate Planned Unit Develocments ._LD's, within the Ensign C.wrs Development Plaster P ___. area. Three individual areas are recuest d t- be • rezoned at approximately 1100 East Capitol Boulevard, approximately 10 Dorchester Street and wee: of Ensign Peak at approximately 1000 North. The $ current zoning is Residential 'R-1 ' and Foothill Preservation ' _-_' . Mr. McCandless then cave a bra __ history of the Ensign owns Development Master Plan approval process. Mr. McCandless state' that a PUD in the North Cove area would consist of 44 single family estate lots averaging two acres in size and would have privatel'i owned and maintained streets, benefiting the City In decreased maintenance. Approximately 14 acres off City owned' croperty is croposed tO be trade for inclusion w_tn this co e_cci"Ilent. The City prOCer=- __ on the _-_=tsern cope of the development and currenclo zoned _-I. A zoniho change from 7-1 to R-i A for this particular oece, cf City t,,Led property srcu=c ce ocroinceht usen the final approval or the Proposed land trades as proposed „i the t'eve_ tier. The zoning for the balance off :he site should also be con cincent ucon the recordation of a PUD subdivision. Mr. McCandless continued that the boundaries for the southern edge of this area are still in need of definition. Ensign Downs Plats K, E and : will no f to be amended to accommodate the prccesed FUT) since the owners of several existing properties on Ea__ CapitolSculevaro have red.�ested to be included in the PUD. Mr. McCandless state-d the: the Dorchester FL" is Planned for a carcel south of Dorchester Drive and wcu_: ocnsist of 14 detached condominiums with =Pon PC MINUL'ES - 9/20./9C Page oven space and me _ena:.ce. There are some es-c_L: homes to the ocr:r cf. the site. Access to the c,uic be south the lcrrh�e._e_ extension. Although only '_a resident__- u=.==- _- _ planned, bu__u_nc he_chcs, lardscac nc should - ;ecarefulcons erar'tcr'- at time oh de=ich ; cause the area's hLch lesichs aro s es _hco__ ce o rrcaoic__ `.v' -- e istinc hcmes. The area i= __-_ w the �.verla - Mr. NncCard_ess s: _e-_ :. : _re cr_ : Now hs., _ _ och=i _ c _ estace 'lots :e _ ___. uch _ ckeu ra e. ='he care`27- . .- _c planned tO a__cv access to _2_=aen s, c mmdhica _ __Scram'tee._ an hikers%mOttair biker. Al_ other traffic would cc trtnibited. A daze . __l be installed en the ncr:. e_ _._± of :he service road 12 crony__ vehicle_ traffic from 'a`v o_haS -c. .: 11 be fr, Dorchester croons:. r . c_- -Sac. A. staging area for ;ouw_.ficat_on towers personnel will ,lso need or ce cvided for eCuicmer_. -he currentt, tc_ng this area is with the overlay one. Mr. McCandless stated that the Dorchester and the North Cave _UP s are clanned to 'e rivate'7 owned mantained Cert es ";ii .: crcntited puce a��ess. N This issue shout: oe c' _a_,eti a-Oher a_ :he time sof the P P acoro` a_ e by the Plannino C2:,M"' _= Mr. McCandless serf the Planning Staff fends these _ c rind -ecues=s _n accordance w__.. the d nor_ master an as _ ._d dvrthe P l a:-__nc Conanission cn Aucust1190. Therefore, the . toff recommends the Planning e Connrission recommend :.. Ci Council, acorova_ of the three reocninc oreuuests sub:=ct to the c-wino cord_=_cns: North Cove PUP area: 1. The :on ng be mac-roved :o R-1A. be: remain for the entire PUT site (irc-uding the City curoed croceY::) until such time that _ndiv_dual with_n. :his spec---c area are ready _.ifine' aocrova_ a _c -lac'" for -ecordatior with the County Recorder. The exact bounder'es c= the subd_vi sior. s) and zoning lines will then be established, 'c__n the understanding that the general locations tO remain as indica:ed oh :he aboroved Ens_cn c'.,ns Development Master Plan.. The adopted Orc_h_:n.ce shoui d be a conditional zcnino ordinance ".which would become only dccn planned on:: development accroval. 2. The accroxioa:e r _- acre C;t__ caned carol- ee the north of the North Cove 7= ___.o be accroved P-Li rococo, but remain as P-_ until the land trades _re acccmclisned end :_tics are transferred. Dorchester and Northwest PUT2 a-_as: 3. The zoning be acp _ved tt R-LA but remain -_ for the entire PUP site until such _u:e _r:ividua- subdi is_on s located wit_n these specific Pr P areas are read': for final approval and recordation with the County Recorder. The exact boundaries of the sucdavisibn(s, and zoning l :henines w�-- er be established with the understanding�.andirg that the genera_ location to remain as indicated cr the acorcved Ensign Downs Development :.,aster_ Plan. PC MINUTES - 9/70/00 Page 19 The adopted ordinance should be a conditional zoning ordinance which would take eFrTehr in phasesand become ef___t_ve only ucen olan ed development acorovals. Mr. Wright reminded the . yarning Ccmmies'on that the difference between the 1 andtheR-1, zcn_. is that 7) R- the �-�=,. zcninc _� ~cf-essar�; �cr the �r developments since the P-_ zoning' classification does hot allow Pr�'s. Mr. Wright added that the .sgn Dcw= 2evel cment 'east ._ _ lan aecrover' cv the Planning anninc Commission cannot be irrelecente' without zoning chance A short d_scss_cn followed including the hstor- of _trer P-_ zer - convers_ons, desired densat:_es of the proposed PL E' and the various of the PhD _mph ement.3 icy that would have` c come re the Planning Commission under the crocess of plat acoroval. Mr. Scott Turville and M-. Glen Saxton presenting 7nsicni Downs, nc. _ were present for that portion. of the Planning_. (-0141 , SsiCr: meeting. Mr. TD.zville state; that :his =oval is an extension of the :raster plan croceaa. Saxton requested accrove the rezonirc rem es=. Mr. `:owe opened :'e^C_.-.g to e public arc ;s.'<ec a:' one K address the _ 1ar:n_nc Commission. Mr. Kim Anderson, a concerned citizen, stated that ro his knowledge never been made �hc���r. .ha t P-1 zoned land was involved in this process. He requested the P-1 zon_nc remain intact: if the should decide not to trade the P-1 land to the develocer. a Mr. Tony Thurber, a resident of the area, asked if the R-LA zoning classification would allow the develocnen.t of condominiums. Mr. Wr_cnt Mated that the term condominium refers to a type of ownership, not a t -pe of development. He added that the R-_A zoning classification would allow development of single family clustered units but acoroval for this type oF development would have to be granted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Doug Whcoiwraght stated that the R-LA zoning classification does allow single family units to be clustered side by side but it would not allow single family_ units to be stacked on top of each other in a multiple dwelling unit. Mr. Thurber asked what would prevent the deve_ocer _rom coming back to the Planning Coitnission ln _.':e Future ha';inc charged _heir minds about the two acre lots and reoue,l ng a cluster development. Mr.. h owa responded that there was nothing to prevent the deve l odor from such a r=guest but he added that any changes made to the S'ucdi zisicn pia: 'doll` have to be approved by the Planning Ccrmnission. Ms. Cromer pointed out coat any reddest: of the developer must be consistent with the master plan. Dr. Teresa Overf.�eid, a resident of the area, stated that she does not want the City to trade the 14 acre parcel to the north cf the North Cove PUD and that she would like to have access to this lard. Mr. Wright responded that the Planning Conunissicn had already made their decision on this matter in the approval of the master elan. He added that the City Council hearing on this would be held October 1'_, 1990. PC MINUTES - 9/20/90 Page 20 Ms. Hermcine Jex, a concerned citizen, stated that the master plan had only been approved conceptually, that sne felt _: would be better to approve the zoning plat b 1 plat, and that she is opposed to the P-1 land benc rezone-R. Ms. Jex said she was shocked that this was the first mention that any of the land involved was class_:ied as P-_ land. Mr. Turville pointed out that Ms. Jex had attended :he task force eerings wherein the _-1 zoning was discussed at length. Mr. ;vright pointe= cut that the P-1 zoning was mentioned on .he notifications sailed cut on the hearing notices on Aucust 28, 1990 for the September 6th ner'nc. Mr. Hcwa closed the hearing to the public and ocened i uo forri P�ar�. nc Commission discussion. Ms. Cromer stated that if the land trades cc through, the zoning should be changed to P-1 for ail of the lard surrounding Ension Peak in order to protect it from development. N A discussion followed inc_ading a definition of :he P-1 zoning classification, the fact that the land co:pose: for trading to he is better for the City to hold in ownership than the land the City would be trading to the developer, and the possibility of the developer placing development restriction cn the land around Ensign Peak prior to transferring title :o the City if the land 3 trades are acoroved. Mr. Neilson asked for clarification on what the Planning Commission was approving in relation to development. densities. Mr. Neilson stated that he did not foci comfortable with the two acre lots proposed in the North Cove FUD and would have tc vote against the rezoning if the Planning Commission was ccnunitting to density. Mr. Ellison stated that the General density issue was voted on in the approval of the master plan which is subject to further refinement. Mr. Ellison added that final density will be handled under the plat approval process. .- . Neilson stated that one of the arguments for approval of the master plan was the increase tax base for the City. Mr. Ellison stated that the Planning Coiunissicn should make a finding that the recommended rezonings to 2-IA are consistent with the master plan for this area and that the P-1 land in this request is different from typical P-1 land that should be preserved from development. Based on those findings, Mr. (Mo-noN) Ellison moved to approve Petition No. 400-342 in accordance with the recorrifnendations in the August 28, 1990 star_ report as well as the following conditions: 1) in regards to the North Cove PUP, that the Planning Commission reserves the issue of pedestrian and bicycle access specifically until final PUD approval, 2)' that the south boundary of the North Cove PUD be established based upon the actual inclusions of land from the existing subdivisions so that the final R-lA zoning line will abut to the R-I zoning, 3) in regards tc all approvals, that this rezoning is subject, tc final PUD approval with respect to specific location of public and private streets and accesses, size and location of specific lots as well as the conditions of specific lot development and final densities for the PUP's as contained in the final PUD approval process. Mr. Schumann seconded the motion. Mr. Schumann asked if the motion ncoded to make reference to the land trade issue. Mr. Ellison said the land trade issue was handled in the staff report which was covered in the motion. PC MINUMS - 9/20/90 Page 21 Mr. Saxton asked for clarification on whether or not the rezonings for the Northwest and Dorchester PUD's would go into effect even if the land trades did not go through since they are not affected in any way by the land trade H proposal. Mr. Ellison stated that the only PUD develccment contingent upon 3 the land trades is the North Cove PVC and the rezonings would take place for o the Northwest and Dorchester PUD's in the event the land trades did not co 0 through. Mr. Ellison added, however, that there would be an overall effect on the entire master plan if the land trades are not ccrsunjnated. yr. Turville asked if it was the intent of the staff report and the motion to exclude the entire North Cove PUD area from the rezoning, if the land trades do not co through, or merely the 14 acres cf land the City currently owns. Mr. 77l 'son tit stated that if the lard trades don't go through, the entire master plan .Must be reconsidered. Mr. Ellison amended his motion to state that _f the land trades do not go through, the rezoning of the North Cove PUD area will be reconsidered after further master plan action for the entire North Cove area. Mr. Bohm Mara accepted the amendment to the second. All voted "Are" on the motion to approve Petition No. 400-342 with the exception of Mr. Neilson who was opposed. The motion passes. PLANNING ISSUES Presentation of the Downtown Parking Study by Deseret Architects. This agenda item was postponed until October 4, 1990 at the request of Deseret Architects, the consultants on the Downtown Parking Study. Approve the Salt Lake City Sidewalk Vending Ordinance draft. Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report and pointed out the draft ordinance included in the Planning Commission packets. He said this draft is in response to Petition 400-745 submitted by Michael Spence and James Bartlome who are requesting permission to sell ice cream from carts in Downtown Salt Lake City. There have boon several other requests by local community groups to encourage more street activity through the use of sidewalk vendors. The R/UDAT report strongly suggested the use of vendors. The master plan element prepared by the Retail Merchants Association allows for vendors on a controlled basis. Mr. Dansie stated that at the present time, all sidewalk vending, except for special event sidewalk sales, is prohibited by Salt Lake City ordinance. This ordinance would allow street vendors on a limited basis, with the intent to add street activity while controlling the problems vendors have created in other cities. This draft ordinance has boon prepared by a joint committee consisting of Doug Dansie from the Planning Division, Jill Remington from the Mayor's Office, Larry Spendlove from the Attorney's Office, and Brent Wilde and Bob Bridge from Permits and Licensing. attachment d other Information ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP SALT' Aa, a ' t I i G RP;'�RATI, a .� -�..�.� � a� -�a�.,� .+ PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 NOTICE OF INFORMAL HEARING * * * * * SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION * * * * * The Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission is currently reviewing petition number 400-768 by Christopher F. Robinson. The petition includes a development master plan, rezonings of three separate areas, and land trades. The informal hearing with the Planning Commission will be to discuss the rezoning proposals for the Ensign Downs area before the rezoning request is presented to the City Council for a formal hearing. Three separate areas, as indicated on the map, are to be considered for rezoning in order for the Planned Unit Developments to be developed. The current zoning is R-1 ( Single Family Dwellings ) , and P-1 ( Foothill Preservation District ) with a proposed zoning of R-1A ( Single Family Dwellings and/or Planned Unit Developments. ) The rezonings are based upon the approved development master plan as approved by the Planning Commission on August 2, 1990. As part of their consideration the Planning and Zoning Commission is holding an informal public hearing. During this hearing the Developer and Planning staff will present information on the petitioners request. Anyone desiring to address the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to this request will be given the opportunity to speak. The informal hearings will be held: DATES: Thursday September 6, 1990 TIME: 8: 00 P. M. LOCATION: Room 126 Salt Lake City and County Bldg. 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Please share this information with your neighbors who may be interested. If you have,/ a question relating to this proposal, please attend the meetinngci ) or call Allen McCandless during the 8: 00 A. M. to 5: 00 P. M. off, rs, en o nson, AICP Planning Di ector `� •t L;• i• r•.; o • Ensign Downs ;,,:.;-,,� t -> zeal Proposed Rezonings 1 ° f" F f� A` t � � (3 seperate areas) 0 t `--`^ z ��l 04 n; / \ k p r .../10 i iivitt.`-[,,,4;i 1,/':l'4p,,''l',,',\.A':;',.i,',A1,,'#',,;4,,.'..K,1',"''.-,:*,-',iN',t,;,;,...6 A'g'.l.fZi-r4,..-1 l3r'.i.;',.4-;._,*A,_.k.:.i.,i.:.4 ..._.-0e!_..t,.4'%Vg_ikV''__l.__ fa_'4--_•'t 4,ti1'',''„7:1, :,"4tv2=,0I'';,'M'0,:,-,A,,;-'.1 7 V ; I \ .. Fps' €k4'4-;,,;%i,?se4':.1//,,i." ENSIGN PEAK %' gyp. - '� `- ,€ z A CHURCH / N 3OftVN / 4, C., 'i9RR /: �' .<1.;,„,, * _ _ / { , EXISTING \ R i� 4 "• /c ` PROPOSED \" r C p _ / s, �,�k ` ri.4 ? R-1 to R-1A (proposed) a / °? y' P-1 to R-1A (proposed) \ - / \ �, '�_ Note: Map is Generalized d J ,' •,,/- u N 4, r a -f t J'F attachment a APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDEMENT To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City TTtah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending .Section (Use reverse side for requested text change) Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property lccat_ at: Approximately 1100 East Capitol Boulevard fran a R-1 classification to a R_12 classification (Use reverse side for legal description) ATTACH TO APPLICATION 1. The reasons why the present zoning is rapt proper for the area. 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. 3. Description of the proposed use to be made of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Indication of support for rezcring from all affected property owners. 6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper reconinendation. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number. THE ABOVE INFORMATION, IN DETAIL, MJST ACSMPANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR 1.1-1Z PETITION TO BE PRCPEII2 CONSIDERED BY THE PLANING COMMISSION. Signature of the applicant "') (.�- : ylddress 139 East South Temple , Suite 310 SLC, UT Telephone Number 8-�G4C Zip Cade 84111 / -1 FILL OUT REVERE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. Date Receipt No. Amount $ APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDEMENT To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City "tah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section (Use reverse side for requester: text change) Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: West of Ensign Peak at approximately 1000 North. from a R-1 _ classification to a R-1A classification (Use reverse side for legal description) ATTACH TO APPLICATION 1. The reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area. 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. 3. Description of the pruposed use to be :Wade of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Indication of support for rezoning from all affected property owners. 6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number. THE ABOVE INFCRMATICN, IN DETAIL, MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR ,i PETITIC N 'ISO BE PROP (DNSI ER€D SY T PLC a .?4ISSION. Signature of the epplicant ---&\� - l'r06....,—_i udAddress 139 East South Temple Suite 310 SLC, UT Telephone ` umber 328-1600 Zip Code 84111 FILL OUT REVERSE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. Date Receipt No. Amount $ APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMEN DEMENT To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing F'_e $100.00 Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City "'tah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section (Use reverse side for requested text change) Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: APoroximately 10 Dorchester • from a R-1 classification to a R-1A classification (Use reverse side for legal description) I ATTACH TO APPLICATION 1. The reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area. 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. 3. Description of the proposed use to be made of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. S. Indication of support for rezoning from all affected property owners. 6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number. it y THE ABOVE INFORWITICN, IN DETAIL, MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR THE PETITION TO BE PROM-AZ =ID BY 'I°E-M CumffSSION. Signature of the applicant" ( Cgr �� P-1-� � ` r Address 139 East South Temple , Suite 310 SLC. UT Telephone `7u ber 328-1600 Zip Code 84111 FILL OUT REVERSE SIZE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. n Date Receipt No. Amount $