ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
The regular administrative hearing for the Salt Lake City Planning Division was held on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 at 4:15 p.m. at the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Room 523. Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, was present as the hearing officer and called the meeting to order.
SAFE HAVEN II AMENDMENT located at 550, 552 and 556 West 700 South. MJSA Architects representing Valley Mental Health is requesting to modify the property lines of three lots into two lots. (Staff – Jackie Gasparik)
Judy Fullmer, Christiane Phillips and Robert Pett were present.
Ms. Gasparik explained that the proposal consists of combining three lots into two lots. At one time, the third lot was an easement that became its own parcel through a deed, which made it an illegal subdivision. The subdivision amendment combines a portion of the third lot with Safe Haven I that is already developed, and the remaining portion with Safe Haven II that is in the process of being developed.
Ms. Gasparik reviewed City department comments. The Transportation Division referred to comments from Barry Walsh, Transportation Engineer, on March 18 and June 18, 2002. The comments were not forward to Ms. Gasparik, so she suggested the Applicants contact Mr. Walsh for further information.
The Engineering Division noted that if a new approach is installed for 556 West 700 South, it must be in compliance with the APWA standards in which the concrete must be eight inches thick. They also noted that sidewalk panels along the frontage of 556 West must be installed. Ms. Gasparik explained that in addition to building permits, a permit is required from Engineering prior to doing improvements in the public way.
Ms. Gasparik further explained that Lynn Kurt, City Surveyor, rejected the legal descriptions stating that they must be corrected so that the original integrity of the block does not change and to update the preliminary subdivision plat. Ms. Gasparik explained that the City Surveyor must accept the legal description before approval is forward to the Salt Lake County Records Office.
The Department of Public Utilities requires the cross easement to be labeled as a “cross access and drainage easement.” They also need to confirm that utilities servicing Lot 1 will not be constructed on Lot 2 and vice versa. If there are such utilities, an easement must be provided. Ms. Gasparik explained that she forwarded the survey to Public Utilities and they must have seen something awry because of their comments. She suggested the Applicants contact Public Utilities regarding their comments.
The Fire Department gave approval for the subdivision, and all new construction will also require their approval.
The Planning Division recommends approval subject to meeting all the conditions. In addition, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, requested a copy of the purchase agreement for the land-lock parcel 006. The Planning Division is concerned about how it will be dealt with in the future.
Mr. Pett said that some of the comments from City departments have been addressed.
Regarding the land-locked parcel, Ms. Phillips explained that they will be purchasing it, and the owner is in the process of working with his bank. The north portion of the parcel will be split between Lots 1 and 2, which will change the subdivision boundary.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the legal description would have to be changed to include the additional parcel. He then explained that upon approval of the subdivision amendment, an appeal period of 14 days begins. During this time, the Planning Division could prepare the notice, but it will not be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office until the appeal period expires. The Planning Staff needs the legal description and the purchase agreement for the notice to amend the legal description for the additional property. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the amendment does not change ownership, and the Applicants still need to record a deed to change county records. Ms. Gasparik added that Building Services and Licensing would need a copy of the notice and the deed in order for them to issue the building permit.
THEREFORE, Mr. Wheelwright approved the Safe Haven II Amendment with the condition that the aforementioned property be appropriated and included in the legal descriptions of the two subject lots.
VIEW CITY PLAT A AMENDMENT located at 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East. The First Amended Highland Park Plaza Mastercard Homeowners Association and Highland Park Plaza LLC is requesting to modify the property lines of Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B. The existing duplex at 1977 South 1300 East will have a reduction in lot size, and the Highland Dental Center Building will gain the area currently used as a parking lot. (Staff – Jackie Gasparik)
Joseph Cheever and George Pearson were present representing the Applicant.
Also present were neighboring property owners:
Michele Hutchins, 1990 South View Street
Barbara Bruno, 1974 South View Street
Jeanie Timm, 1983 South View Street
(It was noted that Dr. Stephen Burton, representative for the Highland Park Plaza Homeowners Association and the LLC, and Jared Bradford, owner of the duplex, were unable to attend.)
Ms. Gasparik explained that Sherrie Reich, Housing/Zoning Enforcement Officer, was notified that an illegal subdivision had taken place, and the parking lot of the dental office had been connected to an alley without permits. Ms. Reich sent notices to Dr. Burton and Mr. Bradford stating that the two issues needed to be corrected. Enforcement action was stayed upon the Applicants’ attorney and surveyor filing for approvals. After Planning Staff review, it was determined that approval needed to be given for the subdivision, and the condominium plat needed to be amended showing the parking lot as part of the condominium project in which it would be commonly owned common space. The condominium plat amendment will be addressed under Item #4 with Planning Staff Member Greg Mikolash.
Ms. Gasparik then explained that Craig Smith, Engineering Technician, inspected the property, and verified that the parking lot was connected to the City alley without obtaining proper permits. The Engineering Division is requiring the Applicants to pay a fine and obtain a permit. Mr. Smith also noted that some work was done on the property this summer that are in violation of engineering codes that also need to be brought into compliance. Ms. Gasparik explained to the Applicants that two types of permits are required; a building permit for work on private property and an engineering permit for work on public property; such as streets and driveways, and connections to public property.
Ms. Gasparik further explained that three alleys surround the subject properties. One alley runs east and west on the north side of the dental office property connecting 1300 East and View Street. The second alley runs east and west on the south side of the dental office and duplex connecting 1300 East and View Street with a north/south leg beginning at the southeast corner of the dental office property leading toward 2100 South. The third alley borders portions of the south and east property lines of the dental office property. The third alley was closed and incorporated into the dental property, while the other two are still open to public access. In 1996, Everett Joyce, Principal Planner, processed a conditional use to expand the dental office parking onto the duplex property, which was considered off-site parking (Case #410-226). The Planning Commission approved the off-site parking with the condition that traffic from the dental office could not go into the alley. Since then, the current owners acquired both properties believing that they owned the alley and was able to use it, and sold the duplex without a subdivision. Although the subdivision issue is separate from issues regarding the alleys, the connection of the parking lot to the alley and the use of the alleys invoked concerns from surrounding property owners.
Ms. Hutchins explained that the alley was closed behind the property at 1974 South View Street along with the access, which stopped traffic from the condos and the dental office. Since the parking lot was done and the alley re-opened, traffic has dramatically increased.
Ms. Gasparik reviewed the conditions of approval for the subdivision amendment, which includes both properties even though they are again under different ownerships. The Engineering Division noted that the piped drive approach for the duplex is broken and requires it to be replaced. Engineering also noted another drive approach at 1955 South that dead-ends and needs to be replaced with curb and gutter. Approximately six sidewalk panels need replacing, and one other has an uneven joint that needs to be ground down or replaced. A permit from Engineering is required for the drive approach, curb and gutter, and any other work in the public way. Ms. Gasparik presented to the Applicants the Engineering checklist and explained that the final plat submittal for the final plat approval must conform to the requirements of the checklist. Mr. Pearson noted that Mr. Bradford is currently replacing the drive approach for the duplex.
The Department of Public Utilities and the Fire Department noted no changes and submitted approval.
Mr. Mikolash noted that additional comments were received from City departments regarding the condo plat amendment. Mr. Cheever explained that he is the owner of the condos and has no plans for renovation, but an addition for an office and waiting room was constructed about 15 years ago, which was prior to his ownership. Mr. Mikolash explained that about 650 square feet were added to the structure, but no building permit was obtained. If a building permit were issued at the time, Building Services and Licensing would have recommended a plat amendment. Ms. Hutchins said that the neighbors would not protect the condo amendment if it relates to the structure as it exists, but they are concerned about further expansion and the impact it would have on the alleys.
Responding to questions from the neighbors, Ms. Gasparik confirmed that the sale of the duplex without the subdivision approval was illegal. Mr. Wheelwright added that several deeds go through the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office, and they do not have a review process to make certain properties are properly subdivided. The City’s recourse is the building permit process. The City will not issue building permits until compliance is obtained. When the City becomes aware of a subdivision violation, there are two ways to obtain compliance. One is to restore the property by deeding it back, which eliminates the subdivision process; or going through the subdivision process to obtain approval, which often times has conditions imposed. Mr. Wheelwright noted that one-third of the subdivisions processed by the City is to legitimize deeds that have already been recorded. The City’s goal is to obtain compliance.
Options for controlling traffic in the alleys were then discussed. Mr. Cheever explained that a physical count was taken of vehicles traveling through the alleys, and it was noted that many were coming from the north and other surrounding businesses. The dental office contributes very little to the traffic in the alleys. The Applicants are concerned about totally denying the dental office access to the alleys because of emergency situations and the high amount of traffic on 1300 East. Widening 1300 East was discussed, and Mr. Wheelwright explained that it was a state owned right-of-way, and UDOT and local entities have little interest in widening streets because of cost feasibilities. The Applicants offered to block the alley with two posts and a chain making the alley accessible to only foot traffic and emergency personnel. The dental office has an exit onto 1300 East on the west side that could be modified with directional signs and curbing to direct traffic. As for employees using the alley, Mr. Cheever said he is willing to circulate a memo to all employees instructing them to not use the alley. Ms. Gasparik said the Transportation Engineer noted that the subdivision amendment was not going to make a change to the existing traffic. She said that another alternative would be for the neighbors to apply for an alley closure or a private alley. Ms. Hutchins reiterated that the 1996 conditional use approval does not allow the dental office to have access to the alley. If the subdivision is approved as presented, the neighbors have no recourse for compliance.
Mr. Wheelwright reasoned that the 1996 conditional use approval with conditions imposed was to allow temporary parking on property that was not owned by the Applicants. The Applicants now own the parking and it is debatable as to whether or not the conditions still apply. The intent of the conditions could be examined; however, Mr. Joyce, who processed the conditional use application, is not present and neither are Dr. Burton and Mr. Bradford. Ms. Gasparik explained that Larry Butcher, Zoning Administrator, made an interpretation that the conditional use permit is null and void, and the condition does not apply any longer. Therefore, the Applicants may have access to the alley as long as they obtain the proper permits from Engineering. Ms. Hutchins said that Mr. Butcher’s interpretation was a conversation between Ms. Gasparik and him, and not a formal interpretation.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that any decision made by the hearing officer may be appealed to the Planning Commission; however, he would prefer to delay a decision and allow the Applicants to work with Barry Walsh who is a Transportation Engineer Technician and very resourceful in solving traffic problems. Ms. Gasparik also recommended that the neighbors meet and perhaps find a solution in an alley closure or making the alleys private.
THEREFORE, Mr. Wheelwright continued the hearing for the subdivision amendment and the condominium plat amendment until further notice. In the meantime, the Applicants should contact Barry Walsh in the Transportation Division and work on solutions for ingress and egress without using the alleys, and the conditions relating to the subdivision approval.
RICHMOND CONDOMINIUMS located at 1027 East South Temple. William Connelly is proposing to convert five residential dwelling units (currently under construction) to private condominium ownership. The property is located on 16,000 square feet of property and is zoned RMF-35. (Staff -- Greg Mikolash)
William Connelly was present.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that Planning Commission Members have voiced several concerns about the height and mass of the building; specifically, the north and west elevations. Mr. Connelly explained that they have heard from only one neighbor on First Avenue who is upset because the project blocks his view. He then explained that the building is within one inch of the design elevation that was presented to the Planning Commission, which indicated one foot from the required height limit. The building may seem imposing at the rear, but is nothing more than the plans indicated. Once the construction fences are removed and the grade is restored, the South Temple façade will not seem as intrusive. Mr. Mikolash noted that the Planning Division has not received any comments from neighbors.
Mr. Mikolash then explained that the request is for a five-unit condominium approval upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission. In September 2001, the Planning Commission considered conditional use approval including a ten-foot decrease in the rear yard setback, and a stairwell also in the rear setback. The conditional use was approved with the recommendation that the four newly constructed dwelling units and the existing single-family dwelling be converted to condominiums. The project is located in an RMF-35 Zone within a historic district. The single-family dwelling is in the process of being renovated including an addition. The common area is throughout the major interior portion of the property. Parking is underground and adequate.
Mr. Mikolash reviewed City department comments. The Division of Transportation had no problems and indicated that no changes appeared to have been made since the conditional use approval. Transportation is in the process of renovating South Temple Street, and the Applicant is responsible for repairing any damages to the improvements during development of the subject property. The Engineering Division also commented on street improvement issues.
Property Management had no objections for approval, and the Fire Department had no comments because no changes took place between the original approval and this request. Public Utilities will approve the plat subject to noting on the plat that all water, fire, sewer and storm drainage utility services will be taken care by the homeowner organization.
The Planning Staff recommends approval contingent to a final plat application and submittal of appropriate materials. Mr. Mikolash gave Mr. Connelly a final plat approval application and a copy of the comments from City departments. He explained the final recording process and the appropriate materials required. Also the plans that have been submitted for this request are on a subdivision plat. The plat for condos is formatted differently and provides for approval from the Building Official, which is required. Mr. Connelly said that he would have his engineer at McNeil Engineering correct the problem. Mr. Mikolash noted that he has contacted McNeil Engineering in the past regarding this issue, but each time he has spoken to a different person.
THEREFORE, Mr. Wheelwright approved the request for the Richmond Condominiums.
SECOND AMENDED HIGHLAND PARK PLAZA CONDOMINIUM PLAT by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting an amendment to the First Amended Highland Park Plaza Condominium Plat for the purpose of expanding office unit #7 on level 2 of an existing office structure located at 1955 South 1300 East. (Staff – Greg Mikolash)
The request for the amendment to the condominium plat was held until further notice. (See View City Plat A Amendment above.)
There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.