SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:31:58 PM . Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Weston Clark; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Emily Drown, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Clark Ruttinger and Sara Urquhart. Commissioner Brenda Scheer and Vice Chairperson Ivis Garcia were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Lauren Parisi, Associate Planner; Kelsey Lindquist, Principal Planner; Mayara Lima, Associate Planner; Kevin Young, Deputy Director for the Transportation Division; Deborah Severson, Administrative Secretary; and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Planning Commissioners present were Maurine Bachman, Chairperson Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Clark Ruttinger and Sara Urquhart. Staff members in attendance were Wayne Mills, Kelsey Lindquist, Lauren Parisi and Casey Stewart.
•629 and 633 E 800 South (Wasatch Community Gardens) - Staff summarized the project.
•1249 E Crystal Avenue and 2623 S Highland Drive (Alley Vacation) - Staff summarized the project.
•361 W Reed Avenue (Planned Development) – Staff summarized the proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 28, 2018, MEETING MINUTES
MOTION
Commissioner Drown moved to approve the March 28, 2018 meeting minutes. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. Commissioners Urquhart, Drown, Barry, Bachman, Paredes and Ruttinger voted “aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Clark stated he nothing to report, and Vice Chairperson Garcia was excused.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
On behalf of the Planning Director, Mr. Mills stated he had nothing to report.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Conditional Use for a Homeless Resource Center at approximately 275 W High Avenue and 242 W Paramount Avenue - Shelter the Homeless is requesting Conditional Use approval for a new homeless resource center to be located at the above listed addresses on a 3 acre combined property in the CG (General Commercial) zoning district. The proposed resource center will serve both men and women with 100 beds dedicated for each. It will be approximately 63,371 square feet in size and will include areas for sleeping and personal hygiene, client intake, community and day uses spaces, client services, administration, food services, support and donations. The property is located within Council District 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at 801-535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2017-01064 (Administrative matter)
Wayne Mills explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal in a public hearing on March 28, 2018, and held their decision to obtain more information regarding the pedestrian orientation of the site which is proposed to be on Paramount Avenue. The Petitioners along with representatives from the Mayor’s Office and Salt Lake City Police Department were present to provide additional information. Mr. Mills added that Planning Staff further reviewed the orientation and provided their findings in a report that was submitted to the Commission. Mr. Mills summarized the report:
•Street Characteristics of High Avenue: Located to the north of the project and has no sidewalks or any other pedestrian or bicycle facilities along the street.
•Property Frontage on High Avenue – Consisting of four properties: Two structures on each corner that do not have front entrances on High Avenue; an apartment complex with a six-foot wall along its side yard that boarders High Avenue; and the subject property.
•High Avenue functions as an alley or service road rather than an active street with no pedestrian improvement or active land uses.
•Street Characteristics of Paramount Avenue: Located to the south of the site which is owned by the City; and includes curb, gutter, narrow park strip on the north and sidewalks along both sides.
•Property Frontage on Paramount Avenue – Approximately 16 various businesses with active uses and existing pedestrian improvements.
•Urban Design Goals – Pedestrian activity should be located along active streets, and auto access from service roads or alleyways.
•CPTED – Staff determined that Paramount Avenue would be the appropriate street for pedestrian oriented access relating to CPTED principles and the context of streets surrounding the project.
•Equity – The Plan Salt Lake Citywide Vision document has an entire chapter on equity that emphases treating all people equally.
•Specific Regulations Associated with the Proposed Use – It is acknowledged that the use may have a potential impact and the zoning ordinance may have specific regulations relating to the proposed use, but there are no guidelines for a different type of design. The purpose is to integrate homeless resource centers into the community, and Staff determined that Paramount Avenue better integrates the facility into the community. Reorienting the facility on High Avenue would result in an isolated compound.
•Staff reviewed the proposal according to the homeless resource center use and the conditional use standards, and recommended approval.
Preston Cochrane (Shelter the Homeless) and Jill Jones (HAC Architects) were present to represent the proposal. Ms. Jones stated the following:
•The Applicants’ presentation on March 28, 2018 was specific to the property itself. The Applicants have since reviewed the characteristics of surrounding streets and CPTED principles with the Salt Lake City Police Department.
•CPTED principles were evaluated for both High Avenue and Paramount Avenue.
•The Applicants’ vision statement influenced their direction to provide the best possible design for the new type of homeless resource centers. The vision statement derived from a collection of words from clients, the City, the County and neighbors – Humane, Connected, Contextual, Safety, Flexible, Durable, Trauma Informed Design, Sustainable”.
•The Applicants’ design was also influenced by “What Makes a Great American City” - A city street equipped to handle strangers and to make a safety asset in itself or of the presence of strangers as the streets of successful city neighborhoods always do which must have three main qualities: 1) Clear demarcation between public space and private space. 2) Eyes upon the street. 3) Sidewalks with users fairly continuously both to add to the number of eyes on the street and to induce watching the sidewalks in sufficient numbers.
•Physical characteristics of the surrounding area encompassing a quarter-mile radius that identified the TRAX line, bus stops, residential properties and commercial properties.
•Comparisons of infrastructure and pedestrian access on both High Avenue and Paramount Avenue.
•Comparisons of CPTED principles for both High Avenue and Paramount Avenue in which Paramount Avenue appears to better address the principles. The building would need to be redesigned if oriented towards High Avenue. High Avenue presents challenges with the wall along the north, termination of the street, no pedestrian improvements and inadequate infrastructure. CPTED principles: Clear sightlines, adequate lighting, minimize concealed routes, avoid entrapment, create ownership and improve the overall design.
•Case study - Successful design concepts using CPTED principles for the YWCA campus. Since 1991, Ms. Jones designed the entire campus which includes a daycare that is shared with the community.
The Commission and Applicants discussed the following:
•Functions of the building in which the building is oriented to High Avenue for volunteer and service functions, and Paramount Avenue is oriented for safer access for clients and better community activation.
•Orientation of the entrance on Paramount addresses neighborhood safety issues with more “eyes on the street”.
•Privacy for the clients would be addressed in the facility itself and the courtyard; not by the entrance of the building on either High Avenue or Paramount Avenue.
•Goals for Resource Centers - To provide necessary resources on site rather than having clients leave the centers. The proposed design addresses one resource by placing the courtyard on the south side of the site which would have more exposure to the sun.
•Alternatively, privacy issues for clients could be addressed with the entrance on High Avenue, and volunteer and service interaction could also provide eyes on the street and perhaps better serve the financial health of businesses on Paramount Avenue.
•Comparisons of the YWCA design and orientation to the proposal conflict with some principles in that both clients and visitors for the YWCA use the same parking area, and the YWCA buildings and courtyard are oriented to the north. If the north orientation works for the YWCA, than so could the proposal with the orientation on High Avenue with alternative design options, and pedestrian and infrastructure improvements on High Avenue.
•Orientation of residential functions with residences, and business functions with businesses.
•Arguments for the Paramount Avenue orientation, and no arguments for the High Avenue orientation only that it will not work for the proposed building design.
Chairperson Clark noted that the Commission received two comment cards from citizens who wished to speak to the issue (George Chapman and Ernest Lloyd Cox). Chairperson Clark explained that the meeting would not be opened for public comment in this meeting because public comment was received in two previous meetings and was closed.
Sargent Sam Wolf, Officer Dave King and Officer Josh Ashdown from the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) were present.
Chairperson Clark acknowledged that the Commission received the SLCPD report relating to the proposal. Sargent Wolf explained that the CPTED principles were properly applied, and the proposal met SLCPD requirements.
The Commission, Officers and Staff discussed the following:
•Enforcement would be easier and better for SLCPD if the main entrance were oriented towards Paramount Avenue because of more eyes on the street.
•Enforcement action relating to vandalism, graffiti and loitering on either Paramount Avenue or High Avenue would be the same.
•Impact on businesses relating to vandalism, graffiti and littering; and responsible parties for correcting these activities.
•The requirement for resource centers to have a safety and operations plan in place to provide constant communication with members of the community including a 24-hour hotline.
•CPTED principles applied to resource centers and other uses that generally generate pedestrians that may attract undesirable or criminal activity i.e. bars, homeless shelters.
•People experiencing homelessness do not have a higher propensity to commit crimes, and a facility that services a homeless population does not necessarily increase crime in an area.
•Safety and operations plans, and management of resource centers verses homeless shelters (Rio Grande Street). The proposed safety and operations plan would work if the building were oriented either towards High Avenue or Paramount Avenue. The difference would be eyes on the street (Paramount) that could see criminal activity as it happens rather than after the fact which would be the case on High Avenue. High Avenue provides spaces for criminal activity especially with the existing wall and dead-end street.
•On-site security cameras and lighting, and perhaps implementing cameras and increased lighting on both streets.
•The option and the process for the Mayor or the Planning Commission to suspend any conditional use if the terms of a conditional use are violated; and in this case, the safety and operations plan. The safety and operations plan requires an ongoing annual report including quarterly performance evaluations with the community. The annual report is submitted to the City and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
•Crafting, implementing and enforcing security (safety) and operations plans - a new requirement in the homeless resource center ordinance that was reviewed and adopted by the City Council in 2017. Existing homeless shelters were not required to provide a security and operations plan.
The Commission discussed the following:
•Concerns about negative impacts on surrounding businesses, and orientation of the center to mitigate those impacts.
•Security plan working for both orientations, and the most appropriate orientation could support the health and growth of the businesses and the community.
•Commissioners’ personal experiences with the YWCA, Rio Grande Homeless Shelter and the VOA Shelter. The proposal modeled after the YWCA campus inducing a safe feeling and further supported by the Police Department review. The review of the Police Department seemingly neutral and leans toward the Paramount Avenue orientation.
•Frustration about the process in that the building was originally designed oriented towards Paramount Avenue, and no meaningful attempt to attractively and effectively orient towards High Avenue including perhaps incorporating High Avenue into the project. The fact that High Avenue is a dead-end street which offers dead-end space for loitering, could be mitigated with the High orientation.
•The landowner’s right to use and design the property, and specific conditional use standards that do not allow a mandate to reorient.
•Alternatively, the Paramount Avenue orientation could provide attractiveness to that street, and encourage redevelopment on surrounding vacant lots.
•The building design with services towards High Avenue may be conducive with the existing “alleyway” design of that street.
•Acknowledgment of overall impacts of homeless shelters regardless of orientation.
•Client dignity and integration into the community.
•Security and operations plans mitigating adverse impacts. Eyes on the street and resources provided by the facility make a difference as to activities on the streets.
•Trust in stakeholders to make the new resource center model successful, the security and operations plan and the process to suspend the conditional use.
•Evaluated whether or not the proposal meets Standards 3, 8 and 11 in Section 21A.54.080(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, orienting the proposed uses with surrounding uses; residential functions with existing residences on High Avenue, and business functions with existing businesses on Paramount Avenue which may result in improvements to both streets.
•The Commission further debated pros and cons of the orientation, and came to a consensus that Planning Staff continue working on the Small Area Master Plan with a recommendation for additional lighting and other features and improvements on Paramount and High avenues to mitigate any real and potential risks and impacts of the center on the neighborhood, and to encourage future development which would provide health and growth for the neighborhood.
MOTION
Commissioner Lyon stated that based on the findings and information listed in the staff report, the testimony and plans presented especially by the Police Department, he moved for the Planning Commission to approve the requested conditional use application PLNPCM2017-01064 the Homeless Resource Center at 275 West High Avenue and 242 West Paramount Avenue subject to the condition outlined in the staff report as referenced Number 1. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion and added a recommendation to the City to continue developing the Small Area Master Plan to do street improvements on Paramount Avenue including additional street lighting and other elements that would help improve the safety of the area. Commissioner Lyon accepted the recommendation, and in addition that High Avenue also be considered in the improvements acknowledging that High Avenue may be a problem as an alleyway as it is listed. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion with the additional recommendations. Commissioners Hoskins, Lyon, Barry, Bachman and Ruttinger voted “aye”.
Commissioners Urquhart, Drown and Paredes voted “no”. The motion passed with a 5 to 3 vote.
Reed Avenue Planned Development at approximately 361 W Reed Avenue - David Young (Owner/Applicant) is requesting planned development approval to construct a 4-unit residential condominium project with modified side yard building setbacks, parking stall count, and alley access at the above listed address in a MU (Mixed Use) zoning district located in Council District 3, represented by Chris Warton. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNSUB2017-01071 (Administrative matter)
Casey Stewart explained that the Commission reviewed a similar project for the subject property in August 2017, and the Commission denied it. The Applicant has since redesigned, and Mr. Stewart reviewed the new proposal as outlined in the staff report (located in the case file) in comparison with the previous proposal. Mr. Stewart stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the petition subject to the condition that the final planned development plan approval is delegated to the Planning Director.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Proposed orientation of the units, height and side yard setbacks in comparison with maximum height standards and side yard setback requirements.
•Proposed parking in comparison with the required parking maximum and minimum standards.
David Young (Owner/Developer), Rodrigo (Smith-Hyde Architects) and Scott Mosses (Smith-Hyde Architects) were present.
Mr. Young explained that after their first proposal was denied, they went back to the neighborhood and the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, and redesigned the project based on community and Staff input. Mr. Young, Rodrigo and Mr. Mosses reviewed the new design.
Mr. Young read the letter from Laura Arellano, Chairperson/Board of Trustees for Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, supporting the application.
The Commission and Applicants discussed the following:
•Front façade design moving in the appropriate direction.
•Proposed individual side and rear entrances rather than a central entrance to address design standards.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Clark opened the meeting for public comment.
Chairperson Clark acknowledge that no one representing the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council was present, and the letter supporting the proposal was entered into the record.
The following citizens were present to speak to the petition: Vince Rogers, Eddy Steele, W. D. Foren, Lena Foren and D. Dean Anesi (Urban Garden Company).
The following comments were made:
•Concerns relating to the proposed parking access on an alleyway that is not improved or maintained and has no recorded ownership.
•Concerns about the overall congested parking situation in the Marmalade area, and accommodating visitor parking.
•Support for the proposed two-car garages, improvements to the alleyway, and using the alleyway as access rather than Reed Avenue. The design to not back onto Reed Avenue from the garages addresses safety hazards caused by the congested parking and heavy traffic on Reed. (The maximum parking standard is 1.5 stalls.)
•Support for the reduced setback rather than maximizing the building height. (A seven-foot setback is proposed rather than the required ten feet. The maximum building height for the MU zone is 45 feet; the proposal is approximately 35 feet.)
•Support for demolishing the existing dilapidated residential structure and proposed improvements to the property.
•Support for the new design in comparison to the previous design.
•Concerns about pedestrian access on the alleyway, inadequate greenery and landscaping, and increased use and traffic congestion on the alleyway with the new development (28 units) adjacent to the west.
Chairperson Clark Closed the meeting to public comment.
The Commission, Applicants and Staff discussed the following:
•Concerns about the ownership of the alleyway, and it being claimed and made unavailable to the development.
•Trash removal – The Applicants are proposing a common enclosed dumpster area. Future homeowners may opt for individual receptacles for curb collection. Trash removal must be finalized prior to building permit review, and SLC Public Utilities should be consulted.
•Maintenance responsibility for the alleyway. Maintenance could be addressed with HOA agreements.
•Sidewalks within the subject project and the adjacent project along the alleyway.
•Access for the adjacent project and sharing the alleyway. Whether or not a traffic study is needed. The width of the alleyway being increased from 16 feet legal width to 20 feet paved width in conjunction with adjacent apartment project may mitigate traffic concerns.
•Legal processes for dedicating a right-of-way to the public or private ownership.
•Providing adequate garage space to prevent vehicles from partially blocking the alleyway. The proposed garages are about 20 feet wide and 22 feet deep.
•Urban Design – Encourages automobile access from alleyways; and in some zoning districts, require it if an alley exists.
•Reed Avenue Façade – The Commission commended the Applicants for the attention to the front façade, and encouraged them to extend the porch to better engage the community which is a character to the neighborhood.
•Paving and maintaining the alleyway is an improvement for the neighborhood.
MOTION
Commissioner Lyon stated that based on the information in the staff report and testimony presented, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the 361 W Reed Avenue Condominium Planned Development Petition PLNSUB2017-01071 subject to the condition that the Applicant obtain appropriate approvals from all departments. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Urquhart, Hoskins, Lyon, Drown, Barry, Bachman, Paredes and Ruttinger voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
BREAK
Wasatch Community Gardens Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at approximately 629 and 633 East 800 South -Wasatch Community Gardens, represented by Ashley Patterson, has requested to: 1) Amend the future land use designation in the Central Community Master Plan from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units/acre) to Medium Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwellings units/acre) and 2) Amend the zoning map from the RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning district to the R-MU-35 (Residential Mixed-Use) zoning district for the properties at the above listed addresses. These amendments would allow the Gardens to use the two homes on the site as their administrative offices. The subject properties are located in the Central City Local Historic District and Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Lauren Parisi at 801-535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2018-00024 and PLNPCM2018-00025 (Legislative matter)
Lauren Parisi reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report (located in the case file). Ms. Parisi stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the amendments.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Affirmation that the two existing homes could not be removed without review by the Historic Landmark Commission, and new construction also reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission.
•Height standards for the R-MU-35 zoning district, and the process for restricting as well as obtaining additional height which also would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission.
•The reasoning for choosing R-MU-35 rather than CB, CN or RB zone. The R-MU-35 allows the Applicant more flexibility in addressing their proposed and future development.
•Surrounding Zoning Classifications - The nearest R-MU-35 to the subject property is 600 East and 600 South. R-MU-35 and R-MU-45 zones were implemented about two years ago and not widespread throughout the City. These zoning districts were created to maintain a residential base while allowing small services to the neighborhood.
•Other zoning classifications such as the CB and CN may offer the Applicant more flexibility while maintaining the desired density of the neighborhood.
Ashley Patterson (Executive Director for Wasatch Community Gardens) and Kristen Clifford (Planning and Predevelopment Consultant) were present.
Ms. Patterson gave an overview of the Wasatch Community Gardens organization and the proposal.
Ms. Clifford explained the review process for deciding on the R-MU-35 zoning district, and how the proposal may meet the standards for master plan and zoning map amendment approval. Ms. Clifford referred to her written narrative that was submitted to the Commission, and reviewed the site plan, the objectives for the proposal and housing mitigation.
The Commission and Applicants discussed the following:
•Current and future educational programs provided by the Wasatch Community Gardens organization.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Clark opened the meeting to public comment.
No one from the Central City Community Council was present to speak to the proposal.
Written comments were received by Tiffany Pett and Chris Benson supporting the proposal. Mr. Benson requested clarification on the final design.
The following citizens were present to speak to the proposal: Lisa Dae and Cindy Cromer.
•Ms. Dae voiced her appreciation for the Grateful Tomato Garden and support for the expansion. It will improve the sites, provide some additional parking and increase community involvement.
•Ms. Cromer submitted a written presentation and voiced support for the proposal, although she was concerned about maintaining the character of the neighborhood and housing units. Ms. Cromer suggested the Planning Commission initiate a study of the immediate area, correct the zoning on Green Street to SR-3, and urge the City Administration and City Council to fix the housing mitigation ordinance.
Chairperson Clark closed the meeting to public comment.
The Commission, Applicants and Staff discussed the following:
•Adult and youth curriculums offered by the organization.
•History of the property that is now the Grateful Tomato Garden. A 1958 aerial map shows one house oriented to 600 East. The Grateful Tomato Garden has existed since mid-1980s.
•Concerns about the R-MU-35 being an appropriate zoning classification for the neighborhood and the location relating to future uses; specifically the potential for larger and taller buildings.
•Purpose of the R-MU-35 zone – transitional zone from low density areas to nearby high density areas.
•Purposes, allowed uses and height standards for other zoning classifications – CN, SNB and CB.
•The appropriateness of the CN zone for the location and neighborhood. May address the current use and proposed development, but would not allow future increase in the housing stock.
•Applicants’ research for selecting R-MU-35 – obtaining as much open space on the lot as possible, minimal parking requirements, flexible density for new housing on the smaller lot; and most importantly, meeting the needs of the community as per input by neighborhood advocates and City staff. The R-MU-35 zone received the most positive feedback. Additionally, the area is protected by the existing historic overlay.
•Future review for rezoning the area as a whole, and making recommendations to the City Council for other appropriate zoning for the location.
MOTION
Commissioner Ruttinger stated based on the information in the staff report and testimony presented, he moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Petitions PLNPCM2018-00024 and PLNPCM2018-00025 for the Wasatch Community Gardens Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. Commissioner Lyon amended the motion to add that the City Council review the CN Community Neighborhood Zoning District as an additional possibility. Commissioner Ruttinger accepted the amendment. Commission Lyon seconded the motion. Commissioners Urquhart, Hoskins, Lyon, Drown, Barry, Bachman, Paredes and Ruttinger voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners Drown and Paredes were excused.
Crystal Avenue Alley Vacation at approximately 1249 E Crystal Ave and 2623 S Highland Dr. - Scott Schoonover, property owner of 1249 E. Crystal Avenue, and Coni Reay, property owner of 2623 S. Highland Drive, are requesting that the City vacate ownership of 125 feet of the north to south portion of the alley adjacent to their property. If the petition is approved, the alley would be converted to private property and given to the abutting property owners. The Planning Commission is required to transmit a recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation request. The City Council is the final decision maker. The subject alley is located in Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist 801-575-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2017-00478 (Legislative matter)
Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report (located in the case file). Ms. Lindquist stated that Staff recommended forwarding a negative recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•The outcome and appropriateness of making a decision on the subject petition concurrently with the petition for the alley disposition text amendment. Amending the text for alley disposition relating to the percentage of abutting property owners who are required to sign off on a vacation from 80 percent to 75 percent, would not render a final decision to approve or deny a closure. The percentage determines whether or not the petition would move forward.
Scott Schoonover, Janet Zimmer (Co-owner for 1249 E Crystal Avenue) and Coni Reay were present.
Mr. Schoonover reviewed the lay of the land, and explained the criminal activity and safety hazards that the alleyway presents to their properties and wellbeing. Mr. Schoonover stated that he believed their petition met the standards for closure specific to public safety, blight and lack of use. He also expressed his concerns about the lack of maintenance on public alleyways.
Ms. Zimmer expressed her desire to improve and maintain the character of the neighborhood. She explained the increasing criminal activity in the alleyway, and voiced her concern for their safety. Ms. Zimmer noted that the closure would not infringe on anyone’s access to their home, it would hinder transient traffic, and the closure was approved by the Sugar House Community Council.
Ms. Reay also explained the increasing criminal activity in the alleyway and her concerns for her safety. She explained the improvements they made to their portion of the alleyway, and recounted why opposing neighbors did not want it closed.
The Commission and Applicants discussed the following:
•The Applicants’ proposal to fence their portion of the alleyway should it be closed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Clark opened the meeting to public comment.
Judy Short, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the Community Council reviewed the proposal in August 2017, and approved the closure. However, upon reviewing the analyses in the staff report, the Land Use Executive Committee for Sugar House withdrew support until the deficiencies meeting the standards are addressed. Ms. Short explained that her community was disconnected when the alleyway adjacent to her home was vacated. She recommended that better policing may improve safety in alleyways.
The following citizens were present to speak to the proposal: Katie Ward, Joy Beightol and Samantha, and John and Pamela Eresuma.
The following comments were made:
•Support for closing the alleyway to offer privacy, and alleviate litter, vagrancy and criminal activity.
•Excessive access to properties.
•Mr. and Mrs. Eresuma opposed closing the alleyway which they use. They voiced their concern about eliminating an unimpeded emergency access. It is also used as an alternative route from Stratford Avenue which has a steep entrance and difficult to maneuver during winter months. They have not witnessed vagrancy and criminal activity in the alleyway.
Chairperson Clark closed the meeting to public comment.
The Commissioner, Staff and Applicants discussed the following:
•Separation of public land (alleyway) and cross access easements.
•Applicants’ rebuttal to Mr. and Mrs. Eresuma’s opposition.
•City’s opposition for the closure with no strategy for maintenance.
MOTION (Failed)
Commissioner Ruttinger stated based on the information in the staff report and testimony presented, and analyses of the standards, he moved for Petition PLNPCM2017-00478 Crystal Avenue Alley Vacation that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Ruttinger stated the petition meets Standard B. It was demonstrated by testimony that the alleyway presents safety issues, and the Applicants are the only two property owners who have access to that portion of alleyway and who require access. Closing the portion of the alleyway as requested will not block access to any other property and will improve safety of the homes. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion.
The Commission further discussed the issue:
Commissioner Clark stated the partial closure would not solve the problem as a whole since a good portion of the alley would still exist. Commissioner Urquhart voiced regret for closing alleyways as a fabric of the City, and eliminating thoroughfares and pedestrian access through the blocks. Commissioner Barry reasoned for other solutions to address alleyway issues.
Commissioner Ruttinger argued that the proposal is not a blanket alley closure, but a unique situation exists and the portion of alley discussed services only the side of one Applicant’s property and the back of the other. Other property owners adjacent to the alley have other options for accessing rear of their homes. The Applicants further maintain their portion of the alley.
Commissioners Urquhart, Hoskins, Barry and Bachman voted “no”. Commissioners Lyon and Ruttinger voted “yes”. The motion failed.
MOTION (Passed)
Commissioner Barry stated based on the information in the staff report, the information presented and the input received during the public hearing, She moved that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the requested alley vacation according to PLNPCM2017-00478. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Urquhart, Hoskins, Barry and Bachman voted “yes”. Commissioners Lyon and Ruttinger voted “no”. The motion passed with a 4 to 2 vote.
Commissioner Hoskins was excused.
Alley Disposition Process Text Amendment - The Salt Lake City Council is requesting to modify the application process related to the disposition of city owned alleys. Currently, in order to request that the City relinquish ownership of a public alley, at least 80 percent of the neighbors owning property along the alley must sign a petition in favor of the request. The proposed text amendment would reduce the minimum required property owners’ signatures to 75 percent. This amendment will affect Section 14.52.030 of Title 14 - Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places. (Staff Contact: Mayara Lima at 801-535-7932 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2018-00081 (Legislative matter)
Mayara Lima reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report (located in the case file). She noted that the percentage of signatures relates only to the determination of the completeness of an application, and does not determine the approval or denial of an alley vacation request. Ms. Lima stated Staff determined that providing 75 percent of signatures shows sufficient community interest for an application to be processed while having minimal impact on the overall process alley disposition. Staff recommended forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Clarification of the process after 75 percent signatures are obtained.
•The option to consider linear feet of an alleyway for signatures.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Clark opened the meeting for public comment.
The following citizens were present to speak to the issue: Judy Short, Scott Schoonover and Janet Zimmer.
•Recommendation to remove alleyway vacations from the zoning ordinance to prevent closures. In conjunction with the ADU ordinance (access dwelling units), alleyways could be part of the neighborhood and walkable fabric.
•Support for the percentage change – mathematically makes sense.
•Support for alleyways – provides urban connectivity.
•Problems with maintaining alleyways, causing blight and safety issues.
•Original purposes for alleyways and abandonment of those purposes – Designed for vehicular service usage and not pedestrian use.
Chairperson Clark closed the meeting to public comment.
The Commission did not discuss the issue any further.
MOTION
Commissioner Lyon stated based on the findings and analyses in the staff report and testimony presented, he moved the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for Petition PLNPCM2018-00081 Alley Disposition Process Text Amendment. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. Commissioners Urquhart, Lyon, Bachman and Ruttinger voted “yes”. Commissioner Barry voted “no”. The motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote.
Transportation Master Plan Amendment – The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office is requesting to amend the Major Street Plan in the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. The changes relate to proposed roadways and classifications in the Northwest Quadrant that include:
§ Addition of State routes
§ Addition of arterial streets
§ Addition of collector streets
§ Addition of freeway/interchange
The amendments will affect the Major Street Plan to include these new proposed roadways.
(Staff Contact: Alexis Verson at 801-535-6569 or alexis.verson@slcgov.com)
Kevin Young reviewed the proposal and requested a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and the Applicant discussed the following:
•Reconfiguration and elimination of some roads, and additional streets to accommodate development of the prison and other development.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Clark opened the meeting for public comment, no one was present to speak to the issue, and the meeting was closed to public comment.
MOTION
Commissioner Lyon moved to approve and forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Transportation Master Plan Amendment as proposed and outlined in the map that was submitted to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. Commissioners Urquhart, Lyon, Barry, Bachman and Ruttinger voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:16:30 PM