SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Tim Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Jennifer Seelig, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, and Kathy Scott. Commissioners Prescott Muir and Peggy McDonough were not in attendance.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Community Development Director Louis Zunguze, Deputy Community Development Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Zoning Administrator Kevin LoPiccolo, Senior Planner Elizabeth Giraud, Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Associate Planner Janice Lew, and Planning Commission Secretary Andrea Curtis.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Planning Commission Members voting during the meeting are as follows: Commissioner Noda, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Diamond. Commissioner Chambless, as Chairperson, did not vote.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2005
(This item was heard at 5:46 p.m.)
Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. As Chairperson, Commissioner Chambless did not vote.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:46 p.m.)
Chairperson Chambless and Vice Chairperson Noda concurred that there was nothing to report at this time.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:47 p.m.)
Community Development Director Louis Zunguze inquired if the Commissioners had reviewed the changes to the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) ordinance made to align it with the Walkable Communities ordinance and wished to reopen hearings on the ordinance or to move forward with the changes as proposed. The Commissioners agreed that rehearing the item would not be necessary and confirmed the ordinance should continue forward with the changes as noted.
Director Zunguze proposed two work sessions to review the impact of the TRAX Light Rail Extension proposal. He explained that the meetings would occur during the lunch hour and would cover the issues involved and clarify the positions of the competing interests in order to enable the Commission to provide an informed, clear recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner De Lay confirmed with Director Zunguze that the presentation would be that provided by the Mayor’s office to the neighborhoods and expressed her conviction that it would be highly valuable to the Commissioners; she noted that she previously attended one such presentation and that it provided a quality overview of the various projects and their impacts on each other. The other Commissioners expressed interest in and approval of the proposal. Director Zunguze confirmed that he would arrange for the scheduling of the two work sessions.
Director Zunguze reviewed the difficulties regarding height of buildings that the current ordinance creates, noting that one section refers to height of buildings measured in feet while another uses height measured in stories. He requested that the Commission initiate a petition to review the ordinance and revise it to reflect height measurements in feet only. Commissioner Diamond questioned whether the verbage provided in the Director’s memo and included in the Commissioners’ packet is the current language or the proposed language. Director Zunguze confirmed the memo contains the current language, which refers to both feet and stories. Commissioner De Lay moved to initiate said petition to change height specifications to measurements of feet rather than stories; Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Director Zunguze stated that the Commission previously reviewed and approved Petition 410-712 by Victor Kimball, a conditional use for a car rental agency in the D-2 district. He noted that at the time of the Commission’s review, the plan included a driveway off from State Street. Following discussions with UDOT and the revelation that the same property owner has interest in an adjoining property, UDOT required that the entrance to the two parcels be consolidated to a single entrance. This necessitates a shift of the entrance from the location previously approved to the location of the new property. The move minimizes curb cuts on State Street, improving safety. Director Zunguze asked for permission to approve the change administratively rather than require the Commission to rehear the matter. Senior Planner Giraud referred the Commissioners to the site plans attached to the memo provided in their meeting packet. Director Zunguze explained the first plan shows the original approved plan; the second plan shows the consolidation of the parcels and the proposed new entrance. Commissioner Diamond asked that discussion of the matter be postponed until Staff’s presentation of the related petitions during the Public Hearings. Director Zunguze concurred.
Director Zunguze referred to a petition approved two years ago to declare as surplus property a portion of 500 West at 200 South. He noted 500 West is dedicated to serve as a boulevard through to the neighborhood areas to the north. Developments happening around the Gateway area necessitate further discussion of the petition. He invited Principal Planner Doug Dansie to explain the details.
Mr. Dansie explained that the visionary plan for the Gateway open space area began in 1993. During that process the City went through an experience of projecting aerial maps of other successful developments onto the 500 West area between 600 North and 900 South. He showed maps of the Guadalupe River Park in San Jose, California, the Mall in Washington, D.C., and Boston Commons and Commonwealth Avenue superimposed onto the project area. He stated that eventually the Boston Commonwealth Avenue inspired the concept for a grand boulevard approximately 5 blocks long with a parkway running through the middle, providing a more substantive park than the landscaped center medians on 600 East and 800 East. The master plan design for the neighborhood indicates this parkway spine along 500 West. The project was approved, bought, paid for, designed, and ready to build in 1999. However, upon a change of City administration, a review of the Intermodal Transit hub location was requested. As a result, only the northern portion of the development was built as scheduled. The area from North Temple to 200 South was developed, with a slight jog around the power substation. The initial project included financing to reconfigured the power substation including burying the overhead lines underground.
After the first half of the development was completed, a review of the Intermodal Transit hub confirmed the location, funding was appropriated to finish the last two blocks of the development between 200 and 400 South. However, instead of a linear block 100 feet long, the intermediary area is disrupted, creating awkward spaces. Mr. Dansie referred to the maps provided and noted the areas where the street was widened by 66 feet on the east side to accommodate the center park near the UP substation. The City purchased two parcels, one to ensure the necessary park width and the other to be traded to Utah Power & Light for the parcel where their substation is located, jutting into the right of way. UP&L in turn would reconfigure their substation on the exchanged lot. This would ensure the continuation of the linear parkway through the entire length of the development area.
Mr. Dansie referred Commissioners to the Gateway site plans provided for them this evening. He stated that Boyer is proposing to construct an office building on this site and noted the design has a grocery store on the ground level and associated surface parking. The design requires using the parcel originally intended to trade with UP&L, eliminating that option and making the current non-linear parkway final. Referring to the site plans, Mr. Dansie specified that Parcel A will be kept by the City, Parcel C belongs to UP&L, and Parcel B belongs to the City, with the original intention being to exchange Parcel B for Parcel C. Boyer also wants to purchase Parcel C to build the office building. The accompanying parcel site plan illustrates the office/retail building to the north-south orientation along Rio Grande with surface parking along 500 West. That parking will accommodate the grocery store. The orientation of the building is designed to take advantage of the views for the office renters. If the orientation were east-west, the building footprint itself could exist on the existing Redevelopment Agency (RDA) land; Boyer wants the extra land for the surface parking.
Chairperson Chambless queried the completion time frame. Mr. Dansie indicated that if the City decides to vacate the land, the issue would have to be reheard and then transmitted to City Council. The City Council must ultimately decide if the parcel of land will be sold. Boyer hopes to build the office/retail building with the next 18 months.
Commissioner De Lay noted that this proposal has been discussed in the Planned Development Subcommittee. Commissioner Diamond noted that during those discussions, several comments were made about the layout and design of the project, particularly addressing the south side of the property; he asked if those concerns had been addressed. Mr. Dansie responded they have not since the primary issue is whether the parcel should be kept as an option for the park plots or sold. If it is decided to keep the park plots, Boyer would need to design a new scheme. Commissioner Diamond asked that Mr. Dansie explain for those Commissioners not on the Subcommittee how the park would be developed if the land is swapped. Mr. Dansie stated that if the parcel is sold off, the parkway would stay as it exists now with irregular shaping and a bowed road. If the parcel is kept and developed as per the original plan, the power substation could reorient, thus allowing the 200 South 500 West intersection to be made more like the 100 South 500 West intersection and the park space itself would be maintained.
Commissioner Diamond asked if discussions had been held with UP&L regarding vacating the parcel and relocating their substation, noting that no clear timeline for such a move had been established. Mr. Dansie responded that much of the money originally appropriated to move the substation and bury the power lines has been spent and is no longer available. One position on the proposed development would be to acknowledge the original intent was good but since it is no longer financed, the substation will remain. The other side supports examining options that would allow completion of the original intent. Mr. Dansie acknowledged that no discussions of financing have been held; discussions about the feasibility of selling Parcel B concluded with UP&L stating that if Parcel B is sold, UP&L will need to retain ownership of Parcel B needed to complete the street right-of-way.
Commissioner Diamond explained that Boyer’s building design puts the core of the building (elevators, stairs, restrooms, etc.) on the north end, essentially eliminating any development on that end. He indicated this design was specifically created because of the location of the UP&L substation. If the Planning Commission encourages moving the substation, the building no longer responds to the openness that would be created to the north of the building. He noted that without understanding of UP&L’s intentions, it will be difficult for the Commission to make an effective decision.
Commissioner De Lay asked who owns the long section north of Parcel C. Mr. Dansie responded that the area indicated is part of the road right-of-way and is considered part of 500 West. Commissioner De Lay confirmed that the original goal was to have a long parkway, as Parcels A and C would become part of it under the original design.
Commissioner Galli indicated that considered under long-range planning, the long parkway should be discussed not as an option but rather as a viable plan that the City is able and ready to implement. He indicated his support of the parkway idea and noted it is part of the Master Plan and was an idea that received consensus. He stated the need to have a specific plan for moving forward to complete the original plan, rather than considering it as a nebulous future option. He noted that funding concerns about relocating the UP&L substation should be addressed prior to making decisions about the proposed construction, which would limit future options. He requested that a timeline and funding proposal be created to demonstrate the viability of the original plan and to provide assurances of its completion. He noted it is difficult to protect the parkway without a specific plan for implementation of the projects required to complete it.
Mr. Dansie reiterated that the Planning Commission decision in 2002 was to protect these parcels and conserve the original design. However, without a concrete plan for implementation, developers will continue to see the land as unused and available. Mr. Dansie requested a definitive decision about which option the Planning Commission would like to pursue.
Commissioner Diamond asked for clarification of a statement in the original proposal. Mr. Dansie explained that Parcel B was originally proposed to be traded for Parcel C; that is why Parcel B was acquired. Parcel B is the parcel the RDA wants to acquire to sell to the Boyer Company. Commissioner Diamond queried if the City has control of the necessary properties to enact the trade, if desired. Mr. Dansie confirmed that Parcel A and B are under the control of the Municipal Building Authority; the land noted as “RDA land” is owned by them. Parcel C is owned by UP&L, who agreed to the planned swap in the original proposal.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the Council Transmittal memo, dated March 20, 2003, that indicates “sale of the land would permanently eliminate long-term potential for reconfiguration of the power substation. Sale would also permanently eliminate potential to complete the park as outlined in the Gateway Master Plan. Sale would also impact long-term flexibility regarding the potential for underground rail or other transportation corridors. Conflicts with the Gateway Master Plan and Gateway specific plan,” and asked if those findings were still applicable. Mr. Dansie confirmed that they are; the Gateway Master Plan still specifically reflects the parkway. It has not been changed. The original design of the park ensured utilities were not placed under the park so that future underground transit would be possible. The original implementation horizon was quite distant. The motion for the original adoption of the plan indicated the City should consider acquiring the east portion a block south of 400 South to continue the development.
Commissioner Seelig asked if the configuration of the hub impacted the design at all. Mr. Dansie assured the Commission it did not and noted the Gateway Master Plan adopted in 1998 indicated the hub would be at the current location.
Director Zunguze asked if the transmittal should continue to the City Council or if it needs additional review. Commissioner Diamond reviewed the issues under discussion: economic development, master planning and follow through on master plans, and the plans of the utility company. He expressed discomfort at making a recommendation without further discussion about the options and implications. The Commission concurred that they would like to continue discussion before making a recommendation to the Council.
Commissioner De Lay asked Director Zunguze if the Yalecrest restrictive zoning is now in effect. Mr. Zunguze responded that the City Council will hold hearings on the matter in June or July.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(These items were heard at 6:16 p.m.)
Chairperson Chambless noted that no property conveyance matters are on this agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(This item was heard at 6:17 p.m.)
Petition No. 400-04-49 – Lowe’s Home Improvement and Warehouse, represented by Jim Manion, requesting that the City close California Avenue between 300 West and the UTA/Trax right-of-way at 200 West, Washington Street between California Avenue and 1400 South, and the alley located between 1300 South and California Avenue (adjacent to the west of the UTA/Trax right-of-way [200 West]), and that the City declare the closed portions of these streets as surplus property and sell these properties to Lowe’s as the abutting property owner. The purpose of this request is to consolidate ownership of a site prior to construction of a new retail establishment. All properties are zoned General Commercial (CG). (Staff – Kevin LoPiccolo at 535-6003)
Zoning Administrator Kevin LoPiccolo stated the request is for a street closure of California Avenue and Washington Avenue. He drew the Commissioners’ attention to the map and explained that Washington Avenue runs north-south and California Avenue runs east-west. There is an alley to the east of California Avenue just west of the TRAX station. To the north of the site is 1300 South, with 300 West on the west. Lowe’s requests that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council to close the streets and the alley so they can consolidate the properties and begin demolition of the vacant buildings in preparation for construction of their new retail establishment. They plan to begin demolition by early summer and to obtain a building permit for a new Lowe’s Home Improvement Center, approximately 140,000 square feet, within 6 months.
Mr. LoPiccolo noted that the petitioner would like to discuss conditions of approval in the Staff report. Staff recommends approval of the petition subject to the conditions noted on page 11 of the Staff report. The applicant seeks to discuss the relationship between some of the proposed conditions. Their concern is that they need to purchase the streets and alley from the City; before the City will agree to make that transaction the applicant must meet the conditions of approval. However, meeting the conditions cannot be accomplished without consolidating the property – which in turn requires purchase of the alley. Mr. LoPiccolo asked that the Commission consider some type of accommodation that would enable the petitioner to comply with the conditions while moving forward with the property consolidation.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. LoPiccolo to describe the impact this petition will have on the surrounding properties. Mr. LoPiccolo noted that Lowe’s has purchased the entire block. Granato’s is located on one corner and Goodyear Tire Store is at another. The remainder of the block is either vacant or the businesses have moved out and left the buildings vacant. The zone is General Commercial, which allows the proposed use by right. Wal-mart is west of the site.
Commissioner Diamond queried how close the future Sam’s Club building will be to the proposed Lowe’s site. Commissioner De Lay identified the location as 1800 South and 300 West. Commissioner Diamond asked what the plan is for Granato’s. Mr. LoPiccolo assured the Commission that Granato’s will remain. As part of the subdivision agreement, Granato’s will remain at their present location with minor modifications to the building size but on their own parcel; Lowe’s will own the rest of the property. The applicant will also have reciprocal parking with Granato’s.
Commissioner Scott asked if the orientation of the Lowe’s will be solely toward 1300 South or also toward 300 West. Mr. LoPiccolo deferred to the applicant and noted the applicant will be using their so-called “wide building” design due to the configuration of the lot and orientation of 1300 South, with the primary orientation along 300 West being parking. He noted that major circulation for trucks will be off from 1300 South; as part of the plan the numerous existing curb cuts along 300 West will be reduced to several driveway approaches.
Commissioner Scott asked who would have responsibility for the creation of the dead-end roadway at 1400 South. Mr. LoPiccolo noted that 1400 South currently dead-ends. Lowe’s asked for the creation of a hammerhead or cul-de-sac for maneuverability of fire response equipment. He noted that 1400 South will be curb and gutter, which is the developer’s responsibility, as are improvements along 300 West.
Commissioner De Lay asked what the fair market value of the property is. Mr. LoPiccolo deferred to the petitioner to answer that. Commissioner De Lay confirmed that the Planning Commission is only approving the recommendation for street closure and queried if Lowe’s would return to the Commission with a subdivision amendment. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the subdivision would not likely require a hearing and the building permit in this zone is by right, so it would be a counter approval in the permit office.
Commissioner Galli asked if Granato’s views the proposed development favorably, given that the lots are currently vacant and Lowe’s will bring in more traffic and potential customers. Mr. LoPiccolo indicated his belief that Granato’s is quite happy with the location and observed he has received no dissent from them. He noted one call was received because of a mistaken understanding that 1300 West would be closed; he assured the Commission the matter was clarified and resolved.
Commissioner Diamond emphasized the need for a traffic impact analysis with the addition of Wal-mart, Sam’s, Costco, etc., to the area. Mr. LoPiccolo reiterated that such a study is a requirement of the Transportation Department in order for the applicant to obtain a building and demolition permit; however, the street needs to be closed and consolidated before the applicant can make an effective study. Lowe’s owns all of the lots but not the streets; they consider the traffic study to be more associated with the use of the property than with the closure of the streets and alley.
Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner to speak to the Commission. Clint Boyle, with Landmark Engineering and Planning, spoke as a consultant for Lowe’s. Jim Manyon, Site Development Manager for Lowe’s, spoke as the applicant. Mr. Boyle noted the site is currently a blighted and dilapidated area with large vacant buildings, leading to concerns about safety and crime. He stated that while Lowe’s hopes to proceed with the construction of the store as quickly as possible, there are also liability concerns about the vacant buildings on the site. Therefore, Lowe’s prefers to have the demolition proceed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Boyle stated that Lowe’s will be a benefit to the redevelopment of the area. In the interests of time, Mr. Boyle said he would limit his comments to the conditions of approval set forth in the Staff report. He stated that Lowe’s is entirely willing to comply with the conditions per se; their concerns arise from incorporation of those conditions into the street closure approval. The items of specific concern are Conditions 2C, 3, and 4 (see page 11 of the Staff report). He assured the Commission that Lowe’s is committed to completing a traffic impact study and noted such a study is a requirement of the building permit process. Before Lowe’s can receive a permit to construct the actual store, a traffic impact study must be completed that examines approaches onto 1300 South, 1400 South, and 300 West, as well as any impacts that would require deceleration lanes or other improvements that might be necessary. The applicant’s concern revolves around the need for such a study prior to closure of the streets and alley. Lowe’s wants to purchase the streets quickly to provide demolition as soon as possible. Demolition will include removing utilities from the streets, removing asphalt, demolishing buildings, etc.; it is a large proposal that will require some time to complete.
In response to Commissioner De Lay’s earlier query about the fair market value of the property, Mr. Boyle gave a rough estimate of $1 million paid to the City for the right-of-way area. He noted that Lowe’s has already spent approximately $15 million purchasing the properties involved.
Mr. Boyle explained that Granato’s will remain in its present location. A portion of the rear of that building which serves as a warehouse will be removed; Granato’s will rearrange their inventory to other parts of the building. Parking and access agreements will be in place between Lowe’s and Granato’s to facilitate access and parking that is not presently available. He remarked that Granato’s is extremely happy with the proposed development; they have received excellent value for their property and the development should improve their business.
Mr. Manyon pointed out that Lowe’s has acquired all of the abutting property to the streets they are asking to purchase. He expressed they are concerned about the liability with the vacant, damaged building and wondered if similar liability concerns would apply to the City as owner of the streets. He reiterated Lowe’s desire to demolish the building as quickly as possible. Before the necessary funds can be made available to begin the demolition, Lowe’s must own all the property. They cannot begin improvements until they own the property.
Commissioner Galli queried why Lowe’s isn’t using a development agreement in order to resolve the concerns about financing that would enable Lowe’s to show the City they will move forward with the development and secure the needed permissions.
Mr. Manyon responded that Linda Cordova, Property Management Manager, explained that Lowe’s cannot receive a deed to the property until the conditions are satisfied as they are written. That means the traffic study must be completed and all requirements for a building permit be completed prior to the consolidation of the properties. He expressed that Lowe’s will readily complete a traffic study prior to obtaining the building permits, but the property cannot be sold until that condition has been met.
Director Zunguze suggested the Commission direct the Office of Community Development to work with Property Management in securing an accommodation that would expedite Lowe’s ability to meet the conditions. He explained that City Council policy regarding street closures requires demonstration of public benefit, as well as receipt of fair market value and elimination of private property access needs. At the moment the public benefit is a proposal only; the City needs some assurances that Lowe’s will complete the proposal.
Mr. Manyon rationalized that the acquisition costs of $12 million demonstrates Lowe’s commitment to the project. He cited their 1,000 stores and 58 years in business as examples of Lowe’s stability. He assured the Director and Commissioners that Lowe’s will provide whatever assurances are necessary to resolve the City’s concerns about the project being completed for public benefit. Mr. Boyle noted that whatever development agreements are needed to secure the City’s expeditious closure and sale of the street to Lowe’s will be willingly completed.
Director Zunguze clarified that the only conditions of approval that are germane to the street closure are Conditions 2A, B, and C. Conditions 2A and B are part of the normal site plan review process; accommodations for meeting Condition 2C is therefore the only area of concern. Mr. Boyle concurred. Director Zunguze offered to work with the petitioner to achieve acceptable accommodations to comply with Condition 2C if the Commission so desires.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the recommendation should be removed from the conditions of approval. Director Zunguze clarified that the Conditions of Approval should remain as stated in the Staff report; the only requirement is demonstrating to City Council assurances that Condition 2C will be met. He observed that this requirement isn’t specific to Lowe’s, noting that title wasn’t released to Wal-mart until the project was sufficiently vested.
Commissioner Galli remarked that public policy review is triggered by the street closure and explained that what seems to the petitioner to be a disconnect between approval requirements and the street closure is actually closely tied together.
Mr. Manyon assured the Commission that Lowe’s is entirely committed to constructing and opening a store at this location and will eagerly provide whatever reassurances the City requires to confirm their vested interest in completing the project.
Commissioner Diamond expressed concerns that the Commission is unable to review any site plan proposals with building orientations and that Lowe’s intends to simply use a standard approach to the building design. He encouraged Lowe’s to consider a more creative approach that takes into account the specific qualities of the site, namely its corner location, proximity to the 1300 South TRAX station, and Grenato’s.
Mr. Manyon assured the Commission that Lowe’s had no intention of disappointing them by providing only minimal information. He stated that Lowe’s was unaware of any need or desire to have site plans or elevations available for the Planning Commission during discussion of the street closures.
Commissioner De Lay concurred with Commissioner Diamond’s encouragement that Lowe’s consider building something beyond a large parking lot with a box store; however, she acknowledged that Lowe’s is providing all of the information necessary and required for a street closure and noted that the ordinance does not require site plan and design approval.
Commissioner Noda agreed that while the Commissioners may not be pleased with recent construction in the area, the requirements of the ordinance are being met. She also encouraged Lowe’s to consider a more creative building design and landscaping to enhance the area.
Mr. Manyon expressed Lowe’s desire to be a good community member and noted that current store designs are the result of years of study. He noted that Lowe’s has met with Staff over a period of several months to discuss the location of the building, how the drives interact with the roadways, etc. He assured the Commission the final site design will be a very objective result of careful study and planning and will be a great addition.
Commissioner Scott asked where the main building will be located on the site. Mr. Manyon noted that the size of Lowe’s buildings is a natural result of the products they sell, such as lumber, cement, and other building products. He explained that while a final decision has not been made, the current projections place the store so the rear of the building aligns with the TRAX rail line. He indicated that Lowe’s plans to implement the Community Council’s suggestion to paint a mural along the back of the building. Orienting the building towards 1300 South will provide the best access for customers and maintain traffic flow.
Commissioner Scott identified with Lowe’s desire to proceed as quickly as possible, noting that during the Field Trip today it was clear that most of the empty buildings were not secured, with open doors and broken windows prevalent. Mr. Manyon noted that the buildings are being torn apart by trespassers and becoming more structurally unsound every day. Mr. Boyle noted that during his visits over the past few months, the destruction appears to be proliferating, and he reiterated Lowe’s desire to move quickly on the project to avoid potential safety problems.
Chairperson Chambless asked if a representative from the Community Council or neighborhood wishing to speak on the matter. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scott asked Staff if Transportation’s recommendations noted on page 5 of the Staff report need to be included as conditions of approval for the street closure. Mr. LoPiccolo explained that these are permit requirements that Lowe’s will have to implement in order to obtain a building permit and do not need to be included as conditions of approval.
Commissioner Diamond emphasized the impact of the 300 West corridor on the City as a whole. He reiterated that the large stores continue to be allowed in the area without a response from Planning Commission to enhance that part of the City. He recognized that this part of the city is a vital area that needs beautification and protection by the Planning Commission. Commissioner De Lay noted that the road is a State road and wondered about the State’s commitment to beautification and walkable communities. She acknowledged that economic development in the area may be very welcome to residents but may not coincide with long-range planning goals and identified increased residential development in the area with the TRAX station.
Commissioner Diamond asked Staff how the Planning Commission can instigate a thorough examination of the area and capitalize on the development occurring. Commissioner De Lay recognized the lack of a requirement for site review which has resulted in several large retail sites with no Planning Commission oversight.
Commissioner Seelig queried if the draft Central City Master Plan has provisions that will allow for the Planning Commission to have site design approval. Director Zunguze responded that the plan is still being finalized but suggested that further visioning for the area would be beneficial, as well as increased design reviews for large scale projects. He noted that the ordinance allows significant, large projects to obtain permits with only a counter review. He suggested that projects of a certain size be required to undergo additional site plan review by Planning Staff and the Planning Commission through an amendment to the ordinance.
Commissioner Noda expressed concerns about counter reviews for large projects and agreed with the need for additional oversights. She advised discussing the Commission’s desire to change the ordinance with Lynn Pace, City Attorney, and request some draft language from him. She noted that the Historic Landmark Commission has very specific criteria and good procedures to review sites. She suggested that Planning Commission tighten approval criteria and procedures as well. She concurred with desires to see more long-range planning in the area to avoid a haphazard approach that does not create a sense of community.
Commissioner De Lay asked if a motion was needed to implement the ordinance review or simply a request to Staff. Director Zunguze indicated that a work session to discuss the issue would be the most productive approach.
Commissioner Diamond expressed the desire to implement additional reviews to help petitioners be better prepared with their designs and proposals.
Commissioner Galli agreed with the need for long-range planning. He noted that this particular proposal is going to provide a significant improvement to the particular block in question. He reiterated the need for long-range planning but proposed moving forward with the current petition.
Motion for Petition 400-04-49
Commissioner Galli moved to approve Petition 400-04-49 with the following conditions:
1. That the existing pubic and private utility infrastructure be properly disconnected or removed from the street area, acceptable to the City’s Public Utilities Department.
2. That the street closure ordinance be conditioned upon:
A) The successful acquisition of all the property necessary to implement the redevelopment activity as conceptually proposed, and
B) Payment to the City at fair market value of the street property, consistent with Salt Lake City Code 2.58, and
C) Certification by the City Chief Building Official that the redevelopment project has obtained all necessary City approvals so that the building permit for the redevelopment proposal is ready to be issued by the City.
3. That a traffic impact analysis be submitted to and approved by the City Transportation Director, relative to the adequacy of the proposed ingress and egress to the site of the redevelopment proposal including provisions to implement any recommended or required transportation improvements on abutting public streets.
4. That the applicant be required to file an application for a subdivision amendment to combine all lots into a single legal lot of record.
5. The applicant work with the Community Development Director and Staff to reach an agreement assuring the City that the project will be completed and will comply with Conditions 2A-C.
Commissioner Diamond asked if a condition could be added that the petitioner work with the Community Development Director and Staff to reach an agreement assuring the project will be completed and comply with Conditions 2A-C. The amendment was accepted by Commissioner Galli and is noted in the conditions above.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. All voted in favor, therefore the motion to approve the petition passed unanimously, 6-0.
(This item was heard at 7:05 p.m.)
Commissioner Chambless called for a five minute break.
(This item was heard at 7:11 p.m.)
Petition No. 490-05-07 – Victor Kimball requesting preliminary subdivision approval to combine the rear portion of the properties at 850, 854, and 858 Edison Street with the lots at 845 and 851 South State Street to create a larger commercial lot in the Downtown Support District (D-2) fronting State Street while maintaining three residential lots in the Special Development Pattern Residential District (SR-3) fronting Edison Street. (Staff – Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128)
Petition No. 400-04-37 – Victor Kimball requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone approximately 69 feet of the rear portion of the property located at 850 South Edison Street and approximately 53 feet of the rear portion of the properties located at 854 and 858 South Edison Street from Special Development Pattern Residential District (SR-3) to a Downtown Support District (D-2), and to amend the future Land Use Map of the Central Community Development Plan from Medium Density Residential to Central Business District Support, consistent with the portions of the property to be rezoned. The purpose of this request is to accommodate the construction of a new retail establishment. (Staff – Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128)
It is noted that these two items, being interrelated, were presented and discussed together. However, in accordance with Planning Commission Policies and Procedures, the two petitions were addressed in separate motions.
Senior Planner Elizabeth Giraud specified that she would examine the standards for each petition separately. She concurred with the assessment Director Zunguze offered during the Planning Director’s Report that a review of the previously approved Conditional Use on the adjacent property would be helpful in understanding the petitions at hand. She noted that UDOT required changing the access to Enterprise Rent-a-Car from State Street. She referred the Commissioners to the memo in their packet which specifies site plan for the originally approved conditional use. In that plan, the access to Enterprise Rent-a-Car comes off State Street and is a dedicated entrance for that business. UDOT requires Enterprise to share the access with the proposed Family Dollar store, necessitating only one curb cut and slightly changing the originally approved site plan. Ms. Giraud noted that the change is so minor that action by the Planning Commission is not required.
Petition 490-05-07 involves recombining 5 lots, two of which front State Street and 3 of which front Edison Street, into a total of four lots. The rear portion of the lots along Edison Street would be combined with the lots fronting State Street and, per Petition 400-04-37, be rezoned
from SR-3 to a D-2. Ms. Giraud acknowledged improvements in the petitioner’s original proposal, which included a request to rezone the lots in their entirety, demolish the homes on Edison Street, and have access from State Street to Edison Street. Staff was unable to support that proposal, citing the proximity of housing and the City’s past investment of Federal funds to resurface and rebuild the Edison Street block.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the petition, finding that the request preserves the general character of the neighborhood, continues the SR-3 zoning along Edison Street, and maintains the character of the commercial highway corridor on State Street. This would accommodate the Family Dollar store.
Ms. Giraud verified that in terms of conforming to the zoning ordinance, there is no minimum lot size for the D-2 zone, so the reconfiguration isn’t an issue in that area. The Edison Street property farthest north, 850 Edison, is currently 6,100 square feet; at 854 Edison, the lot is currently 5,227 square feet, and 858 Edison, adjacent to Arctic Circle, is 6,534 square feet. All of the Edison Street lots would be reduced to 3,259 square feet; the required square footage in the zone is 2,000 square feet. All lots would still be larger than required.
Ms. Giraud explained that Public Utilities did not inform Staff of any utility easements, a required part of the subdivision proposal, which exist on the properties. The applicant would have to conform to any utility easements once the Family Dollar store was underway as part of the building permit process. Public Utilities also anticipated that adequate facilities for water and sewage are in place to accommodate the proposal. Engineering Division has stated their support of Staff in not allowing through access from State Street to Edison.
Ms. Giraud emphasized that the rezoning affects only the rear portion of the Edison Street lots with the portion of the lots retaining SR-2 zoning more than meeting the required size. She stated that the proposal also meets the intent of the Master Plan.
Ms. Giraud noted that the proposal has gone before numerous Community Councils on several occasions, including the Central City Community Council, where the project is located. Adjacent Community Councils were notified, which includes both Peoples Freeway and Liberty Wells. None of the Community Councils asked to see the revised plan in its new configuration; they were satisfied with the original plans which showed the access going out onto Edison Street.
As with the subdivision, Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment is harmonious with the overall character of the existing development and, in fact, is an improvement as the lots surrounding the area have minimal landscaping. Landscape buffering is required for the project, as well as new curb, gutter, and sidewalk where required. Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. There are no overlay zoning districts involved and all involved City departments were notified of the proposal; no objections were received. The applicant will have to meet all City requirements to obtain the necessary building permits to construct the proposed retail establishment.
Ms. Giraud noted that the proposal includes an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan adopted in 1974. Appropriate noticing in the newspaper to surrounding property owners was completed.
Ms. Giraud stated that Staff requests approval for the preliminary subdivision and a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed rezoning.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the placement of the parking along State Street, which continues the parking of the surrounding used car lots, is the right approach for the area. Ms. Giraud noted that the proposed plans meet the zoning requirements of the D-2 area and that the property is outside of the State Street overlay zone, which has different aesthetic requirements.
She acknowledged that most cities have sections of highway-oriented development such as this portion of State Street.
Commissioner Diamond noted that his concerns stem from the juxtaposition of the two types of zones, residential immediately next to commercial. He encouraged the petitioner to consider a site plan which would respond to the proximity of residences by relocating the building closer to State Street with more parking behind the buildings.
Commissioner Scott asked if 858 Edison Street, which the proposed plans identify as parking lot 4, would be an overflow lot for the Family Dollar store or accessible from the D-2 area. Ms. Giraud confirmed the lot will not be accessible from the D-2 area. She stated that all the plans she has reviewed place the Family Dollar store on the east end of the D-2 property, cutting off access through to Edision Street. Staff considers this placement a way to protect the homes and residents on Edison Street. She stated that parking on the specified lot would not be prohibited but logically would be avoided by patrons, who would have much closer access available. Commissioner Scott inquired why the site plans identify the lot as a parking lot. Ms. Giraud stated that the lot currently serves as a parking lot, although there is no store nearby. Commissioner Scott noted the area is currently unpaved and that the cars parked there could be those of residents or shoppers visiting other State Street retailers. She queried whether a parking lots between two residential parcels is a permitted use in the zone. Ms. Giraud noted the lot is currently considered a vacant lot. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the southern parcel on Edison Street is the right size for a residential use. The petitioner is not a residential developer, but he does own the property as well as the two houses to the north. Mr. Wheelwright recognized that the parking lot that exists may or may not have some non-conforming use rights; a more extensive investigation would be necessary to clarify that. In the short term, the lot’s use will not change from its current function; long term, the lot could provide for a new residence to be constructed on the street. Commissioner Scott expressed the concern that if the lot has been used as a non-conforming parking lot, it could become an appendage lot to support the proposed retail store. Mr. Wheelwright responded that if the owner leased the space to Family Dollar, it could be used for employee parking or another similar use. Commissioner Scott asked if this would be an allowable use in the SR-3 zone. Mr. Wheelwright noted that no request for a parking lot has been forthcoming but suggested the Commission consider additional conditions of approval to address that issue. After consulting the zoning ordinance, Ms. Giraud confirmed that as a conditional use, “parking off-site facilities accessory to permitted use” are permitted in the SR-3 zone.
Commissioner De Lay asked how traffic from State Street heading into Edison Street is being avoided. Ms. Giraud noted that Edison Street is a one-way street; traffic making a large “U” through the block is already possible; the proposal will not change the access.
Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner, Victor Kimball, to address the Commission.
Mr. Kimball indicated his desire to address the parking issue. He stated that the parking is currently paved; formerly it was part of Arctic Circle’s parking under a previous lease agreement. After that agreement was dissolved, the lot was fenced. Arctic Circle customers formerly were able to enter from State Street and park there. Mr. Kimball noted that since the homes in the area have nominal parking, those to the north often use that lot to park.
Commissioner Diamond asked the motivation for the expansion of the D-2 zone. Mr. Kimball confirmed that parking for the proposed retail facility is the major impetus. Family Dollar requires a certain square footage to build a store, with an accompanying parking requirement. Mr. Kimball noted that with the required parking the building would not fit on the current lot. Commissioner Diamond asked if the petitioner had approached property owners to the north or south about leasing some of their parking to avoid the necessity of the proposed rezone. Mr. Kimball responded that he had attempted to purchase the property to the north without success. Early proposals included purchasing the entire block; however, Staff indicated that rezoning the entire block would be unlikely, especially as Federal funding had been used to improve Edison Street. Although several property owners along Edison Street have offered to sell their lots, it has not been a viable solution.
Commissioner De Lay confirmed with Mr. Kimball that the preliminary site map provided, which shows the building all the way to the east, is correct.
Chairperson Chambless asked for a representative from the Community Council. Hearing none, he invited community members to speak. Don Johnston, member of the Baron’s Motorcycle Club, addressed the Commission. He noted the Club’s 40-year history includes 30 years on Edison Street. He explained that the Club members, at the behest of the neighbors, have assisted with various problems in the area. He expressed that future plans for the parking lot area previously mentioned may include construction of a multi-residential facility that will increase traffic on Edison Street. He acknowledged that leaving the lot as a parking lot would be financially undesirable; since taxes must be paid on the land, some income derived from it is a logical desire. He requested the Commission provide assurances that such a development will not occur.
Commissioner De Lay confirmed that Mr. Johnston’s concern is that the lot which formerly served as parking for Arctic Circle might become an egress into Edison Street or become a multi-family residence. Commissioner De Lay queried if Baron’s had considered purchasing the lot to provide overflow parking for the current residences. Mr. Johnston explained that the Club had inquired about purchasing the lot next door but that the price of $80,000 was too expensive. He noted that construction of a single residence on that lot is not financially realistic for the area. Commissioner De Lay verified that Club’s preference would be no exit onto Edison Street. Mr. Johnston concurred, noting that the lot used to provide parking for apartments that have subsequently been demolished.
Commissioner Scott asked if the area had changed since the improvements were implemented, specifically in the area of community relations between homeowners. Mr. Johnston noted that most homeowners, as well as several retailers, maintain contact with the Club.
Commissioner Scott noted that the symmetry of the lots size in this SR-3 area would be eliminated by the proposed rezoning, changing the complexion of the two homes across the street from the Club as they would no longer have yards the same size as their neighbors to the north. She identified a net increase in the interface of residential properties with D-2 and asked if Mr. Johnston felt this would adversely impact the neighborhood. Mr. Johnston assured the Commission it would. He spoke candidly about illicit activities occurring in the area and expressed concerns that an additional parking lot would foster such activities. He challenged the idea that the cinderblock wall shown in the plans would be effective in deterring such activity.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Johnston what he felt would be the best use for the parking lot, considering the location of the two neighboring homes. Mr. Johnston suggested converting the lot into a green space. He stated there is sufficient parking with Arctic Circle, a travel agency, and other businesses in the area.
Chairperson Chambless asked Mr. Johnston about the lighting in the area. Mr. Johnston responded that the area is quite dark. He noted that many people attempt to drive the wrong way down Edison Street. He stated the street is very nice but significantly lacking adequate lighting. Chairperson Chambless confirmed that there is no public park in the immediate vicinity, with the nearest being several blocks distant.
Greg Putnam, representing Baron’s Motorcycle Club, addressed the Commission concerning the public utilities. He noted Staff’s report that a 6” water and 8” sanitary sewer main are located on Edison Street and queried the impact that the proposal would have to the residents. He also asked what type of construction traffic might be expected on Edison Street if the proposal goes forward. Chairperson Chambless deferred the question to the petitioner.
Chairperson Chambless asked if any other residents or community members wished to be heard on the matter. Hearing none, he invited Mr. Kimball to address the concerns raised by Mr. Putnam.
Mr. Kimball stated that he would raise a construction fence to eliminate any construction traffic to Edison Street, noting there would be no reason to access the property from Edison. He said the utilities would come from State Street rather than Edison Street, so impact to Edison would be minimal. He noted that the parking area, currently used by Edison Street residents, has not been nor would be shut off to them. Commissioner Chambless asked for Mr. Kimball’s assessment of the lighting in the area. Mr. Kimball confirmed that Edison Street is considered a dangerous area where it would be uncomfortable to walk at night. In response to Commissioner Chambless’ inquiry, he supposed a flashlight would be needed after dark. Ms. Giraud noted she was in the area at dusk and considered the area to be quite dark. She also noted that any future plans for the lot in question would be required to pass before the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use, with the exception of a single family home or duplex.
Commissioner De Lay asked if Mr. Kimball had considered using the lot for a green space. Mr. Kimball offered to sell the lot to the Baron’s Club for half of the price Mr. Johnston quoted for the other lot. Mr. Kimball noted that constructing anything on the lot is not economically feasible. Commissioner De Lay concurred, stating that home prices on the street range up from $79,000; building on the lot would be unprofitable. Mr. Kimball noted that a rental unit in the area would also be unprofitable.
Commissioner Scott asked if water would come from Edison. Mr. Kimball stated that water, sewer, power, etc., would all come from State Street.
Commissioner De Lay asked Ms. Giraud for the history of the project’s presentations to Community Councils. Ms. Giraud stated that Peoples Freeway voted in favor of the proposal under the old configuration which had traffic flowing down Edison Street. In October 2004, Liberty Wells Community Council response was mixed; some felt that demolishing the houses on Edison and rezoning it commercial would be beneficial to the area while others opposed the proposal as being too commercial and increasing traffic. In November 2004, Central City Community Council voted 5-4 against the original proposal, citing concerns about the amount of asphalt and the flow of traffic onto Edison Street.
Ms. Giraud stated that the updated plans were sent to all three Community Councils. Peoples Freeway and Liberty Wells Community Councils elected not to rehear the matter; Central City did not respond either for or against reviewing the project again.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any further questions for petitioner or Staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing and opened Commission discussion of Petition No. 490-05-07.
Commissioner Scott observed that changing the configuration of 3 Edison Street lots of the 12 total appears to contradict Staff’s finding that “the proposed minor subdivision will conform to the well-defined character of the surrounding area”. She referred to the history of the project and acknowledged that progress has been made in improving the proposal. She expressed discomfort at changing the configuration and well-defined character of the SR-3 area. She noted that SR-3 zones throughout the City usually offer affordable homes, recognizing that few homes in the City are available for $80,000. She stated that affordable housing would be compromised in value and desirability, as the parcels on the west side of Edison would abut a store placed right at the property line. Commissioner Scott continued that she disagreed with Staff’s findings of Condition A of Petition 490-05-07 that the minor subdivision shall conform to the general character of the surrounding area, and with the findings of Conditions B and C of Petition 400-04-37, stating the proposed rezone is not harmonious with the overall character of existing development and will have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
Motion for Petition No. 490-05-07
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission deny the request to combine the rear properties at 850, 854, and 85 Edison Street with the lots at 845 and 851 South State Street to create a larger commercial lot in the Downtown Support (D-2) zone.
Commissioner Diamond seconded. Commissioners Scott, Seelig, De Lay, and Diamond voted in favor; Commissioners Galli and Noda voted against. As Chair, Commissioner Chambless did not vote. Therefore the motion to deny the petition passed 4-2.
Chairperson Chambless opened final discussion of Petition 400-04-37, asking Ms. Giraud for additional comments.
Ms. Giraud addressed Commissioner Scott’s concern about conformity with the area’s Master Plan, noting that the 1995 Ordinance updated previously completed Master Plans. Under the proposal the SR-3 zoning does not change and still complies with the provisions and intents of the SR-3 zoning, which was the basis for Staff’s finding. Ms. Giraud conceded that the lot size of the properties in question are reduced in comparison to others on the street but noted they continue to exceed required size and maintain the interior court block street, with houses fronting Edison Street. She expressed positive surprise at the size of the lots in the neighborhood. Commissioner Scott speculated that the lot size likely contributes to the survival of the block, asserting that surviving SR-3 neighborhoods have larger lots. Ms. Giraud noted that she did not have the history of SR-3 districts available to support Commissioner Scott’s suppositions. She emphasized that the SR-3 area would continue; no changes to the homes would be visible from the street, with no street widening, housing demolition, or rezoning of Edison Street itself.
Commissioner Seelig concurred with Commissioner Scott’s supposition about the value of the lot size, asserting that the larger lot serves as an additional buffer to State Street.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-37
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning map to rezone approximately 69’ feet of the rear portion of properties on Edison Street, stating that the proposal does not meet Standard A (page 6 of the Staff report), “the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City”; Standard B (page 6), that “the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property”. She cited Standard C (page 7 of the report), “The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties” as an additional grounds for denial.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Galli requested that findings be made as the basis for denying the petitions. He expressed concerns that the evidence standards of compliance are not being met is unclear.
Commissioner Scott clarified her reasons for denial, as noted in the motion above.
Commissioner Galli acknowledged that the Planning Commission has denied conditional use permits and then sent negative recommendations to the City Council previously but observed that those cases have typically been based on comments of neighborhood associations, adjacent landowners, and Community Councils who present compelling arguments and evidence that the standards for approval are not being met. He thanked the Baron’s Motorcycle Club for their candor in expressing concerns about the issue but noted that neighborhood associations have been not against the proposal.
Commissioner Seelig clarified that the Central City Community Council didn’t respond to the petitioner’s revised proposal, stating it was unfair to consider that as approval of the project. Commissioner Galli expressed that since the Community Council did not respond to the opportunity to comment, it can logically be assumed that they are either neutral or do not feel strongly about the matter. When queried, Ms. Giraud clarified that Peoples Freeway Community Council approved the previous format of the proposal; Liberty Wells did not feel the need to revisit the revised plan. The comments of the Central City Community Council from their November 2004 review of the original plan are included in the Staff report. Ms. Giraud noted that the applicant responded to the feedback from the Community Council in redesigning his site plan.
Commissioner Galli emphasized that there has been response to concerns from the petitioner and acquiescence on the part of the Community Councils. Ms. Giraud noted that may be an assumption for Central City’s Council because they didn’t require Mr. Kimball to appear and explain his revised proposal prior to the Public Hearing. She reviewed the protocol when a project changes, stating that the Chair or Executive Committee makes a decision about whether the petition needs to be reviewed by the full Community Council. She stated she contacted the Central City Community Council via e-mail and a follow-up phone call, receiving no response. Commissioner Galli established that the Community Councils had obviously been given an opportunity to comment, so the Planning Commission is now presuming negative impacts on the community that they themselves have not voiced.
Commissioner De Lay noted that Commissioner Scott has noted several objections to the project’s impact on the neighborhood. She expressed the hope that the Planning Commission is not reacting to the fact that other areas, such as Lowe’s and Wal-mart, are outside their control. She noted that she works in the neighborhood often and admitted that while it may be shaky, it is populated. She expressed the belief that further consideration of the project’s design by the petitioner, neighbors, and Staff could lead to something better for both State and Edison Streets, and acknowledged Commissioner Galli’s concerns about concrete reasons to deny the petition.
Commissioner Scott asserted that the Planning Commission often does not vote with Community Councils, stating that the Commissions job is to evaluate the standards and assess them, rather than just pass along Community Council’s views. She suggested that some residents may not have been vocal about the proposal because it may appear better than what currently exists, citing community comments from page 5 of the Staff report that some members “supported the proposal because it meant the elimination of what they deemed ‘blighted buildings’ in the middle of the block.” She support Commissioner De Lay’s suggestion that the proposal continue to evolve into something better for the D-2 State Street corridor and the neighborhood SR-3 zone.
Commissioner Seelig requested that this view be extended to the City as a whole, noting that changing the zoning on blighted buildings citywide would create a lot more problems.
Chairperson Chambless called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Scott, Seelig, De Lay, and Diamond voted in favor; Commissioners Galli and Noda voted against. As Chair, Commissioner Chambless did not vote. Therefore the motion to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council passed 4-2.
(This item was heard at 8:09 p.m.)
Commissioner Chambless called for a break.
(This item was heard at 8:15 p.m.)
Petition No. 410-718 – William Mantas requesting conditional use approval to expand an automobile recycling business at 652 South Redwood Road in Commercial Corridor (CC) and Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning districts. (Staff - Janice Lew at 535-7625)
Associate Planner Janice Lew reviewed the petition, noting that the applicant received conditional use approval to operate the business at this location in July 2001. The facility is located on an irregularly shaped lot, and a boundary line between the commercial corridor and light manufacturing zoning districts bisects the property. She confirmed that the uses associated with the recycling business are all located on the M-1 portion of the site, such as the parking, retail office, processing, and a parts pulling area. As part of the conditional use, additional parking was allowed on the CC portion of the property, which is generally the access from Redwood Road. Ms. Lew stated that the applicant has purchased the parcel to the north of the existing facility and intends to put additional access to Redwood Road on that lot, as well as an additional processing area; the applicant is also in the process of acquiring the three lots to the south for a proposed additional parts pulling area. Ms. Lew drew Commissioners’ attention to the findings of fact in the Staff report and stated that Staff recommends approval of the expansion with the conditions as outlined.
Commissioner Scott clarified that the only business that will be conducted on the portion of the property zoned CC is that which is allowed in that zone; all other business will be conducted on the portion of the property zoned M-1. Ms. Lew concurred.
Commissioner Scott asked what type of business currently is being conducted in the three parcels the applicant plans to acquire. Ms. Lew deferred that question to the applicant. Commissioner Scott inquired as to discussion about a change of appearance to those lots in the CC zone. Ms. Lew responded that the applicant would have to comply with the front yard landscaping requirement of that zone; the back of the lot would have a fenced parts pulling area. Commissioner Scott verified that the fencing would be consistent with the type of fencing currently in place. Ms. Lew confirmed that it would.
Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner to address the Commission. Mr. Mantas introduced himself and asked if the Commissioners had any questions for him.
Commissioner De Lay asked if he had plans for the front part of the parcels he is acquiring. Mr. Mantas responded that since those portions are in the “CC” zone, no part of the auto recycling can occur there. He hopes to eventually develop some type of retail space but has no specific plans at this time.
Commissioner Scott asked about the current business on the eastern portion of the southern three lots. Mr. Mantas responded that the business is a demolition contractor and is grandfathered in. He stated there is an old house and small shack or warehouse on the property; the business license is apparently run from another area. He anticipates improving those lots for another use; he indicated that the current owners are unwilling to make any improvements to the lots because they would be subject to landscaping requirements. Commissioner Scott asked if the eastern portion of the lots would be leased back to the current owners. Mr. Mantas assured the Commission he intends to take full possession and improve all three parcels.
Commissioner Seelig commended the applicant on the current fence buffering activity from surrounding uses, noting its effectiveness and respect for surrounding uses. She encouraged Mr. Mantas to continue such efforts in the future. Mr. Mantas thanked her and noted that the 300’ distance from Redwood Road helps mitigate the business’ impact and the beautification of the property contributes to a positive environment. He stated that the company prides themselves on running a nice, clean facility and cited their other facility, All Truck, Inc. on 3400 South 500 West, as an example of the quality of facility they maintain. He drew the Commissioners’ attention to the Staff report which notes the company’s involvement with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and stated the company is one of the only recyclers in the Western United States that is currently recovering mercury switches. Commissioner Seelig noted the positive visual demarcation between the applicant’s properties and the surrounding properties of other owners.
Chairperson Chambless asked if a representative from the Community Council or neighborhood wishing to speak on the matter. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Seelig moved that the conditional use request for Petition 410-718 based on the discussion this evening and the findings of fact, with the conditions outlined in the Staff report, namely:
1. All lots comprising the use shall be consolidated into one lot.
2. The plans shall be revised to provide the minimum required parking within the M-1 portion of the site and meet all landscape improvement requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The use of the warehouse structure on the CC (eastern) portion of the new land to the north shall be limited to CC permitted uses. Any future proposal for a use allowed as a conditional use in the CC zoning district will require the applicant to file a new conditional use application.
4. Access to, and improvement on Redwood Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Utah Department of Transportation.
5. Final utility and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department before permits will be issued.
6. Final landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or designated representative prior to building permit issuance. The plans shall show: 1) parking lot landscaping, 2) special front yard landscaping for the CC Commercial District, and 3) screening fence details.
7. Compliance with all departmental comments and recommendations.
8. Compliance with all applicable ordinance requirements and development standards.
9. Requests to provide storage areas that are not hard-surfaced must be approved through the Special Exception process.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. All voted in favor, therefore the motion to approve the petition passed 6-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 8:25 p.m.)
Commissioner Seelig asked if the briefing to the City Council regarding the Planning budget been made or if that would be made as part of the Community Development. Director Zunguze responded that it had not yet been presented.
Commissioner Diamond moved to initiate a petition to have Staff provide options for design review process as it relates to different sized developments in the City. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. All voted in favor, therefore the motion to approve passed 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.