SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission was Chairperson Judi Short, Vice-Chairperson Max Smith, Andrea Barrows, Arla Funk, Diana Kirk, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Gregory DeMille, Gilbert Iker and Craig Mariger were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff was Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Director Brent Wilde, Jackie Gasparik, Ray McCandless, Craig Hinckley, Bill Allayaud, Margaret Pahl, Doug Dansie and Doug Wheelwright.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, April 1, 1999. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-345 by Allen Borg requesting a conditional use to create a twelve lot residential subdivision, to be known as the Featherstone II Subdivision, located at 1025 North Redwood Road in a Residential “R-1-7000” zoning district.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Gasparik stated that the proposal is for a sixteen lot residential subdivision, not a twelve lot as noted on the agenda. Ms. Gasparik then stated that at the Administrative Hearing, Mr. Ricardo Flores, a representative for the abutting property owner (The Assembly of God Church) was present. One issue that the church wanted addressed was to have a fence located between the two developments. Staff did not require that the subdivision developer install a fence but did suggest that the developer and the church work out some kind of agreement and build the fence together.
Mr. Allen Borg, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Steed asked Mr. Borg if he has met with someone from the church regarding the fence. Mr. Borg stated that there have been discussions with the church, however, final details are still being worked out.
Ms. Funk asked the petitioner if he is agreeable to constructing a fence along Redwood Road, where the project abuts, that would be similar to the fence that is across the street. Mr. Borg stated that he would not like to see the fencing along Redwood Road become a requirement because it could create a precedence for future developers and projects. He then stated that he does not have a problem with constructing the fence along Redwood Road because it will enhance the area.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Garth North, a property owner near the church, stated that he is not opposed to the project. However, he would like a fence to be constructed along the property line. Mr. Wilde stated that his recollection is that there was some type of a requirement given to the church for a fence. Mr. Wilde then stated that he would review the case and then give Mr. North a phone call.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Steed stated that he feels that the Planning Commission should require the petitioner to construct a fence along the northern property line of the project and along the Redwood Road side of the project. It was discussed that the recommended fencing along the northern property line be a solid fence. The recommended fencing along Redwood Road is a tubular steel fence because it will enhance the neighborhood and minimize the graffiti in the area.
Motion for Petition No. 410-345:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-345, the Featherstone II Subdivision, including the extra length of the cul-de-sac and the conditional use to permit the flag lot subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report with one addition as noted:
1. Final approval is subject to review of full engineering drawings in compliance with City standards for roadway plan & profile, utility, drainage, street lighting, street name signs, traffic control, etc.
2. The developer must submit a letter from UDOT with their recommendations regarding curb & gutter design as part of this project.
3. If basements are desired, a Geotechnical investigation must be performed to assess the need for a sub-drain.
4. A pavement section design, with backup data, must be prepared by the developer’s engineer for the proposed street.
5. The subdivision must meet all department/division requirements and regulations according to City Ordinances.
6. The applicant is required to provide a landscape plan for the flag lot proposed in the project to comply with the landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. The applicant is required to finalize all building, construction and landscape plans details with the Planning Director, prior to receiving a building permit for the flag lot.
8. Final development approval authority to be granted to the Planning Director.
9. Provide an easement to Public Utilities for any infrastructure that will be on private property.
10. The project be approved subject to meeting applicable City standards.
11. That a solid fence be required along the north end of the property and a tubular steel fence be required along the east end of the property (the Redwood Road side), subject to the Planning Director’s approval. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Request by Mike Mills for preliminary subdivision approval and an extension of a proposed industrial cul-de-sac street from 650 feet to 1500 feet for property located at approximately 3900 West 700 South.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Mike Mills, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motions for Mike Mills’s preliminary subdivision:
Mr. Smith moved to grant preliminary subdivision subject to recording a final plat, recordation of an avigation easement to allow aircraft overflight and meeting all departmental requirements as discussed in the departmental comment letters. Mr. Smith further moved to grant the widening of the 500 to 700 South Street connection to an 84-foot wide right-of-way, according to the official map prepared by the City Surveyor. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Mayor to increase the maximum allowed cul-de-sac length from 650 to 1500 feet as discussed in the staff report. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-341 by Randall Paul, representing KTVX, requesting a conditional use for approval of a 70 foot high communication tower located at 2175 West 1700 South in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. McCandless then stated that staff is recommending that the tower be located in the southeast corner of the antenna compound area if technically possible.
Mr. Randall Paul, building consultant, for KTVX, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation except for the physical location of the tower. Mr. Bob Lyon, Facilities Manager, and Mr. Edwin Karl, Engineer, were also present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Karl then explained to the Planning Commission members why the tower would not be successful in the southeast corner of the antenna compound area. Basically, the tower would have interference and would be seen on every television that tunes into KTVX.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-341:
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-341 to allow a 10’ height extension on a transmission tower subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report with one deletion as noted:
1. Moving the tower to the southeast corner of the antenna compound area if technically possible.
1. Installing trees on the landscaped berm on the north, west and south sides of the antenna area according to a detailed landscape plan as approved by the Planning Director.
2. Meeting all requirements of the various City departments.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-99-9 from Falcon Ridge Quarry, Inc., requesting that a portion of the property owned by the petitioner, located at 1020 North Victory Road, be rezoned from an Open Space "OS" to an Extractive Industries "EI" zoning district. The petition also includes a proposal to amend Section 21A.32.120 (G.) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to buffer requirements in the “EI” zoning district.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Arjun Ram, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she is opposed to rezoning a portion of the petitioner’s property from Open Space to Extractive Industries because one of her main objectives is to protect the Open Space. Ms. Gardner then stated that the Capitol Hill Community Council would like the Planning Commission to deny this request. If denying the request is not feasible, then the community council asks that the Planning Commission table the request and take the time to study what would be best for the community.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, addressed the status of the State’s regulation of gravel pits. She stated that there is no regulation at the State level because there is currently a pending lawsuit. Ms. Cromer feels that the Planning Commission should not make any decisions on this petition until the Beck Street Reclamation Plan has been adopted. She also feels that the Open Space zones need more protection when they occur next to an Extractive Industries zone and that the buffering should occur on the Extractive Industries zone. Ms. Cromer then stated that she feels that there is a great deal of uncertainty with this issue and to act precipitously tonight would not be in the best interest of the community or the city, particularly when there has been so much planning that has gone into this area. She then recommended that a Planning Commission Subcommittee be formed to discuss these issues before a decision is made.
Mr. Christopher Robinson, President and Trustee of the Dorchester Point Homeowner’s Association and a concerned citizen, stated that he is very concerned about the proposed request and the impacts it will have on both the Dorchester Point Subdivision and the city at large. The impacts that affect the subdivision are noise, dust, blasting reverberating throughout the area and public safety. Mr. Robinson believes that the Geotechnical report is inadequate in addressing the potential impacts of what happens when the tow of the slope is undermined. He feels that the Planning Commission should not rezone this property from Open Space to Extractive Industries and he also feels that the 1,000-foot buffer should not be changed.
Mr. Tom Ellison, a land use attorney representing Dorchester Point Interest, spoke concerning various policy perspectives. He feels that the 1,000-foot buffer should not be changed. Mr. Ellison also feels that the 300-foot buffer that was mentioned in the staff report in not measured the way a buffer should be measured. If the proposed changes are made to the policy, excavation will stop 85 feet from the property line. Mr. Ellison then stated that blasting issues need to be seriously considered because blasting will inevitably occur. The staff report indicates that the blasting impacts might get worse over time, however, there is no control retained under this proposal by the Planning Commission or by Salt Lake City to monitor and stop the use of this buffer area if the impacts are too great later on. Mr. Ellison continued by stating that he is especially concerned about the “global slope stability” in this area. He feels that the Planning Commission does not have adequate information to make a full decision at this point.
Mr. Lon Richardson III, real estate agent working on the proposed project, stated that he really enjoys the wildlife that exists in the proposed area. Mr. Richardson then stated that he is opposed to any future plans to this area that would interfere with the wildlife and open space.
Mr. Glen Saxton, President of the Ensign Downs Homeowners Association and a concerned citizen, stated that he is very concerned about this development. He then spoke in support of all those who have spoke in opposition. Mr. Saxton then stated that he is also concerned about the global issue of the extraction industries and the north gateway to Salt Lake City. He feels that taking action on this zoning application at this time may not be in the best interest of the city.
Mr. Tim Huffaker, a concerned citizen, stated that he enjoys the ability to get to nature. He is concerned about the young people now and in generations to come. If the quarry operation were to get closer to the trails, it would become an attractive nuisance to young people who will want to get closer to the edge. A larger buffer might keep the excavating areas out of sight and not cause young people to be attracted to the edge, which may result in injury or death.
Mr. Ram responded to some of the concerns that were raised. He stated that he does not wish to be here and cause inconvenience to the community, unfortunately, this is where the source is found. Mr. Ram then stated that he does have some rights. He continued by stating that he is committed to preserving the Lake Bonneville Shoreline Trail, wetlands or ponds will not be disturbed, and a fence will be constructed around the quarry for safety reasons.
Mr. Wright noted that a letter had been received from Representative Ralph Becker asking that the Planning Commission table this petition for further study of some issues that need more time. (A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.)
Ms. Barrows arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith stated that, after hearing the comments made, he feels that this issue should be tabled and a subcommittee formed to address the comments and concerns raised by the community.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-9:
Mr. Smith moved to table Petition No. 400-99-9 and form a Planning Commission subcommittee to further study this issue and then hear it again at a future Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed volunteered to be on the Planning Commission subcommittee to further study extractive industries.
Ms. Funk excused herself from the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-325 by Salt Lake County for an amendment to the previously approved Planned Development for a swimming pool complex at the northeast corner of Fairmont Park. The County is seeking approval of the following three actions:
1. An amendment to the Planned Development to allow external and internal design revisions to the proposed facility.
2. A minor subdivision application to create a 1.548 acre parcel of land in the northeast corner of Fairmont Park. The parcel of land would be transferred from the City to the County to facilitate the construction of the swimming pool complex.
3. Petition No. 400-99-22 requesting that 1.548 acres of land in Fairmont Park be declared “surplus property” so that it can be transferred from the City to the County.
Mr. Bill Allayaud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Allayaud stated that the Planning Commission unanimously approved a Planned Development for a swimming pool complex for Fairmont Park in Sugar House on November 19, 1998. Subsequent to the Planning Commission action, the County determined that their budget is not adequate to build the pool complex as approved. The Planning Commission is being asked to approve the redesign of the facility and determine that the changes are consistent with the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance for Planned Developments. Mr. Allayaud then distributed a revised Condition No. 1. The amendments are to the original condition as approved by the Planning Commission on November 19, 1998 and substitute for the language recommended in the staff report prepared for today’s hearing.
Mr. Louis Ulrich, the design architect, gave a brief description of the proposed changes to the swimming pool complex at Fairmont Park. The changes consisted of the quality of the mechanical system, the placement of certain elements and the use of materials.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the community is excited to have a recreational facility.
Mr. Steve Richards, a business owner in the area, stated he is very concerned about this project because he feels that it will create a parking and traffic problem. Mr. Richards stated that he is not against having a pool built, however, he is against the location of the pool because he feels that it will be taking away some of the enjoyable features of the park.
Ms. Short clarified to Mr. Richards that this petition has already been approved. The Planning Commission’s action tonight is to declare the land surplus property and approve the design changes.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motions for Petition No. 410-325:
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant approval of the amended planned development, Petition No. 410-325, allowing modification of Zoning Ordinance requirement related to setbacks and height, and subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
Conditions for Amended Planned Development:
1-A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Urban Design Review Committee shall review and approve the color for the painted wall on the north side of the project. Notwithstanding the above, a building permit may be issued for foundation work prior to final approval of the paint color.
2-A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an alternative elevation for the north side of the building that indicates the use of brick, the color of which shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Notwithstanding the above, a building permit may be issued for foundation work prior to final approval of the north side elevation and brick color.
Amended Conditions for the Initial Approval of the Planned Development (adopted November 19, 1998):
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval of the Planning Director for a parking study prepared by a professional consultant. This study shall commence within one month after full operation of the pool begins and continue long enough to determine if adequate parking existing for the use (minimum of six months). If the Planning Director determines that the study indicates that additional off-street parking is needed, the applicant shall bear responsibility for assuring ensuring that the parking is constructed no later than 1 year after the Planning Director’s determination. Such assurance shall be in the form of a binding, enforceable interlocal agreement between the City and the County bond in favor of the City, the amount of which shall be determined by the City and based on a formula for constructing standard parking spaces in a City owned parking lot. The terms of this condition shall be included in a deed restriction to be placed on the property that the City is transferring to the County for the project.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an addendum to the traffic study prepared by a professional traffic engineer that conclusively addresses the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of 900 East and Sugarmont Drive and the need for stop signs at the intersection of Sugarmont Drive and McClelland Avenue, or within close proximity of this intersection. This addendum shall utilize demand figures from the actual operations of Steiner Pool on Guardsman Way, or any other comparable pool facilities, in order to make more accurate projections of demand at the proposed Fairmont Pool. The report shall evaluate demand by pedestrians and bicyclists and well as users using automobiles. If any traffic-related, improvements are needed, the applicant shall be responsible for a pro-rated share of the costs of these improvements as calculated by the City Transportation Division.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan for review and approval of the Planning Director that indicates adequate curb and sidewalk for the frontage along Sugarmont Drive, including an unloading area for buses.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Planning Director.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit final building plans for review and approval by the Planning Director that indicate revised and/or final colors for all exterior portions of the building the concrete portions of the building, the metal roof, and the brick. The concrete shall be white, with the exact shade subject to approval.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan for review and approval by the Planning Director that is consistent with the City’s ordinance for interior parking lot landscaping.
7. The applicant shall follow all the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared for the project, including the monitoring of the site excavation by a qualified geologist.
8. The applicant shall be responsible for a pro-rated share of the cost of improving the intersection of McClelland Avenue and the main driveway near the pool building, including installation of stop signs and pedestrian crossings. An evaluation will be made by the City as to the feasibility of making the pedestrian crossings raised and/or textured.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Steed moved to grant preliminary approval of the 1.548-acre subdivision in Fairmont Park subject to final administrative approval by the Planning Director and to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Utilities Division shall approve the location of the sanitary sewer line.
2. All requirements contained in the City Engineering Division’s memo to Planning Division dated April 8, 1999, and attached to the staff report, shall be met by the applicant.
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Steed moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-99-22 to declare the 1.548-acre parcel of land in Fairmont Park surplus subject to the finalization of a mutually agreed upon interlocal agreement between the City and the County. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-98-67 by Don Parker requesting approval of a 17 unit residential condominium and plat amendment of the Salt Lake Eye Clinic Condo located at approximately at 960 East 100 South in a Residential “RMF-35” zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pahl then stated that this proposal was considered at an administrative hearing in September of 1998. Some of the resident property owners voiced concerns at that meeting regarding the renovation and requested that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Don Parker and Mr. Gordon Casey, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Parker stated that he and Mr. Casey had a desire to convert a commercial building into residential units. Mr. Parker then stated that it has been a very difficult process.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Justin Henry, President of the Homeowner’s Association, stated that he is in favor of the proposed project. Mr. Henry then stated that he does not understand why the resident’s would not be pleased with this project because the values of the existing condominiums have increased significantly. Also, all of the improvements have been paid for by the developer’s not the resident’s.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she is in favor of the proposed project. She believes that Mr. Parker is attempting to do something that is pioneering and she feels that he has done a wonderful job.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-67:
Mr. Steed moved to grant preliminary condominium approval for the additional eight units, and grant preliminary plat amendment approval for either of the replacement plats, subject to compliance with the site improvement recommendations, with final approval delegated to the Planning Director. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk abstained. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUE
The Planning Commission will make their decision on a proposal by Jonathan Ruga for a plat amendment to the Capital Park Planned Development Phase 4 plat to combine three lots (lots 409, 410 and 411) into one large lot located at 673 N. Caring Cove in a Foothill Residential “FR-3” zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pahl stated that an “issues only” hearing was held on April 1, 1999 to identify potential issues regarding the possible lot combination. The applicant has changed the original proposal in response to the issues raised by staff and Planning Commissioners. Ms. Pahl then stated that a replacement motion, which includes the findings of fact and the development approval shown on the site plan, as submitted, has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners.
Ms. Pahl identified the rear yard. Mr. Wright then noted to the Planning Commissioners that no accessory buildings (i.e. detached garage) are permitted in rear yards.
Mr. Smith stated that he has studied this proposal in-depth and has concluded that the one larger house is just as good as, if not better, than three separate houses. Even though the house is larger than one house would be on just one lot, it is not overly large. Mr. Smith then stated that he is also very pleased that the trees will be preserved.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-15:
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to amend the Capitol Park Planned Development approval to allow Lots #409, 410 and 411 to be combined into one lot to be developed as shown on the site plan as submitted, and further to grant preliminary subdivision approval to the proposed plat amendment, subject to compliance with
departmental requirements, and delegate final plat approval to the Planning Director. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-99-23 by Wayne Facer, representing Property Reserve Inc., requesting that an underground center portion of West Temple Street between North Temple to 150 North be declared surplus and sold to the petitioner for the purposes of constructing a ramp into the LDS Church Assembly Building parking structure.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Barrows asked of staff why this property is being sold instead of leased and why wasn’t it addressed in the staff report. Mr. Wright stated that the option of leasing was addressed through the discussion process a number of years ago. At that time, it was believed that it was appropriate to sell just the underground rights. By doing this, it brings value to the city immediately, instead of over a long period of time, It also gives the property owner a level of comfort that they will not be dealing with another city administration in the future, that may decide to provoke the permit, leaving a parking structure that is not accessible to be serviced. Selling the property is the fairest of all ways, it provides the value to the public and has a great value to how the building will function and lessen the impact to the neighborhood.
Mr. Wayne Facer, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-23:
Mr. Steed moved to approve Petition No. 400-99-23 to declare surplus underground portions of West Temple, between North Temple and 200 North, with the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. The sale is for underground portions of West Temple only. The city will retain approximately 4 feet of surface rights (this will require modification of submitted property description).
2. Salt Lake City grant retain a non-exclusive easement for the portion of the right-of-way where the driveway ramp passes through city-owned surface property. (change made by staff)
3. Salt Lake City retain first right of refusal to repurchase the underground portion of the street if the LDS Church ever deems the property surplus to their needs.
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows voted “Nay”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-99-07 by CLC Associates requesting to rezone 250 acres of property located on the west side of 5600 West between I-80 and 700 South from a Light Manufacturing "M-1" to a General Commercial "CG" zoning district to accommodate the proposed Salt Lake Grand Mall and ancillary commercial uses.
Victor Grgas, Director of Planning for Forest City Development, the general partner in the proposed Grand Salt Lake Mall, along with partner, George Riemer, of RFKR Properties, were present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Grgas stated that their presentation would be a slide show. Their intent is to first tell a little bit about Forest City Development, then show some pictures of comparable projects that have already been built in the United States that represent what is being proposed for the Grand Salt Lake Mall, and finally, identify the things that need to be done to get the project to a point where it can be developed. Mr. Grgas continued by stating that if the proposed zoning change is approved tonight, it will permit us to move forward with the next phase of the project. The next phase is to begin to solidify and get tenant commitments firmly in place in order to proceed with getting the project financed and built.
At this time, a slide presentation was shown to the Planning Commissioners and all those in attendance. Mr. Grgas, Mr. Riemer and Mr. Steve Wilson, facility engineer for the project, spoke at various times to explain the slides.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Barrows asked how many parking spaces would be included with the proposed project. Mr. Grgas stated that there would be 11,000 parking spaces. Mr. Wright stated that the proposed parking is more than the city’s requirement. The parking ratio is so high because these types of facilities are heavily used. Mr. Grgas then noted that another reason for a large amount of parking spaces is because visiting the Grand Salt Lake Mall is an all day event as opposed to going for a few hours at a traditional regional mall.
Ms. Barrows asked if the proposed project will accommodate bicycle/pedestrian walkways. Mr. Wilson stated that one of the conditions of the staff report requires the site plan, landscaping plan and mall architecture to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. At this time, we need to know that a portion of the property can be rezoned commercial so that a commercial facility can be built at the proposed location. As soon as we are entitled to build, the action that will be generated will be increased tenfold. Mr. Wilson then stated that as the details begin to be refined, site plan issues will be addressed with the staff and Planning Commissioners.
Mr. Wright stated that he believes that this proposed project will promote the city’s Northwest Quadrant. Eventually, there will be neighborhoods to the north and west of the proposed mall. When the neighborhoods are being developed, the city needs to make sure that there are good ties to the trail systems, the bike systems and light rail. Mr. Wilson then stated that he believes that this project will enhance the character of the west central corridor of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Stuart Reid, Director of Community & Economic Development, stated that from an economic development standpoint, the proposed mall will be a gold mine for Salt Lake City. The Grand Salt Lake Mall is a regional mall that will attract people from surrounding states. Mr. Reid then stated that he is very excited about the project and he feels that the proposed location is the best place for it. If approved, the mall will become an anchor for future development in the Northwest Quadrant.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Don Wallace, a property owner in the area, stated that he is supportive of the petitioner’s request to rezone a portion of the property to commercial. However, he would like to see the parcel on the corner of 5600 West and 700 South also be rezoned to commercial. Mr. Wallace then stated that as a property owner he would like to see that corner upgraded from an industrial zone because it will minimize the number of trucking companies in the area.
Mr. Chris Quan, a concerned citizen, stated that he is in favor of the proposed rezoning and mall. He then spoke regarding bicycle paths and bicycle safety.
Mr. Mark Maxfield, a concerned citizen, asked detention pond water issues and road access to the west. Mr. Wright directed Mr. Maxfield to speak to Mr. Doug Wheelwright, of the Planning Staff, regarding his concerns.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-7:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-99-7 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation to rezone the property, as shown on the site plan attached to the staff report, from an Industrial “M-1” to a Commercial “CG” zoning district subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the property according to the conceptual site plan as submitted.
2. Development of a north/south open space linkage between the UP&L corridor and the 6200 West I-80 freeway underpass.
3. Recordation of an avigation easement to allow aircraft overflight.
4. Compliance to all departmental requirements and conditions.
5. Planning Commission approval of the site plan, landscaping plan and mall architecture through a conditional use/planned development approval process.
6. U.D.O.T. approval for the proposed street intersections and any modifications to the I-80/5600 West interchange.
7. Approval by all other applicable local, state and federal agencies.
Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.