SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Tim Chambless, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Kent Nelson. Laurie Noda was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright and Planners Ray McCandless and Doug Dansie. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith was excused.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Vice-Chair Arla Funk called the meeting to order at 5:50 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, April 4, 2002
Jeff Jonas referred to page 3, to sentence beginning, “On a security bond..” and requested that the first part of that sentence be corrected to read, “A security bond is required..” and striking the words “On” and “it.” He referred to the next to the last paragraph on the same page and asked that the final “s” be removed from “guests.” He referred to page 8, second sentence of the second full paragraph, and asked that the minutes reflect that the other members of the Planning Commission disagreed with Ms. Arnold’s comment that the Planning Commission should have been given more information. He referred to page 12 and noted that the fourth word at the top should be “area,” not “are.” With regard to his motion on page 12, he believed the motion should read, “.based upon the findings of fact given by the Staff and the additional findings of the Planning Commission.” He believed all the conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission and the conditions recommended by the Staff should be included in the motion for ease of whomever will enforce the conditions. He noted that the issues he was referring to were contained in the minutes but should have been included in his motion. Peggy McDonough commented that they appeared to be included as an amendment to the motion. Mr. Jonas replied that the amendment addressed snow removal. In his motion, he made as part of the findings that internal circulation would be adequate because they would increase to three stalls for guest parking. Mr. Wilde asked Mr. Jonas if he would like to add those findings to the conditions. Kent Nelson recalled that there was a condition of approval addressing visitor parking, and he believed it should be added as Condition 8. Mr. Jonas felt that, although snow removal was addressed in the amendment, it should be identified as an amendment in the typed conditions as a snow removal plan referred to by Prescott Muir. Mr. Jonas stated that Condition 9 should read, “Visitor parking shall be increased to three stalls.” The Planning Commissioners discussed how to identify conditions added by a Planning Commissioner, and Mr. Wheelwright suggested that the conditions added by Planning Commissioners be typed in bold. Mr. Jonas stated that Condition 10 addressed building materials and architecture being compatible with the neighborhood and being delegated to the Planning Director. Condition 11 is that the construction process be as described by Mr. Culp. The findings included compliance with the many conditions that are necessary for a conditional use or planned development, and Mr. Jonas felt they should all be listed as conditions of approval, and that was the intent of his motion.
Prescott Muir referred to page 5 and recalled comments from Bill Gordon that the building was actually lighter than the existing weight of the soil that would be removed and that the building would actually improved the soil stability. Mr. Muir stated that he did not see that testimony in the minutes, and he felt it was important to include it in the minutes. Vice-Chair Funk recalled reading it in the minutes and asked Mr. Muir to determine whether or not it was included. Mr. Muir referred to the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 12 and asked that the ending of the sentence be changed from “in that zone” to “in the underlying zone.”
Peggy McDonough asked that the spelling of Mr. Kin Ng be checked with the roll. His name is spelled Ngo in the minutes, and she believed the correct spelling was Ng.
Robert “Bip” Daniels referred to page 6, five lines from the top, which states, “The design concept will actually improve the stability of the hillside.” He believed that was the testimony Mr. Muir was looking for, and he asked if it should be included in the motion since Mr. Jonas referred to it in his motion. Mr. Nelson recalled from the motion that it was clear that, as a result of the structure, the hillside would become more stabilized. Mr. Jonas was satisfied that it was in his motion.
Motion
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to approve the minutes of April 4 with the corrections stated. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Ms. Barrows and Mr. Chambless abstained from the vote as they did not attend the April 4 meeting. Ms. Noda was not present. Ms Funk, as Chair pro tem, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Wilde offered to include the corrected set of minutes in the next packet.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition #410-572, by Voice Stream Wireless requesting a conditional use to increase the height of an existing wireless telecommunication antenna from 75 feet to 88 feet to accommodate a third set of wireless telecommunication antennas at 810 North 2200 West. Also proposed is additional electrical equipment at the base of the monopole.
Planner Ray McCandless reviewed an aerial photograph to orient the Planning Commission to the site. He noted that the existing monopole was approved by the Planning Commission in June of 2000 as a 75-foot-high tower with two antennas, one for Nextel and one for AT&T. A set of power lines runs along the east side, and the freeway is elevated in that location to some degree. Mr. McCandless explained that the original approval was subject to a number of conditions listed in the staff report, and two of those conditions were never completed by the original petitioners. One was that the lease area be enclosed with a black vinyl coated chain link fence. The fence is there, but the posts were never painted. The other condition which has not been met is that the monopoles and antennas were to be painted a flat medium gray color to minimize visual impacts.
Mr. McCandless reported that Voice Stream originally approached the Planning Department with a request to extend the height of the pole to 95 feet, an increase in height of 20 feet, and put antennas on the arms. They then found that they could increase the height of the pole by only 13 feet and have flush mounted antennas. The diameter of the pole is 24 inches, and it does not taper toward the top. Voice Stream plans to extend the pole 13 feet and attach the antennas so the total diameter of the antennas and poles would be 44 inches.
Mr. McCandless reported that an original condition of approval was that only two sets of antennas would be installed on the pole to minimize additional impacts, and the current request would amend the original condition of approval. The need for two antennas was based on the proposed height, and the Planning Commission was not comfortable adding anything more to a 75-foot pole. Mr. McCandless stated that he believed the visual impacts from flush-mounted antennas would be mitigated to some degree. He explained that there are currently two electrical equipment buildings at the base of the pole. He indicated the location of the proposed 27' x 27' fenced area and the electrical equipment that would be exposed rather than inside an existing building and would be below the height of the fence. The applicant will also bring in fill to make the site level with the rest of the facility.
Mr. McCandless referred to problems that occurred in scheduling with the appropriate Community Council and explained that this petition was placed on the April 17, 2002 Community Council agenda. The Staff attended the meeting, and the following concerns were expressed by the Community Council:
l) Whether this is in the flight path. The applicant indicated that FAA approval is required for the location as well as the height of the monopole.
2) Whether there would be harmful radio emissions. The applicant replied that there would not be and explained that antenna emissions are regulated by the federal government.
3) Whether the applicant could put their equipment in the existing fence area. They cannot, because AT&T will not allow another carrier to go into their lease area.
4) Proposed fencing due to concerns about graffiti. The Community Council appeared comfortable with an extension of the black vinyl colored chain link fence.
5) The number of antennas already in the area. Mr. McCandless noted that another request will be coming to the Planning Commission for a separate monopole on the same piece of property.
Mr. McCandless reported that most of the Community Council discussion centered on whether the applicant would provide financial compensation to the Community Council for installing the tower. Voice Stream indicated that it is company policy to not provide compensation to the Community for their facilities, but they provided a phone number where their community representative could be contacted. The motion at the meeting was to table the item to allow further study, with a vote of 9 for and 3 against. Mr. McCandless reported that he received a phone call from the Community Council chair before this meeting, and she recognized that the financial component is not part of the Planning Commission’s decision. She indicated that the concerns were that the fenced area be the same color and material as what currently exists. She also hoped to see additional landscaping around the facility for screening and suggested a tall growing juniper. Mr. McCandless noted that a Community Council representative was present to speak this evening.
The Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. McCandless recommended adding a condition of approval, “That FAA and City requirements be met.”
Vice-Chair Funk asked why the ground was elevated and whether it was necessary to elevate it under the new building. She believed the equipment area would be less intrusive if it were lower. Mr. McCandless replied that the electrical equipment will only be five or six feet high and freestanding. Ms. Funk asked why the ground was initially elevated under the pole. Mr. McCandless replied that he did not know, and there is no indication on the site plan. Vice-Chair Funk asked if the applicant needed to elevate the ground for this application. Mr. McCandless explained that the ground slopes, and there is not much space to put the electrical equipment. Vice-Chair Funk explained that her concern is that a 75-foot pole is actually 78 feet because fill was brought in.
Ms. Barrows asked if there are guidelines for changing the grade. Mr. Wilde explained that a grade change can be two feet or less at the property line in this zoning district. Any grade change in excess of two feet away from the property line would be negotiated through the permit process. The grade change at this site is closer to six feet, and Mr. Wilde suggested that it may have been elevated to avoid water.
Referring to the Community Council’s request for monetary compensation for the impacts, Mr. Muir asked if impact fees are assessed to billboards and asked if there was any vehicle for assessing impact fees. The staff response was that there was not any vehicle or impact fee available.
Mr. Chambless asked when the trees were placed on the eastern edge of the property. Mr. McCandless replied that was done within six months of the June 2000 approval. Mr. Chambless asked how close the trees are to the fence. Mr. McCandless replied that they are only a couple of feet away and that the reason for the vegetation is to screen the equipment. The trees are expected to grow to 50 or 60 feet. Mr. Chambless asked if that would be sufficient to meet the needs for hiding the pole. Mr. McCandless replied that he was unaware of any other options that would screen more than the lower portion of the pole. Mr. Chambless asked for an opinion on the suggestion of planting junipers. Mr. McCandless replied that too many trees could cause overcrowding problems. Mr. Chambless commented that it was his experience that trees which are planted too close must eventually be removed because there is too much pressure on the structure when trees are planted too close to the site. Mr. McCandless explained that the presence of utility lines do not allow for much flexibility.
Kevin Deis, representing Voice Stream Wireless, identified the site and the applicant’s intent. He noted that the pad would be 15' x 20', not 27' x 27', because the rest is sloped. They do not lease the sloped area, and the purpose is to lay the slope back to accommodate the drainage. He indicated a drainage swale running down the property line and explained that the reason for elevating the site was to bring it to the level of the road to have equal access to their site. The other reason for the elevation was to allow for drainage. He explained that, being close to the airport, they went through a stringent process with the FAA, and Voice Stream Wireless has received FAA approval. That approval requires them to paint the tower red and white like FAA towers, or they can put a low wattage red light on top to alert aircraft. He explained that the fencing will be exactly like the existing fence and noted that the Community Council was concerned that putting in slats would make it too inviting to vandals. They will also paint the poles. He indicated a sloped area that is not amenable to landscaping due to the drainage. And the areas where landscaping was meant to occur based on the previous conditions. He noted that shrubs and small trees already exist on the south side in the drainage swale which block the view and shield their site from uses on the south side.
Andrea Barrows asked about the depth of the fill and how far it would go. Mr. Deis replied that the fill will be approximately 8 feet and, because of the slope, will go out about 13 feet. Ms. Barrows asked how much room would be between their fence line and the existing fence. Mr. Deis estimated that it would be approximately 20 to 22 feet with a 2-to-1 slope. Ms. Barrows asked if all the poles would be painted black, including the ones that were not painted with the original approval. Mr. Deis stated that he did not think Voice Stream should be responsible for correcting the previous owner’s violations and noted that he represents a co-locator, not the original conditional use holder. He offered to contact the conditional use holder and do what he could to get them to paint the poles and antennas. Ms. Barrows asked about the proximity of the closest Voice Stream pole. Mr. Deis replied that it is at the intersection of I-215 and I-80. Ms. Barrows asked why this pole was needed and whether it could be placed in another location. Mr. Deis explained that they are trying to cover the residential uses on the east side of the site, provide additional coverage along I-215, and provide adequate coverage in the airport area. He had looked at other sites in the area, but nothing else worked.
Mr. Jonas noted that the Staff suggested that the top of the pole be tapered, but Voice Stream indicated that was not possible. He asked if this would leave the pole ripe for interception. Mr. Deis replied that his structural analysis showed that the pole was very close to its structural limit.
Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Deis if he knew of any poles in the valley that are tapered at the top. Mr. Deis replied that it depends on the type of pole. This is a round pole, and it is structured to go straight up. Other poles are tapered. In order to taper this pole, they would have to remove the pole and put up a new pole, and AT&T does not want them to do this due to the time and effort that would be involved. Mr. Daniels verified that it is not economically feasible but not impossible. Mr. Deis explained that it relates not just economics, but also to service, because the two existing facilities provide service to the neighborhood for people using AT&T and Nextel phones, which would be interrupted during reconstruction.
Mr. Deis referred to the Community Council’s suggestion about payment with regard to good will. In the past, Voice Stream has done that for specific sites and payment to landlords. However, that practice got out of hand, so it became their policy to not make any contributions. He felt that the Community Council request came from a quasi-reviewing body, and he did not feel that type of request should be made by a reviewing authority. Voice Stream felt the Community Council was saying they would support their request only if they were willing to pay money, and they did not believe that was right nor a good precedent to set. Mr. Deis reported that he is drafting a letter to be sent to the Community Council Chair stating their displeasure and refusing to meet that request. If the Community Council were to come to Voice Stream and make a request outside of this project in terms of partnering, Voice Stream may consider doing something.
Vice-Chair Funk made it clear that financial remuneration is not part of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Orvill Paller, representing the Westpointe Community Council, stated his personal opinion that he did not care for any financial remuneration, and that suggestion came from the floor. He stated that he personally did not want the tower in this location. On behalf of the Community Council, he explained the Council’s position. AT&T received its approval accidentally because they went to the wrong Community Council, the Jordan Meadows Community Council. If this had come before the Westpointe Community Council it would probably not have been approved. They approved Nextel but were not interested in AT&T unless they had provided greater flexibility. AT&T is very tight as to what they will allow on their building within a fenced area. If that were not the case, it would be possible to have everything within a fenced area. Mr. Paller stated that the Council would like to see proper landscaping to make the area aesthetically pleasing. He understood that Mr. Deis and his company are in business to make a profit, but the residents feel that they should not have to accept whatever anyone wants to put in just because they live on the west side. They did approved Nextel, but Mr. Paller opposed any pole extension above the existing height.
Vice-Chair Funk stated that she appreciated Mr. Paller’s personal thoughts but felt the Planning Commission would also like to hear what the Community Council thinks about this request. Mr. Paller stated that the Community Council wants aesthetically pleasing vegetation and appropriate landscaping and, if at all possible, better negotiations with AT&T for working within the fenced area without adding to or extending what is already there.
Ms. Barrows referred to the previous staff report and a letter from the Westpointe Community Council dated April 26, 2000, representing that AT&T attended the community council meeting and the vote was 3 to1 for the request. She felt that Mr. Paller should realize that the June 2000 approval was a joint approval for AT&T and Nextel for one tower with two antennas. Mr. Paller stated that he was briefed by the Community Council Chair at 5:15 this evening, and based on that conversation, he did not believe the Chair understood it that way. He offered to share that information with her.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Paller to explain the basis of the vote to table this item at the Community Council meeting. Mr. Paller felt the Community Council wanted to see a reaction and hear community support. He did not believe it was to obtain money, although they did mention money in the vein of purchasing walkie-talkies for the mobile watch patrol. Money for the Community Council was not a reason, and he would personally oppose anything in that vein.
Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barrows stated that she had a problem with the original conditional use and was not comfortable approving an additional use that would add to something already non-compliant with the original conditional use. They have just now discovered that it was not built correctly in terms of the extra fill. She felt badly that Voice Stream Wireless was stuck in this situation, but they are dealing with an original leaseholder that did not comply.
Mr. Jonas agreed with regard to the conditions the Planning Commission placed, but he did not know enough about the geology to know whether AT&T needed to go that high with the fill. Apparently the permits counter felt it was all right. Ms. Barrows remarked that was only an assumption, and there is nothing to support it. Mr. Wilde explained that the permit counter may or may not have been aware of the fill. If the Planning Commission chooses to move forward, he suggested they consider a requirement that Voice Stream Wireless actually show the grades and obtain the necessary approval for the grade changes as part of this permit. That can be done administratively unless it goes beyond the realm of administrative approval, in which case it would require a Board of Adjustment action in the form of a variance.
Vice-Chair Funk asked if Public Utilities should review this petition. Mr. Wilde replied that decision would be made at the permit counter. The Planning Commission can request that it go to Public Utilities to make sure that coordination exists.
Mr. Muir asked for the height of the tallest monopole in the City. Mr. McCandless replied that the tallest pole is 100 feet.
Ms. Arnold stated that, since AT&T did not comply with the conditional use, she did not know why they would want to go further until they have compliance.
Mr. Nelson questioned why everyone had a problem with the fill since the beginning of the pole is at the ground level of the property. The fill comes in because they want to build on the edge within 20 feet of the property line, which is down in the swale. He questioned whether Voice Stream should be required to lower the pole to below grade and count from there up. Mr. Wilde explained that discretion is always used on fill. If the fill is nothing more than leveling off to create a level spot, it may be viewed differently than fill to create a mound. He did not know where the permits counter would draw the line.
Mr. Jonas felt it was clear from the pictures that the entire site had been filled, because the whole area is low. He agreed with Ms. Barrows that Voice Stream should not be allowed to do anything until the previous conditional use is brought into compliance. He believed they could make that happen as part of the motion rather than table Voice Stream until it is done.
Ms. Barrows stated that she was on the Planning Commission when this conditional use was approved, and she was concerned about where the fill came from. When they visited the site, the fill was not there, and the original application was based on a different site than what the Planning Commission saw today. She also had the impression that a microwave was put on this site and had to be removed. In her opinion, these things are not being enforced, and AT&T took the attitude of seeing what they could get away with. She was concerned because these are high impact issues. They are mandated by federal guidelines to accommodate the telecommunications industry, and she had seen it done both well and poorly. She was unsure how they could condition a new conditional use on compliance with an old one. Mr. Nelson replied that they could condition it based on the pole being painted. The permit would not be issued until the Planning Staff looks at the pole and determines that it has been painted. He commented on the number of poles and power lines existing in the area, and this request is just one more thing. Voice Stream Wireless is simply asking for a 13-foot extension on a monopole.
Vice-Chair Funk felt the decision was whether the Planning Commission wanted to increase this pole or add another pole somewhere else. Mr. Nelson agreed that it was an issue of whether the neighborhood would rather have two 60' poles or extend the one in this location.
Mr. Muir noted that the Planning Commission has instructed the Staff in the past to provide recommendations on a reasonable policy--greater proliferation of 60-foot poles or less frequent 80-foot poles. Vice-Chair Funk noted that the staff report contains a map of the other poles located in the vicinity.
Peggy McDonough agreed with Mr. Muir and stated that she felt it was difficult to pass judgment on the impacts of this without guidelines to calibrate their decision. She felt the Planning Commission needed more information on height limits, number of poles, and related impacts before making a fair decision.
Mr. Wilde reported that the City met with the telecommunication industry in 1996 and had them provide their best guess on master plans. Mr. McCandless has made his best attempt to track everything that came in, but that information is probably no longer reliable or accurate. He suggested bringing the industry back together and requesting updated maps and offered to do that as quickly as possible. Mr. Nelson asked if that information would address the issue of two 60-foot poles versus one 85-foot pole. Mr. Wilde was unsure whether industry representatives would get that specific, but he would try his best to get that information. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the ordinance states that in the building permit process, you can build all the 60-foot poles you want to apply for. Anything beyond that is a conditional use and requires a site-specific analysis by the Planning Commission or delegation to Staff under the new ordinance. He noted that the industry wants to economize and co-locate, and the ordinance encourages co-location. They are frustrated by the fact that they will never get a handle on this because seven companies are building infrastructure, and their needs keep changing. As these companies get more customers, their infrastructure must become more dense by either putting up more poles that are shorter and closer together or by putting them higher.
Ms. Barrows stated that she would be more comfortable leaving the pole at its current height and letting Voice Stream go to another site that could be co-located. She did not like the idea of stacking and the fact that this pole would not be tapered, and she was not in favor this conditional use.
Ms. McDonough stated that she was inclined to agree with Ms. Barrows because of the light on top. She believed the light would push it into an impact area that may be greater than another pole.
Mr. Daniels stated that his main concern is that the previous petitioner did not do what they agreed to do. He was not inclined to see anything else happen in that area until they are caught up. He was not bothered by the additional 13 feet and felt a study would find that the area probably needs it for coverage, but he hated to see it go further without taking care of what should have been done in the past. He did not see this as penalizing Voice Stream because Mr. Deis stated a willingness to work with AT&T for compliance.
MOTION
Andrea Barrows moved to deny conditional use petition 410--572 by Voice Stream Wireless based on Finding F, that appropriate buffering is not provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts, and the fact that the Staff response is that additional buffering cannot be provided. Also, that any strobe lights required by the FAA should be screened, and that kind of impact is unacceptable to the residents. The existing landscaping or additional landscaping will not shield and provide visual impact or mitigation to the residential areas. Regarding architectural and building materials, Ms. Barrows stated that she would be more inclined to accept this petition if they had a masonry building, but the fact that the petition is for something that is only a change in area is unacceptable and inappropriate. The motion is also based on Finding K, that the conditional use is not compatible and will significantly increase the net material impact. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas felt this would provide an opportunity to correct the previous conditional use, and he did not think adding 13 feet would have a material net adverse impact. He would rather see this location used again because the area already has great impacts. He did not see this as a negative and felt they could impose some landscaping requirements. However, any landscaping is premature, because there is nothing else there.
Mr. Nelson remarked that he lives in the area, and instead of seeing a slim, a 13-foot extension to the pole, he will see two 60-foot poles, which he believed would create a greater visual impact. Ms. Funk agreed that one pole rather than two would have less impact. Mr. Jonas noted that the subcommittee made a recommendation for co-location whenever possible.
Mr. Muir stated that his observation is based upon the underlying recommendation by Staff and adopted by ordinance that they would rather see an infinite number of 60-foot poles and look carefully at anything that exceeds that. Without a subsequent recommendation from Staff, he would support the motion.
Mr. Jonas noted that the Staff has recommended approval.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, and Mr. Nelson voted “Nay.” Ms. Funk, as Vice-Chair, did not vote. Ms. Noda was not present. The motion carried.
Ms. Barrows recommended that the Staff look into the existing conditional use for the site and determine how they can follow up with the original conditions. Mr. Daniels clarified that the petitioner has the option to work with the original petitioner and re-submit this application. Vice-Chair Funk noted that the petitioner also has the option to appeal to the Land Use Board.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-581, by Tracy James of the Boyer Company requesting a conditional use to modify the planned development at the Gateway mixed-use center (generally located between 400 to 500 West and North Temple to 200 South) to allow for kiosks and to modify signage placement within the development
Planner Doug Dansie reported that the Gateway project was approved as a planned development over a several-year period. There are two issues for discussion this evening. One is the kiosk proposed as an amendment to the planned development to clarify an administrative ruling. He presented a drawing of typical kiosks seen at most malls which have been approved by the City. The City also has sidewalk vendors. The Gateway center is an open air mall, and when the Gateway opened last November, the request was brought forward and there was an issue of how to permit the kiosks. Kiosks are allowed inside a mall, but because these would be outside, they should meet the sidewalk vending ordinance. However, they do not because they are too large and sell items other than food and balloons. An administrative compromise was reached to allow kiosks on the second level of the Gateway because it is not a plaza or street. After making that decision, they wanted to go further and amend the planned development to make clear exactly what is approved and how many. The petitioner is proposing 36 kiosks that will be clustered by the restaurants and theaters at the south end and at the main plaza at the north end.
The other issue deals with signage. The sign ordinance was amended a year ago to allow blade signs. All businesses can have a blade sign nine square feet in size, but only theaters, major retailers over 35,000 square feet, or shopping centers are allowed to have a large blade sign which is 125 square feet. A shopping center can have one blade sign per street frontage, and the Code allows one blade sign or one monument sign, but not both. Mr. Dansie reviewed a layout of the Gateway and identified the current signage. Since the South Temple right-of-way was vacated, it is an extraordinarily large block. The City owns a public easement and the right to pass through the depot all the way to 500 West. The Boyer Company would like to move their monument signs to have two at the entry. They are not asking for more signs but they are asking to move one. Because it is such a large block, the Boyer Company is asking that it be treated as two blocks.
Mr. Chambless asked why blade signs were prohibited in the 1970's. Mr. Dansie replied that there was a time when signage in downtown Salt Lake got out of control, and the decision was made to keep signs flush against the wall. A year ago the Planning Commission and City Council decided to allow small blade signs for every business and large blade signs for large businesses. Mr. Chambless stated that he understood the proposal was to remove a flat sign from the south side and move to the north side, leaving the south side with no signage. Mr. Dansie indicated the locations where the petitioner could have either a blade sign or a monument sign, and the Boyer Company decided to have one monument sign and one blade sign, but instead of putting them on two street frontages, they want to have both at the entry to the mall. They will still have flat signs against the building.
Mr. Muir asked why the City exercises more control over kiosks on Main Street than they do at Gateway. He believed it was because of the public right-of-way that they are put in a position of having to adjudicate competition between private property owners and those that rent space in the public right-of-way. In this situation, it is fee-simple property, and it is the landlord’s responsibility to adjudicate that issue. Mr. Muir asked if that was the basic underlying issue that differentiates the two phenomenon. Mr. Dansie replied that it is. An additional issue is that the private property owner can regulate the vendors better than the City can.
Mr. Daniels asked how large the kiosks are. If they are large and the mall area gets crowded, he questioned how easy it would be for people with wheelchairs and walkers to move around. Mr. Dansie replied that the diagram in the packet shows them as 8'8" tall to the top of the roof. He noted that the kiosks in Gateway are functioning now and are the same as would be seen in any other mall.
Ms. Barrows asked if the Planning Commission would regulate where the kiosks will be placed or if they would only regulate the number allowed. Mr. Dansie replied that the locations are already regulated because the electrical is already installed in the sidewalks. They may not install all 36 kiosks, but the spaces are allocated in terms of the planned development approval. Ms. Barrows asked if the location of the kiosks could change if the electrical in the sidewalks were changed. Mr. Dansie stated that the Planning Commission could include in the motion that the approval is for the locations shown on the site plan.
Doug Thimm, coordinating architect for the project, stated that in order for this project to work, there has to be a lot of room to move, and pedestrian traffic must be free flowing for people to access all parts of the project. That being the case, the kiosks will be located with wide avenues adjacent to them. He referred to an established plan with potential locations, and in preparing infrastructure for the project, power and data lines were installed to those points. He stated that they would not oppose a condition that would fix the kiosks to those locations. He commented on signage and concerns about garishness and what happens when a sign plan goes wrong. He noted that the sign requirements have limitations. In the past, there were no limitations, and when you have sign after sign with no limits, you end up with something that is aesthetically unappealing. He believed the limitations were good in terms of size and quantity. Staying with the same number of signs and providing the identity they need for the project, he was confident they could make it work without a garish or objectionable appearance.
Ms. Arnold asked if moving the sign might discourage entry in the area by Bridges where merchants appear to be isolated. If signage helps an entrance, she felt it would be good to keep a flow going that way to help the development in other areas. Mr. Dansie reviewed the plan to help the Planning Commission understand where the monument signs would be located. He indicated that there is still an opportunity for a monument sign on Rio Grande and noted that this plan does not preclude any opportunities for flat signs.
Mr. Jonas asked if there was any attempt to open Rio Grande Street to car traffic. Mr. Thimm stated that from the beginning there was talk about having a flow of traffic except for special occasions. The conditional use is set up so there would be a public access easement north and south along Rio Grande, and it could be closed off for any type of event. Once the Center opened and they observed the use and the way people flowed from east to west across Rio Grande, it did not make sense to have traffic. At this time there is not a strong inclination to open the street to traffic. Mr. Jonas stated that he would prefer to leave Rio Grande Street closed.
Ms. Barrows asked if the signage is in its infancy. Mr. Thimm replied that ,in terms of site identification, they are well beyond the infancy stage, and most of it is in place. The only part still in infancy is individual tenant signs. Ms. Barrows felt that, from a user standpoint, the signage was extremely poor in the parking garage.
Vice-Chair Funk noted that this petition was presented to the appropriate Community Council and they voted unanimously in favor of the project.
Doug Dansie explained that the monument signs are basically directional signs. Some uses are on separate lots, but because they are all part of the planned development, they are not shown as off-premise signs.
Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Jastrensky, a student from the University of Utah, felt that with the shorter block, the two blade signs would be too many signs with the flat signs on the building. Mr. Nelson asked why Ms. Jastrensky believed two signs would be too many. She replied that blade signs are big and tall, and having them for all the business would be too much with other signs along all the buildings.
Naima Nawabi, a student from the University of Utah, liked the idea of the two signs and felt it would be inviting. She felt that the signage in the parking lot was the best she had seen with the color coordination.
Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barrows stated that she liked the kiosks on the upper level but was concerned with where they would be located on the lower level. Mr. Dansie indicated Rio Grande Street and the closed street which is privately owned by the Boyer Company. The City has a public easement following the street, and there are 20' sidewalks on each side. The Boyer Company shows three kiosks on the pedestrian entry between McGrath’s Fish House and California Pizza Kitchen. There would also be kiosks at the base of the theater. He indicated locations on the ground level around the plaza and the fountain and assured Ms. Barrows that there would be plenty of walking distance around the kiosks.
Mr. Muir asked if fire vehicle access was the reason for the right-of-way. Mr. Dansie replied that it was fire access and general pedestrian access. When the RDA worked with the Boyer Company, the City sold the Union Pacific Depot to Boyer and kept an easement through the Depot. The City has a policy of mid-block walkways because the blocks are so long, and giving public right-of-way through the center is a way to break down the block. Mr. Muir asked if taxes are paid on that property. Mr. Dansie replied that they are.
Ms. Barrows asked if sidewalk vendors would be allowed along 100 South within the facility. Mr. Dansie replied that currently sidewalk vending ends at 400 West. The ordinance approved by the Planning Commission which is currently being reviewed by the City Council will allow vendors as far as 600 West. If that ordinance is approved, sidewalk vendors will be allowed outside on public property.
Mr. Muir stated that, just because there is not a roof over the mall, it does not change the rules. He did not think the City should dictate how a mall landlord merchandises. It was presented to the Downtown Alliance last week that retail sales in the downtown district were off by approximately $100 million annually since 1996. With Gateway fully on stream, the Central Business District hoped to get back to where they were in 1996 when there was less retail space. There is a need in the downtown sector to encourage retail.
MOTION
Prescott Muir moved to accept Petition 410-581 requested by Tracy James of the Boyer Company to modify their planned development to include kiosks and to modify signage placement at the Gateway located between 4th and 5th West and 2nd South to North Temple in the Gateway mixed-use GMU zone based upon the findings of fact. Mr. Muir recommended that the location of the kiosks be at the discretion of the applicant.
Findings of Fact - Kiosk
l. Kiosks, as a design modification to create more innovation and creativity, may be authorized as part of the planned development approval process.
2. The proposed kiosks are a normal part of mall retailing, and The Gateway is consistent with the City’s goals and master plans.
3. The kiosks are to be located on private sidewalks and the upper concourse of the development and will not affect private streets within the development.
4. Private walkways are adequate in size to accommodate the kiosks. The internal circulation system is adequate.
5. There are no conflicts with utility location and minimal impacts on service loads.
6. Buffering is unnecessary for the proposal.
7. The architecture of the kiosks is consistent with the overall mall development.
8. Operating hours are compatible.
9. The kiosks are compatible and will not have a cumulative negative effect.
10. The kiosks will meet all other City codes prior to receiving a business license.
Findings of Facts - Signage
1. Alterations of the signage location to achieve better design is authorized through the planned development process.
2. The signage is not being increased but is instead being focused more appropriately to the development. The signage will highlight the entry to the building. The signage is being designed with input from the Historic Landmark Commission.
3. The addition of monument signs to the 400 West frontage will not affect adjacent land uses because they are low in scale while adjacent housing is on the upper levels of buildings.
4. The signage is appropriate to the development. The blade sign associated with the Union Pacific Depot will require Historic Landmark review.
5. The Historic Landmark Commission has addressed historical features; other environmental features are not impacted.
6. There is no net cumulative adverse impact.
7. The prosed signage will meet all other City codes.
Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Mr. Dansie asked Mr. Muir if he would like his motion to include a cap on the number of kiosks allowed. Mr. Muir recommended that there not be a cap as long as they maintain life, safety, and accessibility. He reiterated his recommendation that the number of kiosks and their location be left to the discretion of the applicant. Ms. Arnold accepted this recommendation.
Ms. Barrows asked if the existence of kiosks would increase parking requirements. Mr. Dansie replied that traditionally kiosks are not included in the parking count. Ms. Barrows asked if the number of kiosks is limited in an indoor mall. Mr. Dansie replied that they are not.
Mr. Chambless asked if anyone had concerns with the number of allowed blade signs. Mr. Muir stated that his motion would be the recommendation of Staff.
Vice-Chair Funk called for discussion on monument signs. Ms. Barrows stated that she was not fond of moving away the signage on the street. She felt they should allow only what is allowed on other blocks in other places. Mr. Jonas felt the Gateway was set up so the back door is the residential side and the front door is the commercial side which comes in from 4th West. Ms. Barrows agreed but felt they should not preclude the residential area because people will enter from that side. Mr. Nelson suggested allowing them to move the sign over and giving them another sign. Mr. Dansie clarified that the request is for one blade sign and one monument sign at both ends. Mr. Daniels recommended that they move ahead with the motion as stated covering both the kiosk and the signage.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Ms. McDonough abstained from the vote and apologized to the Planning Commission for not recognizing at the start of the discussion that the architect representing the Boyer Company is employed by the firm she recently joined. Ms Funk, as Vice-Chair, did not vote. Ms. Noda was not present. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of Petition No. 400-01-52 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting an amendment to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require all development between State Street and 700 East between 300 and 600 South to have a residential component.
Mr. Dansie explained that he was looking for discussion and direction on the creation of a housing overlay district. He referred to a map on the back of the Staff report showing the proposed overlay zones. He reported that this discussion grew out of the library discussion about what would happen if they do not have housing on the library block and how they could gain housing in other areas. He explained that he called other cities to see if they have zoning mechanisms to require housing, and most of the feedback indicated that it is possible to have inclusionary zoning, but it is difficult. He was told that zoning is a great way to keep out other incompatible uses to accommodate housing, but if you want to create it, you have to invest in it. He had a long conversation with the City of Portland, and they have a zoning district similar to Salt Lake’s RMU zone which is a mixed-use zone that allows shorter commercial buildings and taller residential buildings. The City of Portland has a 30-year policy of directing their money toward housing which has resulted in a lot of downtown housing in Portland.
Mr. Dansie stated that he started looking at an overlay and figured that everything over a certain size had to have a housing component. This is a place to start, but the issue is how to establish a minimum size. He considered 20,000 square feet and pulled that number from the CB zone where no business can be larger than 20,000 square feet. He then considered 25,000 square feet because, in the downtown zone, anything smaller than that is exempt from parking. If he anything over that size must have a housing component, two things would happen. One is the question of discouraging large projects if they do not want to include housing. The second was that, if they do it flat out, there are areas where they would not want housing, such as public lands. He started thinking about an overlay that would only apply to certain zones in the area, and the question was whether he should amend to down zone the RO or RMU to make it more accommodating to housing. Mr. Dansie explained the ramifications of doing that. The RMU presently allows three stories of non-residential and up to 125 feet of residential. When that was originally proposed in the 1995 zoning ordinance rewrite, they were thinking one story commercial and the rest residential. That was a big jump for many property owners because, prior to that, they could build 200-foot-tall office towers. Ratcheting down the RMU would give more economic incentive to housing.
Mr. Dansie stated that the other issue is the RO zone. The City used to have a zone called R7 which was placed along South Temple and allowed offices and residential in the same zoning district. The original thinking was that allowing offices in the large mansions on South Temple would preserve the architecture. That did not always work, and sometimes a mansion was torn down and a new office building constructed. Along 5th and 6th South where there is RO zoning, very little residential was built. Mr. Dansie referred to a large section between 4th and 5th South and 3rd and 5th East and explained that there are a couple of sections in the City that are zoned RO as well as along South Temple. He stated that, if he changes the RO district, he would affect more than just the east downtown area.
Mr. Muir asked what triggered 20,000 square feet and how many residential units would be required. Mr. Dansie replied that he prepared a draft that was circulated among Staff for feedback, and it proposed a 50/50 split on anything over 20,000 square feet. If someone built a 100,000-square-foot complex, 50% would have to be residential.
In response to a question about the formula for D3, Mr. Dansie replied that anything above two stories would have to be 50% residential. Ms. Barrows asked about the plan for Gateway in terms of their housing component. Mr. Dansie explained that the requirements were based on height, which resulted in 20% affordable housing. He believed that could be done in the RMU zone. Currently, the height limit in the RMU zone is 75 feet with a conditional use to 125 feet. He could write into the zoning ordinance 90 feet without a flat roof and 125 feet with affordable housing. However, he was unsure what they would gain, because in the last seven years the only thing built in that area were the Club Condominiums and Marriot Brighton Gardens, both low structures.
Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Dansie for the ratio of number of employees per 1,000 square feet of office space. If they could determine how many people can work in 1,000 square feet, they could calculate the number of people needed and build housing so everyone who works downtown does not have to drive. Mr. Dansie felt that would work only if there was consistency. The Wells Fargo Center was built with the idea that every employee would have a certain amount of square feet, and the parking was geared to that as well. The current owners are now searching for more parking because they are leasing several floors to someone who wants to pack their employees in call centers. It is not a matter of being an office or non-office, because it varies. Mr. Muir felt they could make that standard and believed Mr. Nelson’s suggestion made a lot of sense. It would be no different than the UBC assigning an occupancy rate based upon use. Mr. Nelson suggested that they create the overlay zone to attract sufficient people to work in 50% of the available space and target a certain number of housing units for the overlay zone. It was his opinion that, the larger the residential and the more units you can put in a particular project, the more successful it will be.
Mr. Muir felt this situation spoke to some logic for transfer rights. The financial industry does not support mixed use, and until they do, there is legitimacy to creating transfer rights when someone has an obligation to build six or eight residential units. This would allow them to buy into a larger housing project being created by someone else to satisfy that obligation. Ms. Arnold agreed that there is no financing available for mixed use in the local markets, and she suggested that this might be a good time to pull in some of the local financial institutions to see what they are willing to do to help.
Vice-Chair Funk asked if an overlay area must encompass a squared-off area. She asked if they could overlay some areas and leave out others without spot zoning. Mr. Dansie replied that one objective this evening is to see whether the Planning Commission is committed to these boundaries. Ms. Funk stated that she believed the overlay zone should be zig zagged. She had concerns about including the area between 5th and 6th South and 3rd and 5th East in an overlay zone. She noted that a 20,000-square-foot limit would exclude an existing building that can be remodeled from having to include the residential component. Mr. Dansie replied that 20,000 square feet was a number he chose as a starting point. It raises many questions because there may be smaller developments to avoid the residential requirement. Ms. Funk felt it would be helpful to drive the streets to see what is there. Buildings that should be preserved could be preserved by including them in the overlay district or leaving them out.
Mr. Muir recalled that this zone was originally premised to follow a Transit Oriented Development. He felt they should see where the light rail stations are to draw a radius and know that those areas are a high priority for this overlay and work back to the residual areas. Mr. Dansie recalled that the discussion came out of the library block and the fact that, if they would not be building housing there, then where should it be on the adjacent blocks.
Mr. Dansie stated that the Planning Commission has approved a petition that will go to the City Council in May to rezone the CC along 4th South to a Transit Corridor Zoning District. He explained that the Transit Corridor is not an overlay zone but is an actual rezoning of CC to a new zoning district. Mr. Jonas clarified that it encourages housing and gives bonuses of some sort that are defined in the TOD much like the overlay zone. Mr. Dansie noted that the permit counter does not deal well with overlays, so it is usually best to change the base zoning. Mr. Jonas suggested excluding State Street from the overlay. He favored Mr. Muir’s idea of focusing on the light rail transit stops.
Mr. Wilde noted that the Planning Commission has a light field trip schedule at their next meeting, and they could drive the area with a map in hand if the Commissioners would like to.
Vice-Chair Funk asked if there was enough demand to go beyond the TOD at this time. Mr. Nelson did not think it would be difficult to find out how many workers go to a specific area each day. In order to respond to Ms. Funk’s question of demand, they first need to know the work force that comes and goes downtown everyday.
Mr. Chambless asked how this proposal adheres to the 1998-2000 study dealing with the Downtown Housing Committee, the research done on SRO’s, and trying to establish downtown low cost housing for blue collar workers and single people who do not own a vehicle. Mr. Dansie replied that this overlay does not respond to that. The single-room occupancy discussion was separate, but there is no reason why that discussion could not be brought in.
Mr. Daniels referred to the housing plan which was recently accepted and felt that a few sheets from that plan would be very helpful because it delineates the necessity for affordable housing, particularly downtown. They have a burgeoning service industry plus many more jobs, with more expected. He noted that the housing plan did not anticipate the overwhelming success of the Olympics and the new businesses inquiring about coming to Salt Lake. He stated that inclusionary zoning does not work by itself, and it works much better back East where density is a greater problem than it does in the cities in the West which he contacted. He stated that he purposely did not call San Francisco or Las Vegas, because their markets are nothing like Salt Lake. He did not delve much into the transfer of development rights issue for the same reason.
Mr. Dansie asked the Planning Commissioners if they were committed to the overlay or if they would like a discussion on amending the zoning districts, specifically the RMU and RO. Mr. Daniels felt they could achieve what they wanted to and get rid of the overlay if they would tweak the zoning to say, “open arms to housing.” Ms. Barrows clarified that they also have the TOD transit. Mr. Dansie explained that is a new district that is very biased and delineated by transit. Mr. Jonas felt that, if they dealt with the RMU and RO and got a new TOD, they would basically cover everything from 5th East west all the way to the library block, including half a block south of the library block. This would exclude the historic district. Mr. Nelson asked if they should include the CS zone. Mr. Dansie noted that the CS zone is being considered for rezone to the transit corridor. If that happens, the CS zone will be reduced to Trolley Square and Fred Meyer.
Mr. Muir stated that he would prefer a larger area rather than a smaller area, because it would make transfer development rights work more effectively. He favored transfer development rights, because it was the only thing the market would support.
Mr. Dansie suggested that the Planning Commission visit the area on their next field trip and continue their discussion at that time. Vice-Chair Funk asked Mr. Dansie to bring the explicit requirements on the TOD and where that will be on 4th South. Mr. Wilde commented that the other component is the 20,000-square-foot threshold, and he asked the Planning Commissioners to think about that before their next meeting.
At 8:20 p.m., Vice-Chair Funk excused herself from the meeting and turned the meeting back to Chair Daniels.
Mr. Wilde reported that the Planning Department received a copy of a letter from David Buhler to Earl Harmer, a condominium resident at Oakcrest. The letter was copied to the Planning Commission, and copies have been distributed for their discussion and possible response.
Chair Daniels felt it was not only appropriate but almost mandatory to draft a response. He believed Councilman Buhler had taken it upon himself to speak heavy handedly without first coming to the Planning Commission, and he had made allegations that were unfair. Chair Daniels stated that he would like to invite Mr. Buhler to look at the record, listen to the tapes, and read what is in print, because he believed he would find that the Planning Commission had a lot of information to weigh and that they voted in favor of the best information.
Mr. Nelson stated that he entered that meeting having no clue as to which way he would vote. He looked at the hill and everything around it and had no opinion until he listened to the presentation and saw what was being developed and what it would look like. He would have been more comfortable if the respondents had their own geo-technical land person come and talk in the same language that the developer’s did, but because they did not have that, he had to rely on the professional license of the developer’s geo-technical person and the way he presented it. To say that the decisions were already made is definitely not true.
Mr. Muir was concerned about muddying the appeals process by responding to the specific issues. That Councilman Buhler would impugn the integrity of the Planning Commission did bother him, and that would require a response.
Mr. Jonas referred to the second page and comments about the how Councilman Buhler’s confidences had been undermined, and as a result he intended to look at their responsibilities and consider whether they should be taken away. Mr. Jonas stated that, if Councilman Buhler would like to sit on the Planning Commission, he can do it. If he wants to get rid of the Planning Commission, he can do that, too, but he should not be making threats. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not need to sit through meetings twice and month and take time to prepare for them just so Councilman Buhler could take potshots when he did not even attend the meeting.
Mr. Nelson pointed out that, as a Planning Commissioner, he had to make a good decisions based on planning principles rather than on the politics of his constituents. He suggested that they communicate that into an appropriate response. Mr. Muir felt they should demand an apology.
Chair Daniels felt the comments stated by the Commissioners were building toward a response to the letter without confronting specific issues. He believed the Planning Commission had been assaulted, and regardless of the essence of the assault, what Councilman Buhler did was inappropriate. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not want a siege mentality. They operate in an open forum, and he was not embarrassed by anything they do or how they vote.
Ms. Barrows acknowledged that she was not at the meeting, but having read the minutes and the letter from Councilman Buhler, she believed he was surprised at the authority the Planning Commission had and their purview for conditional uses. In her opinion, Councilman Buhler had just learned of the power the City Council has given to the Planning Commission. She felt they should take into consideration that this letter was written to a constituent.
Mr. Muir felt Councilman Buhler was totally out of bounds. If the City Council overturns a decision made by the Planning Commission, he can respect that, but he would not memorialize his grievances in writing.
Chair Daniels favored having volunteers from the Planning Commission draft a letter from the Planning Commission or asking the Staff to draft a letter for them to review. Ms. Arnold stated that she did not want to put that burden on the Staff. She suggested that Chair Daniels write the letter and bring it back to the Planning Commission for approval before sending it. She noted that the letter was written to a constituent. Mr. Nelson agreed that Councilman Buhler did not write the letter to the Planning Commission. He was letting his constituent know that he was fighting on his side, and there was a possibility that he did not really believe what he was saying.
Mr. Wilde offered to provide secretarial support to help Chair Daniels draft a letter.
Mr. Chambless felt a letter should be drafted because he learned in politics that you should never leave a challenge unanswered. However, he was ambivalent because he was not at the meeting and because Councilman Buhler was not only his council representative but also a friend. Mr. Chambless saw the letter as a political document written for political reasons. He believed Mr. Buhler was inappropriate in not coming to the Planning Commission first. Mr. Chambless believed a response was justified but that it must stick strictly to the facts.
Mr. Muir remarked that the response should make the point that the City Council should not come with a threat of undermining their areas of responsibility predicated upon the decisions they make. Mr. Nelson felt it should also ask the question of whether they should be expected to reconsider their position and their focus on planning to satisfy another letter from another Councilman. Their role as a Planning Commission is to separate themselves from votes and politics and concentrate on planning.
Chair Daniels offered to draft a letter prior to the next meeting.
Mr. Wilde stated that they have typically met with the cellular antenna industry as a Planning Commission subcommittee. Ms. Barrows and Mr. Jonas have participated in the past, and he invited other interested Commissioners to participate. There being no response from the other Commissioners, Mr. Wilde stated that he would proceed with Ms. Barrows and Mr. Jonas to set up a meeting with the telecommunications industry within the next two weeks.
Chair Daniels stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to invite a representative of the RDA to spend time with them. He suggested that they invite someone from Housing and Neighborhood Development do the same thing. As housing continues to be an issue, he felt they might need a more intellectual capital than they have. The Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Nelson suggested requesting a review from Marilyn on the south shores wetlands as a member of the steering committee for the Great Salt Lake. It involves the City, and since they selected a consultant, it might be appropriate to have her report on what has been happening.
Tim Chambless commented on a public hearing scheduled for April 25 regarding the restoration of Main Street. He asked if the Planning Staff would attend and to what extent the Planning Commission would be involved. Mr. Wilde replied that the Planning Staff will attend, but their role will be minimal. All Commissioners were invited and encouraged to attend.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.