SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Tim Chambless, Chairperson, Laurie Noda, Vice Chairperson, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Babs De Lay and Craig Galli were excused.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner, Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, Joel Paterson, Senior Planner, and Deborah Martin, Acting Planning Secretary. Brent Wilde, Deputy Director of the Department of Community Development, was also in attendance.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005
(This item was heard at 5:53 P.M.)
Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to approve the minutes, as written. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Muir abstained. Commissioner DeLay and Commissioner Galli were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:54 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless explained that he and Vice Chairperson Noda had no matters to report at this time other than informing the Commission that he would not be present at the meeting on May 11, 2005 and Laurie Noda would be Acting Chairperson at that meeting.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:55 P.M.)
Mr. Wilde announced that Mr. Zunguze was not able to attend the meeting and asked to be excused. He added that Mr. Zunguze was attending a leadership training session.
Mr. Wilde asked the Planning Commission to initiate two petitions: One in regards to signage in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District; and one in regards to split zoning on properties on 900 South east of 900 East Street.
Commissioner Seelig stated that since the memorandum regarding signage references banners, she inquired about the determinations made in the Planning Commission Committee. She recalled that the Transportation Division would implement a procedure on a trial basis. Mr. Wilde stated that this petition would be for banners on private property or in this case, a park, and not in the public way.
Mr. Paterson noted that staff is working to resolve some conflicts in developing an ordinance because there are many complex issues that need to be resolved. He indicated that staff would keep the Planning Commission informed of the proceedings.
Chairperson Chambless entertained a motion.
Motion to initiate a petition regarding signage in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District.
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission would initiate a petition regarding signage in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District for large parks. Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde stated that on the south side of 900 South Street going east from 900 East Street (Ninth and Ninth area) there are split-zoned commercial/residential properties. He pointed out that staff needs to evaluate those zoning splits and bring the results of the study back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Chairperson Chambless entertained a motion.
Motion to initiate a petition regarding the split zoning on properties on 900 South Street east of 900 East Street.
Commissioner Diamond moved for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition for the Planning Division to evaluate the issues regarding split zoning on properties located on the south side of 900 South Street, east of 900 East Street in what is known as the Ninth and Ninth area. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde referenced a letter from Dale Lambert, Chair of the Salt Lake City Council, in response to the master plan discussion of a few weeks ago. He said that Community Development Director, Mr. Zunguze, asked for a postponement of the discussion until he could be in attendance.
The members of the Planning Commission agreed to postpone the discussion on this issue until the May 25, 2005 meeting.
Mr. Wilde announced that the Planning Commission Secretary, Andrea Curtis, is replacing Kathy Castro as the Administrative Secretary for the Department of Community Development. He also extended his appreciation to Deborah Martin for consenting to be the Acting Planning Commission Secretary at this meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA
There were no Public Notice Agenda items.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 490-05-14, by Ivory Development Ltd., requesting preliminary subdivision amendment approval to reconfigure a portion of the Fairmont Subdivision, Lots 6-12 and 11-13, at approximately 2311 and 2327 E. Country Club Drive, into three residential lots for future construction of three single-family homes in an R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential Zoning District.
(This item was heard at 6:00 P.M.)
Planner Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Giraud stated that the subject properties are located in the Fairmont Subdivision, platted in 1909 on land that was located in Salt Lake County. In 1920, the area to the south of the subject property was annexed from Salt Lake County into the city, and is now the site of the Salt Lake Country Club. On March 18, 1949, the area encompassing the Fairmont Subdivision, including the subject properties, was annexed from Salt Lake County into the city. The eastern portion of the Fairmont Subdivision was amended by a subsequent plat (the Maywood Subdivision) on May 12, 1949, but the Maywood Subdivision does not include the subject properties.
Ms. Giraud continued by saying that it is an unusual piece of property in that Country Club Drive is 33 feet wide which is slightly less than what the standard street for a subdivision would be, which is 50 feet. Only half of it was dedicated as part of the Fairmont Subdivision. She speculated that the other half would have been dedicated as a residential subdivision. However the land to the south became the golf course of the Country Club.
Ms. Giraud stated that there is also an 18-foot right-of-way that separates the homes that are on Country Club Drive from the actual driveways from the homes themselves by a large hedge. The proposed subdivision amendment would extend this right-of-way twenty-two (22) feet to the west in order to provide the proposed lot two with driveway access. Ms. Giraud noted that lot three would face Country Club Drive and not 2300 East, which was incorrectly stated in the staff report.
Ms. Giraud said that the subject property is located in an R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District which extends to the commercial property to the north on 2100 South Street, and to the east to Parley’s Way. She added that the R-1/12,000 Zoning District abuts the R-1/12,000 Zoning District to the west, which consists of the Country Club Acres Subdivision platted in 1926. The minimum lot size in this abutting R-1/12,000 Zoning District to the west is 12,000 square feet. 2300 East Street is the demarcation line between these two neighborhoods in terms of zoning.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that the proposed lot one would be 10,032 square feet; lot two would be 9,108 square feet; and lot three would be 9,636 square feet, which are consistent with the policies of the Sugar House Master Plan of allowing a very low density use. She reviewed the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Giraud said that the amendment would be in the best interest of the City as it would more accurately reflect the actual land use.
Ms. Giraud indicated that staff recommended preliminary approval of the amendment of the Fairmont Subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Commissioner McDonough queried the 22-foot extension of the right-of-way in light of the fact that all three lots are actually facing Country Club Drive and asked if the extension was staff’s proposal or requested by the petitioner. Ms. Giraud said that it was necessary to get the drive approach into the lot and be able to maintain a sizable lot for construction. She said that the petitioner proposed the 22-foot extension in conjunction with the policies of the Transportation Division, and would be able to answer the question. Commissioner McDonough asked if the curb setback would start from the bushes on the south side of the easement or from the actual curb on the north side of the right-of-way. Ms. Giraud indicated that this issue had been discussed and the setbacks would be measured from the north part of the right-of-way. Commissioner McDonough also inquired about the setbacks of the proposed corner lot. Ms. Giraud noted that the setbacks on both the side yard and the front yard are 20 feet.
Commissioner Muir asked if the lot lines still exist in the Fairmont Subdivision or have they been extinguished from the original planning. Ms. Giraud said that they still exist. Commissioner Muir found that peculiar.
Since there were no additional questions of staff, Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner to speak to the Commission.
Mr. Chris Gamvroulas with Ivory Development Ltd. stated that he appreciated the clarity of Ms. Giraud’s staff report. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Gamvroulas mentioned that Ivory Development would be offering a mix of housing on the three proposed lots of ramblers and two-storied homes. He pointed out that Ivory Development was very sensitive to the character and high quality of the neighborhood. Mr. Gamvroulas pointed out that he lived in the neighborhood on Berkeley Street. He stated that Ivory Development has a list of prospective buyers for the subject properties and emphasized the quality homes that would be constructed. Mr. Gamvroulas provided a copy of the flyer that was mailed to community, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Since the Commission had no addition questions or comments at this time for the petitioner, Chairperson Chambless opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. After inquiring, Chairperson Chambless said that no one from the respective community council was in attendance to speak on this matter.
Mr. John Ward, who is an adjacent property owner on Country Club Drive, stated that the proposed subdivision amendment would impact the value of his property. He indicated that he also represented the other closest neighbors, who were not able to attend the meeting. Mr. Ward did not believe there were any two-storied homes in that section of the Maywood area, which would change the character of the neighborhood. He talked about the increase in traffic. Mr. Ward pointed out that the neighborhood is a well-established and charming area in which to live. Commissioner Diamond indicated that the regulations of the City code would give anyone purchasing even the two existing lots the possibility of removing the existing home and building a larger, two-storied structure. Mr. Ward believed that the proposed subdivision amendment would be economically beneficial to Ivory Development and suggested realigning the lot lines of the two existing lots. During this discussion some Commissioners questioned the impact of negative property values and the increased traffic on Mr. Ward’s property. Mr. Ward was opposed to the proposed amendment.
Mr. Spencer Felt, who resides at on Maywood Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and indicated that if the 18-foot right-of-way was not included in the square footage of the proposed lots, the lots would not be large enough to accommodate a “decent” house, and believed that staff should study this matter further before a decision is made.
Ms. Kathryn Van Wagoner, who resides on Country Club Drive, stated that she called a good friend who works for Ivory Development to inquire about the proposed subdivision amendment and received the answer that this was a done deal and it would be a waste of time to oppose it. She said that the principals at Ivory Development will make their money and leave; they would not be living in the neighborhood. Ms. Van Wagoner pointed out that Ivory bought two lots on Berkeley Street, tore the homes down, and built two new ones that were not sensitive to the neighborhood. She added that the two homes had been rental homes for at least 20 years. Ms. Van Wagoner expressed concern about the proposed materials for the homes and was opposed to the proposed amendment.
Mr. Jim Reynolds, who resides on Maywood Drive, expressed concern about the proposed amendment and pointed out that he has lived in the Country Club area since 1947. He said that in 1948, a movie was produced called, “Mr. Blanding Builds His Dream Home” starring Cary Grant and as a promotion for the film the producers licensed builders around the country to build a copy of this house in their best neighborhood. He said that Alan E. Brockbank built the “Blanding” home on Country Club Drive in Salt Lake City and lived in it for the next 50 years. Mr. Reynolds said that the “Blanding” home is four houses from the subject property. He noted that when the Country Club area was built in the late 1940s and early 1950s it was given a character and elegance that has been maintained through the years. Mr. Reynolds expressed concern about a developer tearing down houses and taking large lots and dividing them for higher density housing to produce the highest profit for the builder. Mr. Gamvroulas inquired what Mr. Reynolds would suggest for the properties in question. Mr. Reynolds said that he would like to see someone come in and build houses that are commensurate with the neighborhood or keep the existing houses. Commissioner Diamond said that he assumed that the people at Ivory Development would work with the community to create nice homes on the properties.
Mr. Grant MacFarlane, who resides on Parley’s Terrace, stated that he was opposed to the proposed amendment and the effect it would have on the neighborhood. He said that by dividing two lots, which have historically been in that configuration by ownership and occupancy for more than 50 years, into three lots would be setting a precedent in the area of reducing lot sizes and increasing densities, as has been done in other neighborhoods in the city.
Mr. Neil Richardson, who resides on Parleys Terrace, said that he was struggling to understand why the R-1/7,000 zoning was ever considered in this Fairmont Subdivision. He added that he believed it was adopted arbitrarily and capriciously. Mr. Richardson stated that the average lot size that the petitioner was proposing would be 11,874 square feet. Mr. Richardson said that he believed the developers found a loop hole and is trying to capitalize on that. He said that he could easily subdivide his lot, if the proposed amendment is granted, and he does not think that was the intent of the zoning change. Mr. Richardson said that Mr. Wilde could address that issue because he was involved with the zoning process. He continued by saying that he believed that an overlay zone should be enacted for this area to prevent the subdividing of lots and increasing the density. Mr. Wilde stated that when the zoning re-write was accomplished in 1995, the intent was to try match zoning to lot size to minimize the creation of non-conforming lots. Mr. Richardson referred to the zoning map he displayed and pointed out the lots that were non-conforming. He said that after he had done a study and calculations, the appropriate zone for the subject property should be an R-1/12,000 and not an R-1/7,000 zone. Mr. Wilde asked if Mr. Richardson’s map identified how many lots were 12,000 square feet or larger. Mr. Richardson said that the map he displayed does not, but he had those calculations in another document. He added that the average lot was 11,523 square feet. Ms. Coffey pointed out that by Mr. Richardson’s calculations, the average lot would be non-conforming in an R-1/12,000 zoning district. Mr. Richardson said that there were already many non-conforming lots; in fact, there are a higher percentage of non-conforming lots than what is existing in the R-1/7,000 zone. He wondered if the zoning district boundaries were drawn in error and he continued speaking trying to make his point. Commissioner Seelig inquired if Mr. Richardson had done his own analysis. He said that he is a licensed architect and has his own architect and engineering firm. Mr. Richardson noted that he had all the legal descriptions of the lots and done the lot calculations. He said that he suggested that the Planning Division should do the same study because he felt that the zoning was misrepresenting the actual, normal, lot size in his neighborhood; but it was not done. There was some interaction between members of the Commission and Mr. Richardson. When asked how long he has lived in the area, he responded by saying that he has lived in the area for ten years. Commissioner Seelig inquired if Mr. Richardson had taken part in the public process of the 2001 Sugar House Master Plan and the 1995 Zoning Re-write. Mr. Richardson said that he was involved with the Zoning Re-write public process and attended two town meetings. He continued by saying that after viewing the information that was passed out at those meetings, he was satisfied that the City was willing to keep the character and nature of the area. However, he said that if the proposed amendment is granted, then the allowance of subdividing properties would not keep the character and nature of the area. Commissioner Muir pointed out that a petition to downzone properties would have to be initiated. He said that since the pending petition is vested, the Commission has to act upon it under the current zoning. Mr. Wilde reminded that Planning Commissioners that the City does do not have a zoning district between the R-1/7,000 and the R-1/12,000.
Ms. Jane Larson, who resides on Berkeley Street, stated that she has lived next to two rental properties for 32 years. She indicated that she was very happy when Ivory Development purchased those properties and is building new homes. Ms. Larson spoke in favor of the proposed amendment, by saying that it would improve property value. She added that the neighbors welcomed Mr. Gamvroulas and his family into the neighborhood. Ms. Larson said that Ivory Homes are good enough for the neighborhood.
Mr. Tab Cornelison, who resides on 2300 East Street, stated that Ivory Homes is a “very sophisticated” developer. He noted that he felt certain that the properties were researched thoroughly. Mr. Cornelison continued by saying that it was a surprise to him when he learned that a company as successful as Ivory Homes would present a proposal such as the one being reviewed at this meeting for profitability against the will of the neighborhood. He spoke in opposition and did not believe the proposal would improve the neighborhood.
Mr. Tom Ellison, who resides on Country Club Drive, stated that one could find his name at the top of the Sugar House Master Plan, as a member of the Planning Commission when the master plan was approved. He noted issues that were missing in the staff analysis of the staff report, such as the average lot size. Mr. Ellison said that he has lived in his home since 1957 and that 95 percent of residential construction in the area has existed more than 50 years. He said, “We are talking about a land division pattern, not as reflected on a 1909 plat map.” Mr. Ellison pointed out that the existing pattern of the subdivision is what the Planning Commission should be concerned with, and not the low density use category which included not only west of 2300 East Street and the area east reflecting the existing single-family residential characteristics. Mr. Ellison emphatically stated, “I would submit to you that the staff analysis is absolutely incorrect and that the amendment is necessary to clean up an old plat problem.” He noted that these old plat issues occur everywhere in the city. Mr. Ellison said that the whole Maywood corridor, Country Club Drive, major sections of Oneida Street, Parleys Terrace, and Parkway Avenue are all susceptible to lot divisions either singly or in ways that would conform. He indicated that the City has not analyzed the possibility of one of the proposed properties being considered a flag lot and the potential encouragement of speculative development that will degrade property.
Ms. Barbara Carrier, who resides on Country Club Drive, said that her home is the last house on that lane, right next to the Country Club entrance. She said that she was confused if the front lot line for the proposed three lots would be to the hedge or if the yards would extend to the hedge along the street. Mr. Wheelwright said that all of the lot lines currently go to the south edge of the 18-foot right-of-way the same as Ms. Carrier’s home. She said that originally the lots on Country Club Drive were owned by the Country Club. Ms. Carrier said that the hedge acts as a buffer to the traffic going in and out of the Country Club. She spoke in opposition of the proposed amendment saying that if the typical Ivory Homes are built on those three subject lots, it would be like going into a mini subdivision with three row houses. Commissioner Scott said that it was her understanding that the configuration of the lane would not change, in fact the lane would be extended west an additional 22 feet to accommodate the middle lot. She clarified that the front yard set back would start from the curb of the lane which would be 18 feet north of the hedge so the hedge will remain.
Mr. Will Connelly, who resides on 2300 East Street, mentioned that his home was immediately across the street to the west of the subject property. He noted that if the proposed amendment is approved, he would have three small lots across the street. Mr. Connelly said that the “flood gates” would be opened in the neighborhood to other developers, as he referenced the aerial photograph pointing out the size of lots in the area. He said that he was an architect and he designs homes for developers. Mr. Connelly felt certain that the homes which would be constructed would maximize the setbacks on the lots to make them economically feasible. He expressed his concern about the out-of-character construction on east Hubbard Avenue, which is another “charming neighborhood”. Mr. Connelly spoke in opposition of the proposed amendment saying that there were many legitimate unresolved issues. He concluded by saying that it would have a negative effect on his property value.
Mr. George Hunt, who resides on Maywood Drive, stated that he agreed with a lot of what has been said, particularly Mr. Richardson’s argument concerning the zoning, but his main concern was that he believed the proposed lots would qualify as flag lots because of the lot configuration in which the access strip connects the main body of the lot street frontage. Mr. Hunt questioned that there was no analysis in the staff report concerning flag lots. He said that the petition should be denied on the basis of a deficient staff report. Commissioner Scott queried why Mr. Hunt thinks these proposed lots would be flag lots. Mr. Hunt explained that the strip in front of the lots, which would provide access, was described as part of the lot itself and not a public right-of-way. He read the definition of a flag lot, as stated in the City’s Zoning Ordinance: A flag lot means a lot of irregular configuration in which an access strip (a strip of land of a width less than the required lot width) connects the main body of the lot to the street frontage. Mr. Hunt concluded by saying that the proposed lots would be non-conforming and would not meet the requirement of the code. Mr. Wheelwright ascertained that the proposed lots would not be flag lots because the full width of all parcels would have the minimum required frontage on Country Club Drive, which is a dedicated street. He said that a flag lot would have less than the zoning required minimum lot width and the bulk of the dwelling would be behind other lots.
Mr. David Moser, who resides on Berkeley Street, indicated that the two homes which were taken down and the lot line realignment to accommodate the two new homes on Berkeley Street was a very different matter than what is before the Commission. He also echoed the welcome to Mr. Gamvroulas into the neighborhood. Mr. Moser pointed out that he believed if the developer would realign the two existing lots to make them equal size and build two nice homes that would be an improvement to the community. He said that he concurred with most of the other comments made at this meeting.
Upon hearing no additional comments from the audience, Chairperson Chambless asked the petitioner if he wanted to respond to any of the comments.
Mr. Gamvroulas referenced a Sidwell plat map and pointed out the many existing properties that were 75 feet wide or more and said that the proposed lots would be consistent with those specifics. He said that there were some comments about the proposed materials for the new homes. Mr. Gamvroulas commented that Ivory Homes is using modern materials and techniques in the construction of the homes on Berkeley Street and intend to use the same materials on the new homes on the subject property. He reiterated that the proposed project would meet the requirements in the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Gamvroulas commented that since Ivory Development had purchased the homes on the subject properties and the properties on Berkeley Street, five people who live in the immediate area have contacted the office and asked if Ivory Development wanted to buy their lots.
Mr. Gamvroulas said that the new homes on the proposed properties would sell in the $700,000 range and believe the properties in the area will triple in value resulting from the change in the properties.
Chairperson Chambless asked if the Commission had any questions for the petitioner.
Commissioner Diamond asked if Ivory Development did a pro forma on the two lots and if the company did, what the findings were. Mr. Gamvroulas said that Ivory did along with a market analysis. He added that one of Ivory’s sales consultants obtained a list of potential buyers; it has grown to 30 people. Mr. Gamvroulas stated that the pro forma breaks down when the demand in the marketplace breaks down and added that the petition is not necessarily a pro forma issue. He said that Ivory Development was petitioning for three lots. Commissioner Diamond pointed out that the issues surrounding the proposal were significant. He noted that it was essential with the surrounding neighbors to have quality homes built in a style characteristic to the neighborhood. He threw out the proposal of building two $1 Million homes, and asked if they would sell. Mr. Gamvroulas said that they would; it would just take longer. He indicated that Ivory Homes is spending a lot of time and effort designing home sites that would be a credit to the neighborhood; that is why Ivory Homes is going through this process. Commissioner Diamond stated that he understood the rules and regulations then asked if the project would work with only two lots. Mr. Gamvroulas said that it would not work well with just two lots.
Mr. Wheelwright said that he wanted to point several things out. He noted that the office started getting telephone calls from people in the neighborhood once the agenda had been released. Mr. Wheelwright said that staff prepared a lot size analysis using the GIS system, which Ms. Giraud had mounted on boards. Ms. Giraud quickly pointed out that the analysis did not go west of 2300 East Street. It was noted that the area of the analysis was similar to what Mr. Richardson had presented, which was the triangle area between the Country Club, 2300 East Street, and Parley’s Way. Ms. Giraud stated that the Commissioners who were on the field trip will clearly acknowledge that there is a characteristics difference between the east side and the west side of 2300 East Street.
Chairperson Chambless noted that the staff report did not address one of the required findings, which was finding Number F. He said that there was good cause for the amendment and that was a substantive omission and suggested that the Planning Commission table this item until staff could address that finding and when the Commission could expand the lot analysis.
Chairperson Chambless invited Ms. Giraud to address the issue. Ms. Giraud explained how the study analysis had been created. There was some discussion regarding the calculation of the square footage on the proposed three lots.
Mr. Wilde said that he did not believe he fully responded to Mr. Richardson’s earlier question. He stated that when the zoning re-write took place in 1995, there was no intent to anticipate or to facilitate future subdivisions in existing areas. He indicated that the intent was to match zoning to lot size to the extent possible while minimizing non-conformity, which was the end result. Mr. Wilde wanted the Commission to understand that there is no provision in the zoning ordinance that would preclude subdivisions once the zoning is established and procedurally, if a proposed subdivision is within the zoning standards then as what was done here, the standards defer to the subdivision ordinance as the decision-making guidelines.
Commissioner Muir said that he believed it would be helpful to the audience if Mr. Wilde explained some of the issues the Commission has encountered since the re-writing of the zoning ordinance regarding non-conforming uses. He said that the City had corrected the legal challenges that the City had with non-conforming uses. Commissioner Muir continued by saying that if a property is destroyed or burned to the ground the owner could rebuild it, as is, even if it is a non-conforming use; whereas prior to that ruling, if the house burned down the owner had to build it to conformance with the ordinance. He added that was the challenge staff faced in 1995, to re-write the ordinance that created the least number of non-conforming uses so property owners would not face that problem.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that as long as there has been an ordinance and requirements for subdivisions, there has also been an allowance for subdivision amendments. He said that it would be nice if once a subdivision was established, it would be done forever; but there are always changes to the lots being requested. Mr. Wheelwright said that the zoning sets the minimum lot size and the standards both in subdivision approval and subdivision amendments.
Commissioner Muir inquired if an overlay ordinance, which was requested by the Harvard/Yale community, to solve some of these issues that the homeowners may have in terms of setbacks peculiar to this neighborhood. Mr. Wilde said that homeowners have always had the provision to replace a single-family home in an R-1 zone, even though the home may be on a substandard lot, with another single-family home, subject to meeting yard area requirements. He pointed out that there has been an increasing concern about infill and particularly incompatible infill. Mr. Wilde said that became a large issue in the Harvard/Yale community. He added that the City does not know how successful the overlay district will be in that it has not been adopted by the City Council.
Chairperson Chambless said that he would like to have had comments from the Sugar House Community Council. He asked if staff knew what the sentiment was from the community council. Ms. Giraud stated that the Sugar House Community Council was notified of the proposed subdivision amendment as a routine matter, but the ordinance does not require applicants to present their proposal to the community council. The Chair of the Land Use and Planning Subcommittee of the Sugar House Community Council contacted staff and received a staff report.
Commissioner Scott asked what would prevent a Hubbard Avenue type home being constructed on the proposed lots.
Mr. Wilde said that the most direct answer to the question is that the zoning ordinance will define size of the box, but no control over the design of that structure in the box.
Commissioner Seelig acknowledged the people who were in attendance at this meeting and those who provided testimony; this is the public process. She encouraged participation at community council meetings where the public is informed of city-wide policies and other planning or zoning issues. She indicated that her experiences with community councils have been positive. Commissioner Seelig said that attending community council meetings and sharing comments creates an important relationship between government entities and the community. She did express her disappointment that there was no representative from the Sugar House Community Council to actively participate in this meeting. Commissioner Seelig talked about the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and the City ordinances and policies that bind the Commission’s decisions.
As there were no further questions, Chairperson Chambless closed the public portion of the meeting. He entertained a motion. There was some discussion regarding the wording of a motion. Chairperson Chambless inquired when this matter could return to the Planning Commission for further review. Commissioner Muir apologized to the public for not having a complete staff report.
Mr. Wheelwright suggested that the logical date for continuance would be at the May 25, 2005 meeting, since the agenda for the May 11, 2005 meeting has already gone out. Mr. Wilde stated that the petition could be continued at the discretion of the petitioner. He added that if the petitioner chooses to meet with the people in the neighborhood and that process requires additional time the petition could be continued another time at a point that would be satisfactory to the petitioner.
Commissioner McDonough suggested that a proposal be added to a motion that the Commission would request staff to consider analyzing an overlay zone in this area, or at least part of this area as would be appropriate. She said that evidently a development pattern as evidenced by the analysis which shows the different lot size and pattern that is not protected by the current zoning ordinance. Commissioner Scott said that it would be helpful if such a study would be done in the implication of an overlay zone when the petition returns to the Commission.
Commissioner Muir said that he appreciated Commissioner Scott’s concerns but spoke of the legal challenge of tagging any kind of a rezone to the petition that is before the Commission. However, he said he would support such a study in the future.
Commissioner Diamond said that the voices of the public should have been heard in a community council meeting prior to this meeting. He suggested that the people from Ivory Development get the community together to see if the misunderstandings can be clarified.
Commissioner Scott believed that to be an excellent suggestion. She talked once more about how different in character the neighborhoods are on either side of 2300 East. Commissioner Scott urged the community to objectively look at the homes in the area. She added that perhaps they were charming back in the 1960s and 1970s, but some of them need a serious facelift.
Commissioner Noda echoed Commissioner Scott’s comments by saying that there were a number of varying aspects to the neighborhoods. She said that there are many homes that are really quite dated. Commissioner Noda said she was surprised to see the many wide box garages and the huge additions in the area. She said that the area is a changing community.
Motion for Petition #490-04-08
Commissioner Muir moved that the Planning Commission table Petition #490-04-08 until and continue the review at the May 25, 2005 meeting or at the Petitioner’s discretion. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
A discussion took place regarding the development of an overlay ordinance for the Country Club/Maywood area. Staff could investigate the feasibility of an overlay ordinance. Issues like this take years to resolve. The Commission asked staff to continue the study on the lot size analysis concurrent with the continuation of this petition.
Chairperson Chambless said that tonight’s meeting had been a good example of grassroots democracy or democracy in the trenches and thanked the remaining petitioners for their patience.
At 7:46 P.M., Chairperson Chambless called for a three-minute break. He reconvened the meeting at 7:49 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-04-29, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow different types of department stores to locate in various zoning districts within the city. As part of this petition, Salt Lake City also proposed to change the zoning designation for the block containing the Avenues Smith’s grocery store (Fifth Avenue to Sixth Avenue, from “E” Street to “F” Street) from Commercial Shopping Center (CS) to Commercial Business (CB).
(This item was heard at 7:55 P.M.)
Commissioner Muir recused himself and left the meeting.
Planner Joel Paterson presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Paterson announced that this petition was a follow up petition to the petition that created the new definitions of department stores about 1 and ½ years ago, which the City Council adopted in January of 2004. He said that prior to that time, the City only had one definition of department store and department stores were allowed in the Central Business District (D-1), Downtown Support (D-2), Community Commercial (CS) and the Commercial Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) zones. Mr. Paterson pointed out that seven new definitions for different types of department stores were developed. He said that the City is looking at other zones, where it would be appropriate for these different types of department stores.
Mr. Paterson stated that this petition is requesting to amend the zoning ordinance to allow different types of department stores to locate in areas of the city beyond the D-1 Central Business District and the G-MU Gateway Mixed Use district. The proposed zoning map amendment proposes to change the zoning designation of Block 76 Plat D, Salt Lake City Survey from CS Community Shopping District to CB Community Business District. This block is located between Fifth and Sixth Avenues from "E" Street to "F" Street. The reason for the map amendment is that certain types of department stores proposed to be allowed in the CS District are not appropriate for this location. The CB zoning district is designed to integrate into residential settings such as this location in the Avenues. This block is surrounded by residential land uses located in the SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District. All the land uses that are currently located on the block are permitted uses in a CB zone. None of the uses will become non-conforming. The Smith's store that is there now is currently non-complying to the set back requirements of the CS zone, the zone that it is currently in.
Mr. Paterson stated that zoning ordinance and map amendment petitions require the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council, which has final approval authority.
Mr. Paterson said that in either case if Smith's or another property owner wanted to demolish that structure to build something new, it would come before the Planning Commission as a conditional use.
Mr. Paterson added that as part of this process staff is not recommending any changes to the types of department stores that are allowed in the Gateway Mixed Use Zone now. The ones that are allowed during that first process were negotiated and allowed during that process and the petition is not proposing to change those.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the petition and to amend the appropriate sections of the zoning ordinance.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff.
Commissioner McDonough asked if this project was originally built under the C-S zone. Mr. Paterson said that the buildings that are currently in place predate the current zoning ordinance. Commissioner McDonough inquired about the zoning ordinance that was in place when the building was constructed. Mr. Wilde said that he thought it was in the old B-3 Neighborhood/Business Zone prior to 1995, which allowed most all retail uses. Ms. Coffey pointed out that the Smith's grocery store in the Avenues is in an historic district so it would have to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission as well.
Commissioner Diamond recalled seeing a map, which identified properties with businesses within neighborhoods. He announced that LDS Hospital would be going through some dramatic changes. Commissioner Diamond inquired if the petition would impact with other things that go on in this neighborhood and would the Commission be setting itself up for any kind of issues. Mr. Paterson said that he was aware of potential changes at the hospital and the new facilities to the south. He added that the property on which the hospital is located is zoned Urban Institutional which is not geared toward commercial uses. Mr. Paterson said that if the uses on the campus changes significantly, the officials of the hospital would certainly have to come to the City to ask for consideration of a zoning map amendment and a master plan amendment.
Mr. Paterson stated that the change in the zoning for the subject block would not have any negative impact in the Avenues. He discussed some old zoning uses that allowed "Mom and Pop" commercial corner stores to be built.
Mr. Wilde added that a few years ago the Planning Staff generated a map that identified non-conforming neighborhood business uses that were zoned residential. He added that the Planning Staff analyzed many options to try to find a solution. Mr. Wilde mentioned that the Planning Staff did not find a very good zoning tool to solve that problem. He noted the latest approach was developing an ordinance that would add some rebuild flexibility to non-conforming uses, which is in process.
Since there were no additional questions, Chairperson Chambless asked if there was any member of the public who wished to address the Commission. Seeing none, Chairperson Chambless closed the public portion of the meeting with no further discussion.
Motion for Petition #400-04-29.
Based on the analysis and the findings of fact in the staff report, Commissioner Noda recommended that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-04-29 amending the following sections of the zoning ordinance to allow certain types of department stores as presented in the staff report: 1) 21A.34.020.26.080 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts; 2) 21A.34.020.30.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Downtown Districts. Also that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning map designation of Block 75, Plat D, Salt Lake City Survey from CS Community Shopping to CB Community Business Zoning District. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted "Aye". Commissioner Muir was in a state of recusion. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Commissioner Muir returned to the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 410-734, by the Boyer Company, requesting a planned development approval to construct a new office/retail building at the Gateway Shopping Center (generally located between 400 and 500 West from North Temple to 200 South Streets) in the Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) Zoning District and conditional use to modify building materials and height requirements of the GMU Zoning District. The location for the proposed office/retail building is on the south side of 50 North Street between 400 West and Rio Grande Streets. The site is presently occupied by the parking lot for Barnes and Nobel and a grass covered slope.
(This item was heard at 8:18 P.M.)
Planner Doug Dansie presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He pointed to the site map to indicate the area of concern.
Mr. Dansie stated that the site is presently a surface parking lot and landscaped area. It was originally used as railroad yards, but was redeveloped as part of a larger mixed use
Mr. Dansie pointed out that the primary purpose of the proposal is to expand an existing mixed-use complex with the addition of an office/retail building that will have exterior materials consistent with other buildings in the development. Issues for discussion include the need for a conditional use waiver of materials requirements and additional height. The building is proposed to be 133 feet tall at its highest location and have a flat roof, which remains an issue because the Planning Commission is only authorized to grant 120 feet in height.
Mr. Dansie indicated that there is no new parking structure being constructed as a result of this petition. The existing parking structures at Gateway were built with sufficient parking stalls to accommodate expansion.
Mr. Dansie pointed out that the main pedestrian entrance of the proposed building would be off the interior plaza that would face the Union Pacific Depot. The architecture is similar with other buildings at Gateway with the lower two floors being cast stone and the upper floors being an EIFS system (Exterior Insulated Finish System), which is synthetic stucco.
Mr. Dansie said that the petitioner is eager to move forward with the project. Staff recommended conceptual approval subject to the stipulations in the staff report.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff.
Commissioner McDonough asked Mr. Dansie if he would point out the highest grade difference on the elevation site plan. Mr. Dansie said that it would be the south elevation.
Commissioner Scott queried the reasoning for the variation in height. Mr. Dansie said that that the petitioner wanted the building to be similar in look and feel to the building at 100 South Street. He suggested questioning the petitioner. Commissioner Scott asked the height of the buildings located at the south end of Gateway. Mr. Dansie said that he was not certain about the height of the building at 200 South Street, but the one at 100 South and 400 West Streets, is roughly 120 feet. He added that the difference is in the shape of the buildings: one is squarer opposed to more rectangle, but both buildings are close to the same height along 400 West Street.
Commissioner Muir inquired if the master plan gave any direction on where exceptions to the height ordinance conditional exception should occur. Mr. Dansie addressed the question by saying that the Gateway Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan call for a lower height limit in the Gateway so the buildings would be visually subordinate to Main Street where the taller buildings are located. He noted that the real consideration for granting height was for the protection of the view corridors. Commissioner Muir clarified that the master plans anticipated a 120-foot building except where they might conflict with the view corridors and then they would be 75 feet. He noted that 120-foot building would be permissible unless it conflicts with the view corridors. Mr. Dansie concurred that was a correct assumption from this site because it is in an east/west configuration and the Triad Center would be directly east of the proposed building and it would not block any views that are not already impacted.
Since there were no additional questions for staff, Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Jake Boyer with the Boyer Company, the petitioner, said that he wanted to speak to the height issue, which probably is the main issue surrounding the construction of the building. He pointed to the site plans and said that the building would not exceed the height of 120 feet. He said that the building would be consistent with the building on 100 South and 400 West Streets, which reaches a height of 119 feet 6 inches. Mr. Boyer said that the rear of the building could be stepped down some if that would help the height issue. He talked about 50 North Street and Rio Grande Street being private roads.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for the petitioner.
Commissioner Diamond pointed out that on the site plan, the building seemed to be extremely tall in relation to the Union Pacific Depot creating a bit of a barrier and for potential development to the north. He noted that the building would be more successful if the building stepped-down to the west with the grade. Commissioner Diamond mentioned that the building might be more interesting if the roof was not so flat. Mr. Boyer said that that he would be completely open to that. Mr. Boyer explained that it would make sense to do a floor on the upper level, with a walkout deck on the east and west sides.
Commissioner Diamond then asked if the mechanical equipment on top of the building would add more height and would it be below or above the parapet.
Mr. Boyer said it what you are seeing here is what we represent. Commissioner Diamond asked about the material change. Mr. Boyer said that the first renderings showed a brick building that mirrored the Depot. He said that the idea was discussed with the clients and surprisingly they were very adamant about the fact that their designers did not want to take away from the beauty of that building and not replicate something of the Depot. Mr. Boyer also said that the original rendering had a Mansard roof. He feels strongly about book-ending 100 South and 50 North Streets with buildings very similar and that is why the building material palette and color scheme of the proposed new building would be the same. Commissioner Diamond inquired how the master plan for development would respond to the project. Mr. Boyer said that it would be in keeping with what is anticipated for the remainder of the development. He added that Boyer Company staff has been talking to various hotel groups about doing a hotel property to the north. Mr. Boyer pointed out that the potential new hotel would be oriented north/south with the views to the east.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the petitioner, Chairperson Chambless opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments from the audience, Chairperson Chambless closed the hearing to the public and entertained additional discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Diamond asked if he was the only one concerned about the height. He added that it is a big jump from 90 feet to 133 feet.
Commissioner Scott said that she was concerned as well about the height issue and that it was described as a bookend and that is exactly what it would be. There was some discussion regarding the owners of the property to the north of the potential building.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Boyer to return to the table. Mr. Boyer said that the Boyer Company is the property owner of everything to the north and no one in the company would make decisions that might hinder the company’s ability to continue to develop to the north. He said that he believes the proposed building is the right option for this parcel of ground and it anticipated to be a Western United States Headquarters for a substantial financial institution. He continued by saying that if the size of the building is cut down the deal would be dead. Mr. Boyer said that he was pushing for eight stories. He said that this was discussed in the Planning Commission committee meetings. Mr. Boyer said, “We are maximizing every square foot we can trying to accommodate that need for the specific tenant.” Commissioner Diamond said that in view of what Mr. Boyer said it sounds like there is not enough room to step the building down in the back.
Commissioner McDonough said that she would not have a problem if the building does not exceed 120 feet. She said that the potential development to the north would probably be higher or at least as high so the planned building would be setting a precedent. She believed that it was the developer’s discretion to do this and she could not see a huge deviation.
Chairperson Chambless again closed this portion of the meeting and entertained a motion.
Motion for Petition #410-734
Based upon the findings of fact and the analysis set forth in the staff report, Commissioner Muir recommend that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-734, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approve the planned development for the mixed-use office/retail; 2) The conditional use for height be approved up to 120 feet only, with the Planning Director be given authority for final approval. This requires the submittal of revised plans; 3) The conditional use for building materials be approved with the Planning Director be given authority for final approval; and 4) Public way improvements and landscaping be consistent with the overall Gateway theme. (Rio Grande and 500 North) and City guidelines (400 West). Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(These items were heard at 8:44 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was any unfinished business.
Commissioner Muir stated that he was at the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) meeting last week and heard the RDA Board table the financial support for the proposed Transportation Master Plan for Downtown. He said that he was dismayed and voiced his concerned that the Planning Commission would not get the needed resources to deal with parking, transportation, and land use issues and had been hopeful for the master plan for some time. He inquired if the Planning Commission would support staff drafting a letter of encouragement the RDA Board to lend financial support to the master plan. Commissioner Muir encouraged the letter to include a strong land use component.
Commissioner Chambless asked if a motion should be made. Mr. Wilde recommended that the Planning Commission make a motion in support of the funding.
Motion in support of the RDA funding the Transportation Master Plan for Downtown.
Commissioner Muir moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board of Directors to support the funding for the Transportation Master Plan for Downtown. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde said that staff would have a letter ready early midweek for Commissioner Muir’s review and Chairperson Chambless’ signature.
Commissioner Seelig inquired if the public sign in sheets were forwarded to Community Affairs to be added to community council mailing lists and asked if it would be appropriate to do that. She spoke of the City’s interest in making people aware of their community council. Commissioner Seelig said that she wanted to know Community Affair’s response to her suggestion. Mr. Wilde said that staff would check with Community Affairs and that there may be an issue of cost. He said that the mailing lists are growing. Mr. Wilde pointed out that many people have interest in a single issue and do not have a broader interest.
Ms. Coffey suggested changing the rolls to include a space for people to add their e-mail address if they want to be added to the e-mail list server and notified of future meetings.
Chairperson Chambless encouraged staff to change the rolls to include e-mail addresses and a check-off box for people who are interested in being notified of meetings.
Commissioner Scott suggested conferring with Deputy City Attorney, Lynn Pace, regarding the privacy issue. Mr. Wilde said that he would investigate this matter and let the Planning Commission know the results.
There being no further business, Chairperson Chambless adjourned the meeting at 8:52 P.M.