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 Chair, Prescott Muir, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Tim Chambless joined the meeting late. Peggy McDonough was excused.
Present from the City Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor Elizabeth Giraud; Senior Planner Joel Paterson; Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Lex Traughber; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:51 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 Wednesday, April 14, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the April 14, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner De Lay referred to page 12 of the minutes and made a motion to accept the language proposed by Staff to clarify the intent of the Planning Commission’s motion relating to the proposal for neon signs.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Six Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Six Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:53 p.m.
Mr. Wilde referred to Petition No. 410-661, by the House of Refuge. He indicated that since the Planning Commission meeting on March 24, 2004, Staff has determined that there is an 800 foot spacing issue and the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive that spacing requirement. Therefore the Planning Commission does not have the authority to address Petition No. 410-661 this evening. Staff recommends that the said petition is terminated without action.
Chair Muir addressed the audience saying that the House of Refuge item was put on the agenda before the qualification problem was identified. He said that the Planning Commission can not play a role in this process and that the item should not have been put on the agenda for this evening’s meeting. He apologized to those in the audience who attended the meeting for the House of Refuge item. Chair Muir invited questions regarding the status of the petition.
Ms. Kandi Hartung, wife of Father Basil of Saint Peter and Paul’s Church addressed the Commission asking if the House of Refuge will be considered this evening under a different determination, rather than a substance abuse center. She wondered if a different zoning ordinance determination would allow the House of Refuge to continue to operate.
Chair Muir replied that the Planning Commission responds to petitions as they are received. He said that there may be grounds for another petition to be submitted; however as of this evening the Planning Commission will not be reviewing the House of Refuge.
Ms. Hartung wondered if there will be notification for any future petitions regarding this matter. Chair Muir stated that there are notifications relevant to any petition that is brought before the Commission.
Mr. Wilde added that through the course of researching the House of Refuge petition, several things have come up. There is an increasing awareness that the City’s definitions for these types of uses do not align with the State’s definitions which may be addressed. Mr. Wilde also referred to the 800 foot spacing requirement and how it relates to the types of uses. He said that the City or the House of Refuge may initiate a petition to address those issues; however, at this time the issue is off the table. He said that if a new petition is received there will be a new process as well as another hearing before any ordinance changes are made.
Commissioner De Lay asked if this is a result of the 800 foot spacing requirement.
Mr. Wilde stated that there was a final determination that the House of Refuge is within 800 feet of the YWCA. He said that while the YWCA is defined under different terminology with the State, it is defined as a transitional victim home under the City’s definition.
Commissioner De Lay inquired if the House of Refuge will continue to operate since they have been approved by the State.
Mr. Wilde said that the local approval for the House of Refuge should have been included in the State approval. The House of Refuge is in violation of the City’s ordinance. If there is a petition initiated either by the Administration or by the House of Refuge, the enforcement would be held in abeyance during the interim while that petition is addressed.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the Land Use Appeals Board met regarding two items. The first item was Mr. Peter Hoodes’ appeal of the Westminster Planned Development approval. The second item was Ms. Stephanie Marthakis’ appeal of the conditional use approval for a utility pole antenna on 1800 East and Hollywood Avenue. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Land Use Appeals Board upheld both of the Planning Commission’s decisions regarding those matters.
Commissioner De Lay asked what the next step of appeal would be for those matters. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the next appeal would be in the district court system.
Commissioner Seelig stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission requested that Staff give a status report regarding the Planning Commission subcommittees. She also referred to the discussion that the Planning Commission make trip to view the North Salt Lake City property.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that Mr. Zunguze is at an APA Planning Conference and will address the issue of the subcommittees at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wheelwright stated that there has not been any additional action with respect to North Salt Lake City’s request. He said that there have been meetings and dialogues between the Salt Lake City Mayor and the North Salt Lake City Mayor; however, Staff is on hold from the Administration in forming any committees for that issue.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the City Wide Planning Commission Subcommittee saying that the Commission was sold on that idea because it is important to have a common vision and direction. She said that she finds it more disturbing that it does not appear that anything is being done with that subcommittee as the Planning Commission is being requested to make decisions in the interim. She felt that it is very important that the City Wide Planning Commission Subcommittee proceeds.
Commissioner Scott agreed with Commissioner Seelig and suggested that this would be a good time for the Planning Commissioners to take the opportunity to read the Beck Street Reclamation Plan.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
This item was heard at 6:02 p.m.
a. Globe Café and Salt Lake City Property Management Division – The Globe Café owners are requesting that the Property Management Division approve a five-year lease agreement to allow a surface encroachment, to use a portion of the public way sidewalk area exclusively for outdoor dining. The property is located at 249 South Main Street and the adjoining property is zoned “D-1” Central Business District.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the item noted on the consent agenda.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-667, by the First Church of the Nazarene, requesting conditional use approval to allow a place of worship in an existing building at 1760 South Fremont Drive. This site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Fremont Drive (2375 West) and Custer Road (1775 South) within the “M-1” Light Manufacturing zoning district.
This item was heard at 6:03 p.m.
Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the recent adoption by the City Council which amended the zoning ordinance to allow places of worship in the “M-1” Zoning District as a conditional use. He said that prior to that amendment this petition would not have been heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paterson noted that the West Salt Lake Master Plan is silent with regard to appropriate locations for places of worship; however, as a conditional use, a place of worship may be an appropriate use at the proposed location. One concern raised during that zoning amendment process was if a church were to locate near a microbrewery, private club, or another similar liquor use, due to the spacing requirement in the City Code between places of worship and liquor uses, the said liquor use may not be able to expand in the future or that existing liquor use might become nonconforming. The City Council included a qualifying condition in the “M-1” zone for places of worship stating that as a condition of approval, a place of worship within 600 feet of an existing liquor establishment must sign a written waiver of the spacing requirement. By doing so, the existing liquor establishment would not become nonconforming.
Mr. Paterson stated that there were no major concerns raised by other City departments. He outlined the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Paterson stated that the proposed place of worship meets the parking requirement. Based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant conditional use approval to allow the First Church of the Nazarene to locate at 1760 South Fremont Drive subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Mr. Paterson stated that before the public hearing this evening he received a letter from Uinta Brewing Company which states that they would like to expand in the future. Mr. Paterson stated that the waiver requirement passed by City Council should accommodate Uinta Brewing Company.
Grantley Martelly, representing the First Church of the Nazarene addressed the Commission saying that the church has existed in Salt Lake City for 100 years and they hope to continue to operate in Salt Lake City. He said that it is not the church’s intent to put anyone out of business. He noted several services that the church provided which are available to the community. Mr. Martelly asked the Planning Commission to approve the request.
Commissioner Scott asked if the computer classes are available at the current location or will this be a new service at the proposed location. Mr. Martelly replied that those services are currently available but they have run out of space. He said that the services will be available at the new location as well.
Commissioner Scott asked if the services are available to the community as a whole or just to the members of the church. Mr. Martelly replied that the services are available to the whole community.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jay Ingleby representing the Glendale Community Council addressed the Commission in support of the petition and asked the Commission to approve the proposal. He said that the surrounding community welcomes the church wholeheartedly.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-667
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-667 based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report that the Planning Commission grant conditional use approval to allow the First Church of the Nazarene to locate at 1760 South Fremont Drive as proposed and subject to the following conditions:
1. The First Church of the Nazarene shall sign a written waiver of spacing requirements as required by the applicable qualifying condition found in Section 21A.28.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
2. Compliance with all departmental requirements.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Continuation of public hearing for Petition No. 410-661, by The House of Refuge – Central Christian Church requesting conditional use approval for a large residential substance abuse treatment facility at 370 South 300 East, located in the “CC” Commercial Corridor zoning district. Following the public hearing, held on March 24, 2004, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the request to allow the Planning Staff to provide additional information.
Chair Muir reiterated that this petition does not qualify to be heard by the Planning Commission.
On March 24, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the House of Refuge, a conditional use request for a large residential substance abuse treatment home located at 370 South 300 East. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to table consideration of this request to allow Staff to determine if the YWCA, located at 322 East 300 South, is a transitional victim home and whether or not the House of Refuge is within 800 feet of the YWCA.
The Zoning Administrator has determined that the YWCA is a transitional victim home and it is located within 800 feet of the House of Refuge. These findings are presented in Exhibit 2 of the staff report. Therefore, the House of Refuge does not meet this qualifying provision and the conditional use application for a large residential substance abuse treatment home should not have been accepted. As a result of this finding, the Planning Commission does not have the authority to consider this petition. Therefore Petition No. 410-661 was terminated without action.
Petition No. 400-03-36, by John Peters, property owner representative, requesting to rezone the property located at 2157 South Lincoln Street from “RMF-35” Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential to “RB” Residential/Business, and to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -- Low Intensity.
This item was heard at 6:17 p.m.
Planning Programs Supervisor Elizabeth Giraud presented the proposal. She stated that the Applicant seeks to amend the zoning classification of the subject property from “RMF-35” Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to “RB” Residential/Business District. This will require amending the Sugar House Future Land Use Map. The Sugar House Master Plan, adopted 2001, guides land-use decisions in the vicinity of the subject property. The Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan identifies this property as Medium Density Residential. For this reason, the Planning Division is requesting amending the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan as part of this petition.
Ms. Giraud noted that because the house associated with the subject property is architecturally and historically significant, the historic preservation policies of the Sugar House Master Plan are applicable to this petition. The master plan states that when historic districts are established, the underlying zoning should be conducive for the preservation of the structures. While this property is not within a historic district, it is eligible to be designated on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, involving a map overlay similar to the designation of a historic district. Because demolition of a property in a “RB” zone requires conditional use review by the Planning Commission and additional criterion as outlined in the zoning ordinance, the “RB” zoning would provide the house on the property some protection against demolition. The “RB” zone would also allow the house to continue to be used for commercial purposes that make it economically viable to maintain and use. Thus, the “RB” zone would reinforce one of the historic preservation policies specified in the Sugar House Master Plan. Ms. Giraud stated that the Applicant does not wish to register the structure on the Historic Register; however, the Applicant would like it to be preserved.
Ms. Giraud noted that in 1991, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance for an accessory building to exceed the structures height limit, floor area and window adjacent to the neighboring property to the owner at that time, Lan England. The conditions of the variance included a provision stating that “It [the garage] may never be used for living quarters or commercial use.” In addition, the Board of Adjustment granted a conditional use allowing a basketball court in the basement of the garage (the basement was proposed to be 18’ deep). A previous owner did convert the garage into living quarters and this must be rectified as noted in the Staff recommended conditions.
Ms. Giraud stated that in June of 2002 the Planning Commission reviewed Petition 400-02-08 which analyzed zoning and master plan policies for the area located between 900 East and McClelland and from 2100 South to Sugarmont. The Planning Commission initiated the petition because the members believed this area is directly linked and impacted by the Sugar House Business District. The subject property was included in one of five subareas studied in the analysis. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. The City Council heard Petition 400-02-08 on February 4, 2003. The petitions were remanded back to the Planning Division for further evaluation, revision and simplification. The City Council did not indicate issues with the proposed rezoning of 2157 S. Lincoln from “RMF-35” to “RB”.
Based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report, Staff has determined that the request to rezone the property meets the standards of Section 21A.50.50 and recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-36 to amend the zoning map by changing the designation of 2157 South Lincoln Street from Residential “RMF-35” to “RB”. Ms. Giraud noted that the second-story of the garage has been converted to a dwelling unit in violation of the conditions of approval for a previous Board of Adjustment case (No. 1450-B). Staff recommends that the Applicant resolve the illegal apartment issue, prior to advancing a rezoning recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Muir noted that a separate petition is required to resolve that issue.
Mr. Wilde clarified that there is an issue with the condition of a previous Board of Adjustment approval. The action necessary to remove the condition requires that the Applicant file a petition to modify that condition. Staff will work with the Applicant to resolve that issue if they decide to pursue the legalization process for that dwelling. If the Applicant decides to remove the dwelling then it becomes a non issue. He restated that the Staff recommends that the issue be resolved before the rezone petition proceeds to City Council.
Mr. Wheelwright requested that the Planning Commission incorporate the discussion from Finding A of the staff report in the motion which is relative to amending the master plan. He said that that addition was not included in the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Scott wondered why the Applicant is reluctant to list the structure on the Historic Register. She asked if Staff encouraged the Applicant to register the structure.
Ms. Giraud replied that Staff discussed listing the structure with the Applicant and their main concern is using the property for office space. The Applicant indicated that they would consider listing the structure on the Historic Register at a later date.
Mr. Peters addressed that Commission representing the Applicant. He referred to a petition signed by 15 adjacent neighbors in support of the Applicant. He added that the Sugar House Community Council has indicated support of the proposal. He stated that the dwelling above the garage was constructed before they acquired the property. He said that the space above the garage is currently being used for storage; however, in the future they may want to pursue the opportunity to change the restrictions on that space through a planned development. He asked that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation regarding the proposal.
Chair Muir stated that enforcement is obligated to require the Applicant to remove the plumbing in that space if they decide not to pursue the planned development.
Commissioner Daniels asked the Applicant if the space above the garage has an air-conditioning unit. Mr. Peters replied that that is correct and they hope to preserve the space as it is if possible, to further explore future options with that space.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Peters why they have decided not to list the structure on the Historic Register. Mr. Peters replied that the owners sought out the various avenues available to protect the structure and still be able to maintain a business. The Applicant felt that the “RB” zone would be the most compatible for the use they are requesting.
Commissioner Scott encouraged the Applicant to take another look at the opportunity to list the structure on the Historic Register.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Wheeler an adjacent resident spoke to the Commission in opposition of rezoning of the neighborhood. He described that neighborhood as an island in the hustle of the City. He worried that the neighborhood is sliding towards an increased business zoning. Mr. Wheeler felt that the approval of the proposal would erode the feel of the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilde stated that the proposed “RB” zoning would allow the Applicant flexibility with the use they are requesting. It would enable office or business use within the neighborhood. He said that there is a provision in the zoning ordinance which would require a conditional use to demolish the structure. Staff feels that this approval would provide a viable use for the Applicant.
Chair Muir stated that the Planning Commission is aware that there is a need for an appropriate balance of residential and business.
Mr. Wheeler requested that the Planning Commission delay a decision until the neighborhood has the opportunity to discuss it further.
Commissioner Chambless joined the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Commissioner De Lay confirmed that this item was reviewed by the Sugar House Community Council.
Mr. Wilde clarified that the requested rezone is for the property located at 2157 South Lincoln Street only. He stated that this petition does not include the entire neighborhood.
Mr. Wheeler appreciated the clarification, and stated that that alleviated some of his concerns.
Mr. Wheelwright added that this proposal has a two step process. The City Council will ultimately make the final decision. He said that the same list used for notification for this meeting will be used for the City Council hearing.
Mr. Robert Costa, a student of Urban Planning spoke to the Commission in support of the petition saying that the community businesses care about the neighborhoods in which they locate. He felt that community businesses are highly applauded by Urban Planners. Mr. Costa felt that the proposed rezone would be beneficial for the community as a whole.
Mr. Peters addressed that Commission saying that residential use of the subject property is unrealistic. He felt that value of the property would never be realized if it remains residential due to the new loading dock for Smiths Grocery Store across the street. He stated that the Applicant has every intention of preserving the property.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Chair Muir asked if the proposed office use is a conditional use under an “RB” zoning.
Mr. Wilde replied that the office and residential uses are permitted under the “RB” zoning.
Chair Muir wondered if the property is rezoned, why would there be an issue with the prevailing condition of the conditional use which was approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Wilde stated that although the staff report uses the term conditional use when referring to the space above the garage, during the course of the evening Staff has recognized that approval was likely either a variance or special exception which was imposed by the Board of Adjustment. He said that Staff does not think that the Planning Commission can waive or remove that condition without a public notice and hearing.
Commissioner Scott reiterated the importance that historic structures such as this are listed on the National and Salt Lake City Historic Registers. Commissioner Scott asked if the Planning Commission could include a recommendation in the motion that the Applicant pursue listing the structure on the Historic Registers.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that Staff would not encourage the Planning Commission to include that recommendation in the motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-36
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-36 based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report and Staff recommendation that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the request to amend the zoning map by changing the designation of 2157 South Lincoln Street from Residential “RMF-35” to “RB” with the condition that the Future Land Use Map be associated with the Sugar House Master Plan and the Master Plan also be amended.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels asked Commissioner Scott if the dwelling above the garage should be mentioned in the motion.
Chair Muir noted that Staff suggested that there is an opportunity to condition the approval based on the resolution of the apartment issue.
Commissioner Scott stated that the Applicant indicated that they have no intention of using the apartment at this time. She noted that the Applicant said that they may pursue the legalization of the apartment in the future. Commissioner Scott did not think it was necessary to include that as a condition of approval.
Chair Muir said that he was nervous with the idea of making that an actual condition; however, he felt that the Planning Commission could encourage that.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the Staff had stated that the City Council would not review the rezoning petition if the apartment issue was not resolved first.
Mr. Wilde stated that Staff could not speak for City Council. He said that until the issue is resolved there is a condition from a previous Board of Adjustment case that does not allow the apartment, which would leave the Applicant subject to enforcement. Staff is of the opinion that it would be to the advantage of the Applicant and the City to resolve that issue now.
Chair Muir believed that the Applicant is aware of the risk of proceeding without solving the apartment issue.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Commissioner Chambless abstained. Seven Commissioners voted in favor, one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-04-10, a request to modify the Delta Center Signage Overlay. The modification would allow for additional on-premise signage to accommodate the NuSkin Theater, which operates within the Delta Center. The signage would be a wall sign, placed flat against the building, near the lower floors, and not extend over public right-of-way. There are no other changes proposed to the Delta Center Signage Overlay which was originally approved in 2001 as part of Petition No. 400-99-35.
This item was heard at 7:05 p.m.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the sign ordinance and said that the sign regulations are set up by zoning districts. As part of the sign ordinance there is a process to acknowledge that certain land uses are different and deserving of their own sign regulations. He referred to both the Franklin Quest Field and the Delta Center which are unique structures within the City, saying that the City Council adopted a sign overlay district for each. He said that the Delta Center has submitted a petition for additional street frontage signs due to the fact that the Delta Center occupies an entire block. The current regulation allows one general building sign and one store front sign. The modification that the Delta Center is requesting is to have three additional street frontage signs. When comparing the Delta Center block to most other blocks in the City three additional signs would still be fewer than most other blocks in the City. Mr. Dansie said that in light of the comments, analysis and findings noted in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance to allow additional wall/flat signage on the Delta Center.
Mr. Chambless referred to the 2002 Olympics and the signage use on buildings. He asked if that signage was effectively sunset dated after February or March 2002, or would it be possible for buildings to once again have such large signage.
Mr. Dansie stated that the Olympic signage package authorization did have a sunset date. He said that art or murals on buildings is still allowed.
Mr. Chambless clarified that the signage proposed this evening is vertical signage. He wondered if there is a concern with signage that would be on top of buildings in a manner that could be viewed by an airplane. Mr. Dansie replied that there is nothing in the sign ordinance that authorizes roof top horizontal signs.
Commissioner De Lay stated that the signage subcommittee will be meeting soon and she will bring that up as a topic for discussion. Commissioner Chambless deferred to the Signage Subcommittee.
Mr. Robert Tingey, General Council for the Delta Center addressed the Commission to answer questions the Commission may have.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Tingey if it is the Applicant’s intention to put a horizontal sign on the roof top of the Delta Center. He also asked if the Applicant thinks that they are authorized to do that.
Mr. Tingey replied that it is not the Applicant’s intention to install that type of sign and he said that he is unaware if the ordinance would allow that.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Tingey how large is the NuSkin Theater and how long has it been at the Delta Center. Mr. Tingey replied that it has been there a few months, and it allows for a smaller more intimate group for an event.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-10
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-10 in light of the comments, analysis and findings noted in the staff report and discussion this evening that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance to allow additional wall/flat signage on the Delta Center.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-04-02, a request by Rick Plewe (developer) for a rezone and master plan amendment located at 2665 E. Parley’s Way. The Applicant requests that the property be rezoned from “CB” Community Business to “RMF-45” Multi Family Residential in order to build a new condominium project. The requested rezone also requires that the East Bench Master Plan be amended to reflect a residential rather than a commercial land use category. The Planning Commission is holding an “issues only” hearing to discuss pertinent issues associated with this project. The Planning Commission will schedule a formal public hearing in the future prior to making a formal recommendation to the City Council on the proposal.
This item was heard at 7:20 p.m.
Principal Planner Lex Traughber presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that the Developer is requesting that the City Council rezone the above referenced property. Currently, the property is zoned “CB” and the Applicant is requesting an “RMF-45” zone in order to build a new condominium project. The Country Club Motel occupies the subject parcel at present. In addition, the applicant will need to amend the East Bench Master Plan, as the subject parcel is designated “commercial” according to this plan and would need a residential land use category to realize a condominium project. Staff is of the opinion that the said condominium project will be an asset to the community; however, Staff has concerns regarding impacts associated with height and mass of the structure. Mr. Traughber referred to the five criteria listed in the staff report which the City Council will base a decision on regarding this rezone proposal. He said that Staff’s particular concern is with the first three items of these criteria. He said that Staff has request that the Planning Commission hold an “issues only” hearing to discuss the concerns associated with the project.
Mr. Rick Plewe addressed the Commission describing the surrounding properties. He referred to a map which illustrated the adjacent property owners who support the proposal. He described the proposed condominium project saying that the parking will be below grade which will allow 2 parking stalls per dwelling. Mr. Plewe said that the existing motel is nonfunctioning and has a dubious reputation at best. By introducing the proposed housing the community will be greatly improved. Mr. Plewe noted that the property has a 30 foot grade change from the sidewalk to the rear of the property, which is pretty significant considering that the area is only 150 feet. He presented the landscaping plan, which includes a porte cochere. He stated that they have added 8 additional parking stalls for visitors since the Planning Commission received their packets.
Chair Muir asked if the 30 foot slope is from north to south or east to west. Mr. Plewe replied that it goes from southwest to northeast.
Mr. Plewe presented photographs of the site from Maywood Drive and Lynnwood Drive. He noted that the current vegetation produces a hedge for the residents. He referred to a petition signed by 59 residents which are in support of the proposal. Mr. Plewe presented photographs of the view corridor from the Kmart which is located adjacent to the proposal.
Mr. Plewe stated that the proposed project was reviewed by the Salt Lake City Development Review Team which discussed the traffic flow and in as much as the site fronts on Parley’s Way the entrance and exit will be Parley’s Way. Mr. Plewe stated that the area is currently zoned for a 50-unit motel but it has been the Developer’s experience that the traffic will be less for 60 condominium units, because there will not be a constant traffic flow. He added that there would definitely be a decrease in traffic because a majority of owners would be out of state and therefore would not be there everyday.
Commissioner Daniels asked the Applicant to speak to the issues of blocking the view corridor as well as the excessive height.
Mr. Plewe stated that a majority of adjacent residents would only see 10-15 feet of the building. He said that the majority of the adjacent business owners are in support of the proposal and have not voiced frustration with respect to the height or view corridor. Mr. Plewe stated that the majority of the residents have a substantial amount of vegetation to block most of the structure from their view. He said that he felt that he has made a significant effort to work to address the communities concerns.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the slope of the site and felt there may be issues with the ingress and egress of the project.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Applicant is planning to have roof top gardens. Mr. Plewe stated that levels three and four will have Manhattan style gardens.
Commissioner Diamond inquired what the height of the structure is proposed to be. Mr. Plewe replied that the highest part of the structure will be 53 feet, which may be reduced to 52 feet.
Commissioner Diamond said that he did not see it necessary to exceed the height requirement. He encouraged the Applicant to work to meet that requirement and felt that the structure would be just as successful. He added that it would help address the view corridor issue.
Mr. Wilde added that the Applicant must meet the height requirement. The Planning Commission can not waive that requirement or make an exception.
Chair Muir added that projects on hillsides should shape to the contour of the ground rather than fighting it. He suggested that the Applicant explore moving the egress and ingress for the parking structure to be located the low end of the site.
Mr. Plewe said that they had explored that possibility with the Development Review Team and they suggest the proposed traffic flow.
Commissioner Diamond felt that the traffic flow is an issue. He encouraged the Applicant to minimize the curb cuts.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Applicant is planning to build right up to the set back. Mr. Plewe said that that is correct. Commissioner Scott worried that the height of the building might put some of the neighboring properties in perpetual shade.
Mr. Plewe replied that the northern neighbor is a church parking lot.
Commissioner Scott worried that if the porte cochere is located too close to the street front it may increase the congestion of the site.
Mr. Plewe referred to the property at 838 East South Temple as an example saying that site has a similar flow with respect to the porte cochere and it has been successful. He said that the porte cochere seems to be an appealing selling point. Mr. Plewe asked Mr. Wilde of the porte cochere requires a conditional use or a variance.
Mr. Wilde replied that he did not think that there is a conditional use procedure to allow that. He said that if a variance is required the chances of a variance are slim due to the setback and there is no property hardship.
Mr. Farris stated that the structure is set back significantly farther than the minimum setback with the exception of the porte cochere.
Mr. Plewe asked if a type of shelter were fastened to the structure would it be allowed. Mr. Wilde said that he did not think that would be allowed within the required front yard area.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Applicant had looked at an “RMF-35” zoning. Mr. Plewe said that they had explored that; however, the fixed cost of the parking garage is what is driving this petition. The construction cost of the parking garage is 10,000 dollars plus per stall, since the units can only be sold for so much and to recuperate from the cost of the parking structure, they need to have a few more units. He said that they are trying to satisfy the need for the parking structure by locating in an area where they can make a profit on the building.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the Applicant step the parking garage up with the hill and let the building rise in the back. He said that this may save money with less excavation and would also allow different entrances.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Chair Muir noted that the Planning Commission received a petition from several residents on Maywood Drive who are in opposition to this proposal.
Mr. George Hunt spoke to the Commission in opposition due to the density, height, massive feel and increased traffic for the area that may be generated by the condos. Mr. Hunt stated that he and his wife gathered the petition from the residents on Maywood Drive. He said that Mr. Plewe has indicated that Mr. Hunt and Dr. Madsen are in support of the proposal. Mr. Hunt stated that he and Dr. Madsen are opposed to the proposal. Mr. Hunt felt that the change to the area will be significant due to the increase in residents.
Commissioner Scott inquired as to the height of the adjacent structures. Mr. Hunt replied that the Woodbury Office Complex is three stories and the retail on the west side is one story.
Chair Muir read the following information for the public record:
Mr. David Noall, an adjacent resident who is in opposition of the development of the condos because of the four stories, the other buildings on Parley’s Way are only one and two stories high. The additional 50 plus units will add to the automobile congestion on Parley’s Way and may require another traffic light.
Ms. Jean Stringham, an adjacent property owner who is concerned with the height of the proposed building as well as the amount of traffic that would be generated. She is not opposed to a residential development at that location but she hopes that the structure would not be so large as to dominate the privacy of the residents that are near and cause traffic problems.
Mr. Plewe addressed the Commission saying that they will have to redesign the front area of the structure and if there is no option for the porte cochere then they will rethink that.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chambless referred to a demographic of 21 years from now which stated that one-fifth of the population will be 65 years and over. He said that we have to anticipate those demographics as we plan for the future.
Mr. Plewe agreed and stated that this type of facility fits in with Envision Utah.
Chair Muir stated that the Mayor has given the charge to accommodate 15,000 new residential dwellings in the City and that is not going to happen without challenging some of our existing neighborhoods. He said that we can accommodate that by having good transportation systems and higher density adjacent to commercial districts may be appropriate.
Mr. Plewe stated that they are going to do everything possible to work in harmony with the neighborhood.
Chair Muir asked Staff if this rezone petition constitutes spot zoning. Mr. Wilde replied that it is spot zoning from the standpoint that the master plan currently acknowledges this as part of the commercial strip, which would be reconciled by a master plan amendment.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Review of the Westminster College housing mitigation plan, as associated with petition 400-03-27, which was heard on January 14, 2004.
This item was heard at 8:13 p.m.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the memo explaining Westminster College’s proposal for the housing mitigation. He noted that Westminster has indicated that since they have purchased the Alumni House they have built 300 units of dorms and after the rezoning is complete they plan to have another 50 units. He stated that another building will be converted into housing once the college of nursing moves to the new building. Mr. Dansie stated that Westminster is proposing to mitigate the loss of two single family homes through the construction of 50 beds in a remodeled building. Staff has responded that that would be acceptable; however, if the units are not constructed within two years there is a formula to determine a fee which will be held as collateral. The Staff recommendation is that 20,934 dollars be held in a form of a bond or another form that is acceptable to the Attorney’s Office.
Chair Muir clarified that this mitigation plan is before the Planning Commission who will make a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Steve Morgan, Executive Vice-President of the Westminster College, addressed the Planning Commission saying that the college supports the staff report. Mr. Morgan asked that the Planning Commission find a way to not require the college to post the bond or other security. He said that every dollar is needed for this project and they are still trying to raise money for the Alumni House and elevated field projects, and 20,000 dollars, even used for a bond, would take away from the project or the education of the students. Mr. Morgan stated that since the Alumni House was acquired in 1996 the college has built three residence halls with 300 units for over 14 million dollars in the campus. Mr. Morgan stated that if the college had requested the rezone at the time they would have met the housing mitigation requirement. Mr. Morgan noted that the college plans to add 50 additional beds on the campus once a series of moves is accomplished within the next two years. Mr. Morgan asked that the Planning Commission accept that mitigation plan without the required bond or security, and let the past record of the college speak for itself.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Morgan what other alternatives he would suggest that the Planning Commission consider which could rectify the housing loss. Mr. Morgan asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration all of the housing that the college has created. Mr. Morgan suggested perhaps another alternative other than cash which could be trust deed on the property if that would be sufficient.
Commissioner Diamond asked Staff if the Planning Commission has the authority to waive the housing mitigation requirement. Mr. Wilde read that portion of the ordinance and said that typically the Applicant supplies a performance bond or a letter of credit. He said that Staff relies on the City Attorney’s Office to arrive at financial security that is acceptable. Mr. Wilde stated that within those parameters Staff would attempt to be as flexible as possible with the college to not encumber money for the project.
Chair Muir felt that there should be a way to look at the bigger picture. He referred to the fact that Westminster recently finished 300 dorm units. He said that it is ludicrous for the City to now feel threatened that they may not follow through.
Commissioner De Lay noted that a letter of credit would not put money into trust, and therefore would not financially take away from the project. Mr. Wilde stated that the language in the ordinance refers to “adequate security”.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Morgan if he is confident that the college will put in the additional 50 beds. Mr. Morgan replied that the college needs them and they plan to do so.
Chair Muir said that he felt that the intent of the housing mitigation plan was developed in response to singular property owners who remove housing and replace it with commercial use, rather than this type of situation.
Commissioner De Lay said that she is in favor of the letter of credit option.
Mr. Wilde stated that this is a recommendation to the City Council. The ordinance is somewhat general and does not speak to give credit for previously constructed projects. He said that Applicants have not typically been given the opportunity to reach back to past housing agreements. However if the Planning Commission is inclined to recommend that the City Council take past housing developments into consideration, that is probably within the purview of the Commission.
Chair Muir gave Staff an independent directive to rethink the housing mitigation plan as it applies to major institutions especially campuses where there is a substantial amount of housing.
Commissioner Daniels supported the option of the letter of credit.
Motion for the Westminster Housing Mitigation Plan
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to accept Westminster College’s housing mitigation plan, and include a stipulation that the Planning Commission recommends that the bond be in the form of a letter of credit.
Chair Muir asked if Commissioner Daniels if he would accept the modification that the Planning Commission requests that the City Council take into account the previous housing units that have been constructed first, if that is not acceptable then require a letter of credit.
Commissioner Daniels accepted the modification.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Chair Muir referred to Commissioner Diamond’s comments and said that he respected those comments. He said that he felt that campuses are unique in that they are in the business of creating and accommodating housing.
Commissioner Galli asked Commissioner Daniels to modify the pending motion to suggest that while the Planning Commission accepts the proposed housing mitigation plan, the Planning Commission recommends that the requirement for providing “adequate security” be construed as the minimum financial assurance required by law in light of the totality of the circumstances including the college’s past performance and the purpose of this mitigation. Commissioner Galli felt that that would allow the college to work with the City Attorney’s Office and potentially the City Council before hand to figure out what the risk is and how it can be accomplished. Commissioner Galli said that the ordinance does not even say security interest. It states adequate security which is very broad and he did not want to presume that the Commission can decide what adequate security is, but the Commission should send a message to the City Council that it should be the minimum required by law.
Commissioner Daniels asked if that may require Westminster to come up with a dollar amount. Commissioner Galli said that he did not think that that would be the case.
Commissioner Daniels accepted the amendment. Commissioner De Lay accepted the amendment as well.
Chair Muir reiterated that the Amendment is to basically accept the minimum security required by law. The Commission agreed.
Amended Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion that while the Planning Commission accepts Westminster College’s housing mitigation plan, the Planning Commission recommends that the requirement for providing “adequate security” be construed as the minimum financial assurance required by law in light of the totality of the circumstances including the college’s past performance and the purpose of this mitigation.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner Scott referred to the House of Refuge staff report which states that Staff will develop a process that will enable the city to better track land uses that are required by the zoning ordinance to maintain a minimum distance from certain types of land uses. She asked if that is a project that is underway.
Mr. Wilde stated that Staff believes that the answer to this issue is to require a no-fee business license for nonprofit organizations in order to keep record of them. He said that that imposes a requirement on an agency beyond the Planning Staff’s control and is something that Staff is reaching for.
Commissioner Scott referred to the petition made by past Planning Commissioner Arla Funk which requests Planning Staff to map the conditional uses in the Downtown area. She asked the Commission if they would consider making a modification to that petition to include nonconforming uses.
Mr. Wilde stated that that is on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting under the report of the Director.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.