April 4, 1996

SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

451 South State Street, Room 126

Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Richard J. Howa, Kimball Young, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gilbert Iker, Fred Fife and Max Smith. Jim McRea, Diana Kirk and Aria Funk were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Val Halford, Everett Joyce, Cheri Coffey, Margaret Pahl and Katia Pace.

A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Kirk who acted as Chair during Mr. Becker's absence. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes' of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, April 4, 1996 as presented. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye". Mr. Becker was not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PETITIONS

PUBLIC HEARING - David Geher requesting condominium conversion of the existing fourplex apartment building located at 251 and 253 North Center Street in a Residential “RMF-45" zoning district.

Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

Mr. David Geher, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning" Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.

Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Mr. Howa moved to approve this condominium conversion request based on the analysis and subject to the condition listed in the staff report. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Howa, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye” Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-15 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division requesting the property located at 1836 and 1848 West North Temple, and the front portion of the property at 1876 West North Temple, be rezoned from Residential IIRMF-45" to Commercial Corridor IICC.

Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-1 5 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Howa, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye” Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, didn’t vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-21 by David Martin requesting a plat amendment for Lot 1, St. Mary's Hills, Plat "H", and Lot 32. St. Mary's Hills, Plat “G" located at 2790 Lancaster Drive in a Residential "R-1/12,OOO" zoning district.

Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

Mr. Bruce Dickamore, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. He stated that they had signed an agreement with both adjoining property owners to restrict the footprint of the home.

A short discussion took place relative to the height of the proposed structure, the building envelope requirements and the impacts to the neighbor's view from their deck.

Mr. Howa asked if the mature vegetation would exceed the height limitations.

Mr. Wright explained that the City did not restrict vegetation height, only building height.

Mr. Dickamore stated that there would also be deed restrictions the property owner would have to abide by.

Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

Mr. Dave Watkiss, an abutting property owner, stated that he had worked on an agreement with Mr. Martin not just to protect his view but to also protect the integrity of the subdivision and its covenants and restrictions. Mr. Watkiss said it was important to the existing residents of this subdivision that new construction be compatible with existing homes.

Mr. Don Allen, a resident of the area, requested the height restrictions be legally binding to the new property owner. Mr. Wright explained that the height limitation would be a deed restriction which was stronger than a restrictive covenant. Mr. Allen also expressed concern about potential run-off from this property to the properties located below it. He asked if this had been addressed by the staff.

Mr. Wright said drainage was required to be handled on each site and would be addressed at the time the building permit was issued.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-21 and that final approval authority be delegated to the Planning Director. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Mr. Fife, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Howa, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted "Aye. 1t Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING - petition No. 410-197 by PacificCorp, dba Utah power. requesting a conditional use for the expansion of the Morton Court electric power substation located at approximately 224 East 700 South in Residential “RMF 45"

and "SR-3" zoning districts. As presented, the proposed plan will also require a Board of Adjustment variance for a reduced landscaped buffer along a portion of the west and south property lines.

Mr. Val John Halford presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Halford stated that an additional condition needed to be added to those listed in the staff report that an easement be secured across the Redevelopment Agency's property for emergency access via the western site of the substation and that the access be hard-surfaced in accordance with traffic engineering standards.

Mr. Wright stated that Condition #6 requiring a variance for the proposed eight foot fence was fully supported by the Planning Staff for security reasons and that it would also act as a buffer between this use and the surrounding residential uses. Mr. Wright stated that the higher wall would act as a better buffer than landscaping on the interior of the site that would not be visible to the general public.

Mr. John Bryner, General Business Manager for Utah Power, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that the need for security of their substations normally included barbed wire across the top of the walls that surrounded the substations. He stated that this design would allow for wrought iron railing on top of the brick wall that would curve in toward the interior of the property. Mr. Bryner stated that several years ago they had worked to help renovate this block through a strategic planning process with the residents on the block. He said they had informed the neighborhood of their needs to expand this site about three years ago through that planning process.

Mr. Becker stated that the community council had submitted a letter of support for this project. Mr. Becker added that the letter also expressed their gratitude for the efforts expended by Utah Power in working with the community on this matter. Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

Ms. Lois Brown, a resident of the area, stated that Utah Power had worked hard to be a good neighbor on this block and had addressed the concerns of the residents of the area relative to crime and graffiti. Ms. Brown said the residents of this area fully supported this request.

Ms. Evelyn Johnson, Chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that Utah Power had worked very diligently with them and added that they supported this project.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Motion on Petition No. 410-197

Ms. Short moved to approve Petition No. 410-197 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the added Condition #7 relative to the easement for access to the Redevelopment Agency's property as stated earlier by Mr. Halford.

Mr. Wright stated that the access mentioned in Condition #7 needed to be a hard-surfaced access. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-183 by Cactus and Tropicals Inc. requesting a conditional use for the expansion of an existing garden center facility that includes outdoor storage and display. located at 2010 East 2700 South in a Commercial Business "CB" zoning district. As presented. the proposed plan will also require a Board of Adjustment variance for a reduced landscaped buffer along a portion of the east property line.

Ms. Katia Pace presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

Mr. Becker asked if there were a curb along 2700 South at this site.

Ms. Pace explained that this property had previously been used as a gas station and therefore, there was no curb or gutter the entire length of the site of expansion. Ms. Pace stated that it needed to be added along with landscaping.

Mr. Iker asked if the billboard on the southern end of the property was located within the City limits.

Ms. Pace explained that it was located within the County's jurisdiction.

Ms. Lorraine Miller, the petitioner, stated that the lease on that billboard would expire next May. She stated that she was concerned about the requirement to install the curb and gutter and added that the estimates she had received were in the range of $18,000. Ms. Miller stated that the City had an easement in this area and traffic light and utility access to this corner had been a nightmare; that the corner was constantly being torn up in order for improvements to be made. She stated that every time the corner was reconstructed, another utility would come along and tear it up again to complete their work at the site. Ms. Miller stated that the corner would again be torn up to install a massive post to accommodate a semi-four that would be installed in the near future. She added that storm drains were also going to be installed at some point in the near future and this area would be torn up yet again to accommodate that installation. Ms. Miller expressed concern at the lack of control she had over this corner but that she was being required by the City to install expensive curb and gutter infrastructure. She suggested it might be more appropriate for the owners of the numerous poles located on this corner to bear the expenses for the curb and gutter.

Mr. Miller stated that having to install the curb and gutter at this site would create a financial hardship and that there was only so much money banks were going to lend her before refusing to lend any more.

Mr. Smith asked if she would be willing to install the curb and gutter if all of the utility, etc., efforts were coordinated and the curb and gutter would not be torn out again.

Ms. Miller stated that the curb and gutter did need to be installed but added that she hoped there was some kind of a program where the City would assist her with some of the capital necessary to do this. She stated that one of the City Engineers had informed her that the City had been willing to work with the Shopko project in Sugar House and had provided them several years to complete some of their required improvements.

Mr. Young asked if Ms. Miller could be part of a Special Improvement District (SID) on this matter. Mr. Wright stated that the City had a cap on how much of its resources could be used for Special Improvement Districts but added that a program like that would allow the total investment to be amortized over a period of time.

Mr. Wright asked Mr. Joyce if he had looked into a Special Improvement District program for this project.

Mr. Joyce responded that he had been informed that no Special Improvement District programs would occur in this area during the next two years.

Mr. Wright asked if they no longer worked with non-contiguous

areas.

Mr. Joyce said they did but they were keeping them in a more concentrated

area than they had in the past.

Mr. Wright suggested that if the Planning Commission approved this matter, they could recommend the City participate with this site as a Special Improvement Project and the installation of the curb and gutter could be deferred until that could be worked out. Mr. Wright stated that in order to be consistent with prior actions, however, this matter could not be deferred indefinitely. Mr. Wright explained that the curb and gutter were needed for safety reasons, not just aesthetic reasons.

Ms. Short asked if curbs and gutters were typically replaced after new sewer pipes were installed.

Mr. Wright stated that sometimes the pipes were not located where curbs and gutters were disturbed. Mr. Becker stated that it was a standard for the Planning Commission to require the installation of curb and gutter on the projects they approved and they needed to be consistent in their rulings.

Mr. Young explained that if this program were established, the money provided would be tax exempt financing that could be facilitated over a ten year period of time on a fixed rate basis using tax exempt rates which were lower than conventional borrowing rates. Mr. Wright stated that in order for those funds to be available to Ms. Miller, this site would have to be designated as a Special Improvement District site but added that the Planning Commission could structure their motion to support this site as a Special Improvement District site.

Motion on Petition No. 410-183

Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 410-183 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Young further moved to recommend this site as a non-contiguous Special Improvement District site and that the benefits from such a designation be extended to the petitioner and that the curb and gutter not be required until the improvements of the sewer system and the semi-four for this area were completed. Mr. Howa seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Howa, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye” Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PLANNING ISSUES

Review final comments and adopt the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan« the Report of the Planning Commission on the Redevelopment plan, the West Capitol Hill Redevelopment Plan, and the Report on the Redevelopment Plan by the Redevelopment Agency.

Mr. Everett Joyce outlined the changes that had been made to the various portions of the plan since the last Planning Commission hearing on March 21, 1996 on this matter. Mr. Joyce used a briefing board to demonstrate how the bulb-outs would work and not restrict the flow of traffic in the area.

Mr. Becker explained that this item had not been scheduled as a public hearing, but rather, for the Planning Commission to discuss the staff's analysis of the public comments from the previous meeting as well as those received at the most recent Advisory Committee meeting. Mr. Becker asked, however, if anyone had any comments on the issues raised at the latest Advisory Committee meeting.

Ms. Hermoine Jex, a concerned citizen, requested the City return block 1 32 to a residential zoning classification as it had been zoned in the past. She also requested that the properties at 343, 355 and 361 North 300 West Street be zoned for residential use. Ms. Jex stated that about three acres of residentially zoned land had been lost during the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite process. She requested some kind of overlay zone to help rid the City of drug houses.

Ms. Clara Hepburn, a resident of the area, stated that her property had been rezoned to Commercial "C-1" during the Zoning Rewrite process and requested it remain commercially rezoned. She stated that this plan proposes a mixed use zoning and she stated that she did not want to lose her value in the property.

Mr. Becker stated that commercial use would still be allowed under the mixed use zoning. Ms. Hepburn asked if she would be able to place a sign advertising the land as commercial land when trying to sell the property. Mr. Becker stated that the sign could state the property could be used for commercial use. Mr. Wright stated that the mixed use zoning would allow her to do more with her property than a commercial zoning.

Mr. Don Williams, a property owner in the area, stated that he would like to see 300 West Street improved but added that it should be done in manner that would not sacrifice those businesses located on 300 West Street.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Ms. Short requested the staff address the requests made by Ms. Hermoine Jex.

Mr. Joyce stated that the City was looking at a possible development of a commercial center on the east side of 300 West between 500-600 North with a major business anchor/retail community service. He added that in order to ensure small operations did not utilize the front portions of the property along 500 North Street, leaving the center of the block vacant and undeveloped, the property would remain residentially zoned until developed. Mr. Wright stated that enough geography was needed to accomplish that goal and encourage that investment.

Mr. Wright said the zoning on the land would not change until a specific plan was proposed for that site. Mr. Wright explained that the existing uses would be able to remain.

Mr. Smith asked about the other parcel Ms. Jex had requested remain zoned for residential use located at 343-361 North 300 West Street. Mr. Wright explained that reinvestment was occurring in many of these 200 foot deep properties and this zoning would provide more opportunity for investment. Mr. Smith moved to adopt the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Master Plan, The West Capitol Hill Redevelopment Plan, the Planning Commission Report on the West Capitol Hill Redevelopment Plan and the Redevelopment Agency's Report on the West Capitol Hill Redevelopment Plan. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted "Aye. Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15. p.m.