SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph Becker, Jim McRea, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gilbert Iker and Aria Funk. Lynn Beckstead and Kimball Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Everett Joyce, Elizabeth Egleston, Joel Paterson and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00p.m. by Mr. Howa. 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. Becker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, July 20, 1995 subject to the correction given to the secretary being made. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Funk, Mr. Becker and Mr. McRea voted “Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Iker and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONDITIONAL USES
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-56 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division requesting that Salt Lake City amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance Text pertaining to bed and breakfast establishments.
Ms. Elizabeth Egleston 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 opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Nancy Pace, a bed and breakfast establishment owner, pointed out a couple of errors in wording which needed to be corrected. Ms. Pace informed the Planning Commission that her bed and breakfast, the Brigham Street Inn, was only 6000 square feet and would not be allowed under this ordinance. She suggested some flexibility relative to size might be desirable and that size might be better handled in the conditional use process.
Mr. Wright stated that the intention had been to ensure control in the SR-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Mr. Wright stated that the staff could support reducing the requirement to 5000 square feet but would not feel comfortable reducing it below that point.
Mr. Bill Heers, a bed and breakfast establishment owner, stated that their building that had just been approved for a 32 unit bed and breakfast establishment had originally been a two-story building. Mr. Heers stated that they might be interested in the future in reconstructing that second story and added that under this ordinance, they would not be allowed to expand and add more rooms. He asked if there was any way language could be added to allow them the option to expand if the Planning Commission were to approve this ordinance.
Mr. Wright said he did not believe that would be possible. Mr. Wright explained that if they were allowed to reconstruct the second story, they could use that space for other business opportunities allowed in their zoning district and added that the number of rooms which had been approved for their bed and breakfast had been the issue that had started the process for rewriting the section of the ordinance pertaining to bed and breakfast establishments.
Mr. Howa stated that this particular establishment was already pushing the limits relative to size and suggested
Mr. Heers not pursue the issue of expansion of their bed and breakfast.
Ms. Nancy Saxton, a bed and breakfast establishment owner, expressed concern that the requirement that the building be threatened with demolition had been removed and stated that she believed the City would receive a lot of applications for beds and breakfasts. Ms. Saxton expressed support for the 7000 square foot requirement but concern for the loss of housing she believed would occur due to conversions to beds and breakfasts. Ms. Saxton stated that she did not believe the denial criteria in the conditional use process was strong enough without the language about the structure being threatened. She stated that if the City's goal was the removal of houses as dwellings this ordinance was a step in that direction; however, if the goal was to preserve otherwise threatened buildings, this was a step in the wrong direction. Ms. Saxton stated that the requirement that the building be threatened had worked in the past and should work in the future.
Mr. Wright reminded the Planning Commission that a structure had to be listed on the register of cultural resources and therefore, not just any structure would qualify as a bed and breakfast. Mr. Wright stated that the threatened terminology had not worked well in the past for buildings that no longer functioned economically but were not threatened with demolition.
Ms. Saxton stated that the term “threatened" did not have to mean threatened with demolition, that it could be threatened in another manner.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that her major concern relative to beds and breakfasts was the proliferation of them in her neighborhood. Ms. Cromer stated that during her tenure on the Planning Commission she had voted to approve the conversion of several buildings from office use to bed and breakfast use and she did not believe those conversions had accomplished what she had hoped they would. Ms. Cromer expressed concern at the loss of housing that occurred when a structure was converted to a bed and breakfast. Ms. Cromer also expressed concern that the converted bed and breakfast establishments had too little regard for the context in which these buildings had existed when they had been built. Ms. Cromer stated that the rear yards were converted to asphalt and bathrooms added to each bedroom. Therefore, Ms. Cromer stated that she did not believe conversion to a bed and breakfast was friendly to certain aspects of historical preservation. Ms. Cromer stated that the people who utilized the services of beds and breakfasts did not attend the neighborhood schools or churches and did not vote. She stated that neighborhoods depended on people to live in the neighborhood to keep them vital. Ms. Cromer stated that she was also concerned that bed and breakfast structures did not support a return of the structure to residential use. She explained that office use conversion to bed and breakfast use firmly entrenched the use of that structure to a business use. She stated that the financial investment in the structure required to create bathrooms for each of the bedrooms in the bed and breakfast establishments was not conducive to future single family conversion. Ms. Cromer expressed concern at the lack of enforcement against the illegal bed and breakfast establishments which affected the number of functioning bed and breakfast establishments. She stated that frequent conditional use approvals by the City, especially in the East Central area, drove prices beyond what they would be if the structures were restricted to residential use. She said she did not think these structures would sit on the market with the kinds of price tags they currently had if the City were not so quick to approve the conditional use requests. Ms. Cromer stated that she believed the requirement that the structure be threatened with demolition, though awkward, has served its purpose well and should be included in the new ordinance. She stated that she believed a bed and breakfast approval should be a last resort for a structure, not just a financially lucrative option for a speculative owner who would not live in the structure. Ms. Cromer said she did not believe the City was losing historical structures because they did not qualify as beds and breakfasts. She added that the historical structures that had recently been demolished had been demolished because of a desire on someone' s part to construct a high density project. She requested the Planning Commission address the density issue as well and require that a structure's existence be threatened.
Mr. Howa asked Ms. Cromer how she felt about the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Cromer responded that it addressed her concerns about definitions but did not address the density issue and that it was too lax in its requirements.
Mr. Wright explained that the density issue was handled in the conditional use process as a discretionary review item for the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cromer expressed concern that the Planning Commission would not have adequate denial powers under this ordinance for structures which met the requirements but really should not be converted to a bed and breakfast.
Mr. Iker stated that he believed the market would dictate how many bed and breakfast establishments could succeed and that there was only so much demand for those kinds of services.
Mr. Iker said he believed the proposed ordinance was adequate and met the needs it was intended to meet.
Ms. Roberts said she agreed with Ms. Cromer relative to the need for density control.
Mr. Iker stated that the conditional use process would afford the needed density control.
Mr. Scott Kier, a bed and breakfast establishment owner, stated that even though they did not live on their site, they were very concerned about their neighborhood and had someone on the premises who was awake 24 hours each day. He stated that because of their financial investments, they had a heightened interest in their business. Mr. Kier stated that he shared Ms. Cromer's concerns relative to enforcement but added that he did not agree with setting specific density requirements.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Roberts stated that she did not believe economic issues should determine what the uses were in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Funk stated that setting a limit on the number of group homes allowed in residential neighborhoods had been good for the neighborhoods.
Ms. Funk stated that too much of anything that was not a residential use was not good for residential neighborhoods. Ms. Funk said she believed the ordinance needed to be more restrictive than was currently proposed.
Mr. Becker suggested the threatened and density issues could be included in the Planning Commission's consideration of the conditions of approval during the conditional use process.
Mr. Wright stated that the density issue was covered in the compatibility requirements and in the requirement that a bed and breakfast not have a material net cumulative adverse impact.
Ms. Funk said she believed the Planning Commission might need stronger denial powers.
Mr. McRea said he did not believe relying on economics to determine the number of beds and breakfasts a community could handle was the best way to approach the issue. Mr. McRea expressed concern at the potential to overbuild and the irreversibility issues connected to that potential.
Mr. Becker moved to adopt the proposed ordinance changes based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report, as well as the comments made at this meeting, and subject to the corrections pointed out by Ms. Nancy Pace being made. Mr. Becker further moved that future staff reports dealing with bed and breakfast establishments specifically address the issues of whether or not a building might be threatened by demolition and the density issues relative to the material net cumulative adverse impact of each particular proposal. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-54 by Harrison and Henderson Investment Corporation requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property at 2119 South Lincoln Street from Residential “RMF-35" to Commercial Sugar House Business District “CSHBD": and Petition No 41 0-1 84 by Harrison and Henderson Investment Corporation requesting a planned development/conditional use for a Goodyear Auto Service/Tire Center at 950 East 2100 South and 2119 South Lincoln Street in a Commercial Sugar House Business District “CSHBD".
Mr. Everett Joyce 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. Hal Harrison, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Harrison requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Norma Stevens-Murray, an adjacent property owner, stated that she was in favor of this request and asked what would be done on her property line.
Mr. Joyce explained that a masonry wall would be constructed on the property line.
Ms. Margene Sorenson, an adjacent property owner, stated that a portion of their property was being used for residential purposes and that she objected to this project. Ms. Sorenson stated that the proposed building would be right up against their windows and added that she was concerned about noise pollution. Ms. Sorenson stated that a driveway had separated the two buildings before the demolition of the building on the subject property. She stated that she was not opposed to development on this site but was very concerned about its affect on her property.
Mr. Howa asked if the Sorenson property was residentially zoned.
Mr. Joyce stated that Ms. Sorenson's property was zoned for commercial use.
Mr. Wright stated that if this request was not a conditional use, the developer would have the right to build right on the property line as far as zoning regulations went but added that uniform building code issues might have other implications.
Mr. Becker asked if the staff had been aware that the adjacent property was being used for residential purposes.
Mr. Joyce responded in the negative.
Ms. Roberts asked if they intended to continue the residential use of the property.
Ms. Sorenson responded in the affirmative. Ms. Sorenson stated that they had been denied commercial use of the back portion of the property and had not known until this meeting that the property was commercially zoned. Mr. Wright stated that the denial may have been related to building code issues, not zoning regulations. Ms. Sorenson stated that when Mr. Harrison had demolished his building, he had torn down her fence which had contributed to the dumping and transient problem in the area. She stated that she would feel better about this project if a setback was required between the two buildings. Ms. Sorenson stated that she did not know how the utility meters could be serviced if the proposed project were built on the property line.
Mr. Fenton Murray, an adjacent property owner, stated that he welcomed this project because it would upgrade the property. He stated that they were completely surprised to learn that any portion of the Sorenson property was being used for residential purposes. Mr. Murray stated that they had worked hard to overcome graffiti, crime and transient problems and he believed this project would help clean up the area. He stated that Ms. Sorenson's property did not have any off-street parking available.
Ms. Sorenson said that comment was not accurate, that they had four or five parking stalls at the rear of their property.
Mr. Murray stated that there was no access to that parking from 2100 South and he was concerned about her customers using his adjacent parking. He suggested a zoning enforcement officer examine the properties in the area and then a lot of the area's problems would be solved.
Ms. Sorenson stated that there was a driveway on 21 00 South which provided access to her rear parking and added that they did not expect a heavy commercial use of the property.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission,
Mr. Howa closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Roberts asked if the proposed project met the setback requirements.
Mr. Wright explained that commercial zoning requirements did not include interior setbacks but added that there was a provision that if one were provided, it should not be less than four feet wide.
Motion on Petition Nos. 400-95054 and 41 0-184:
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition Nos. 400-95-54 and 41 0-184 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Becker expressed concern relative to the residential use in the building adjacent to this property if the proposed project were built to the property line.
Mr. Joyce stated that both of these properties were commercial properties and the uniform building code would provide the necessary protection. Mr. Joyce pointed out that the building on the adjacent property could be replaced at any time and that the uniform building code would provide the only real control relative to design of the two buildings.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission's approval of this request would render the building on the other property unusable and would force the use of that building into commercial use. Mr. Becker stated that such a conversion would not financially harm the property owner though it would affect the residential use of the property.
Mr. Joyce stated that the uniform building code would take the residential use of the adjacent building into consideration.
Mr. Wright pointed out that under the new ordinance, residential use in this commercial zoning district was only allowed above the first floor, and therefore, this was a nonconforming use of the property. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING. Petition No. 410-181 by CRS Consulting Engineers. Inc, requesting a conditional use to construct a new building to accommodate a “Circuit City" electronics retail center that exceeds 20.000 square feet located at 750 East 2100 South in a Commercial Business “CB" zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce 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. Ron Dabby, representing Circuit City, stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations with the exception of the reference to them purchasing the property at fair market value. Mr. Dabby stated that they would be willing to improve and maintain the property, to continue to provide public access to the property and to indemnify the City from all liability, but added that the purchase price of the property was prohibitive. He asked what the City's need was for them to purchase the property.
Mr. Joyce stated that the issues outlined above were the basic reasons the City was interested in the petitioner purchasing the property.
Mr. Wright stated that he believed the City could work with the petitioner on the details of a compromise relative to the suggested purchase of the land and stated that the Planning Commission needed to address the design issues. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission could state that they supported the design solution as well as the City working with the petitioner to find a balanced solution relative to the purchase of the City property.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Keith Perry, a property owner on 700 East, stated that he was in support of this project but added that he was concerned that the right-of-way at the rear of his property remain open.
Mr. Rod Mills, one of the petitioners, stated that they had accommodated the right-of-way and that it would remain like it currently existed.
Mr. Perry also expressed concern that the Circuit City signage might obliterate his own business' signage.
Mr. Dabby explained that their signage would be about the same size as the existing Fred Meyer signage.
Mr. Perry stated that he was somewhat opposed to a sign that large and that he was concerned his sign would be consumed by that.
Mr. Dabby stated that they would be willing to work with
Mr. Perry on the signage issue.
Mr. Bob Jensen, a resident of the area, stated that he was concerned about traffic increasing on 800 East and public safety issues. He requested speed bumps or a similar type of speed control be utilized to control the speed of traffic.
Mr. Dabby stated that they had no interest in their customers utilizing 800 East and would encourage other ingress and egress to the facility.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Short asked if the City Engineer had reviewed this project.
Mr. Joyce responded in the affirmative. Ms. Short said she felt this was a very well designed project but would rather see the building located on the west side of the property since the driveway would be too close to the 700 East intersection. Mr. Joyce stated that the traffic division had studied this issue and had not determined that the building should be relocated to the east.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-1 81 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk further moved to direct the staff to work with the petitioners on the issue of how best to handle the surplus property. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-131 by Lee Atkin requesting approval of a modified site plan for a previously approved residential planned development located at 499 North Redwood Road.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pahl stated that the staff wanted to add another condition of approval that the Department of Environmental Quality agree in writing to the phasing of this project and the proximity of the units to the abatement area before the building permit would be issued.
Mr. Becker asked what the density changes would be.
Ms. Pahl responded that the density would still be less than the allowed 14.5 per acre but that the final number would depend on how Phase II could be developed. Mr. Wright stated that if Phase II could be developed as planned, the project would still consist of 92 units as originally presented.
Mr. Doug Bower, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they had obtained their financing for town homes rather than condominiums. Mr. Bower said they disagreed with the staff on the recommendation that the Department of Environmental Quality should sign off on the phasing of the project and stated that they felt they had been held “hostage" by that organization for several years already. Mr. Bower stated that they would prefer to move ahead with the entire project rather than to have to develop it in phases.
Mr. Sam Dixon, representing the Department of Environmental Quality, stated that Mr. Lee Atkin, the petitioner, had entered into an agreement with the Mosquito Abatement in September, 1994 wherein they would give the mosquito abatement property to Mr. Atkin if he remediated the problem. Mr. Dixon said they knew the process would be costly and take time to accomplish, therefore, the agreement was good for a period of one year and would expire in September, 1995. He added that when the agreement expired, a new agreement would have to be entered into or the property returned to the Mosquito Abatement. Mr. Dixon explained that the agreement stated that remediation must occur before any building was done. Mr. Dixon said the reason they were being so cautious was due to liability factors which would always remain as their responsibility. Mr. Dixon expressed concern that phase I would be completed and remediation might not be possible. He added that he did believe it would eventually take place but they were being cautious because of the liability issues and the unknown factors related to the chemical DDT.
Mr. McRea asked what the nature of the remediation process involved.
Mr. Dixon stated that the parcel would need to be capped with asphalt and could then be used as a parking lot. Mr. Dixon stated that one small parcel on the north could not be capped and could not be used as a parking lot.
Ms. Pahl stated that the northern section would have to have a cover of two feet of impermeable clay material and a flexible impermeable rubber liner which could then be covered with top soil and native grasses that would not require any irrigation. Ms. Pahl added that this parcel could not be irrigated, that it would have to be fenced off from the rest of the site and inspected on a routine basis for thirty years.
Mr. Dixon reiterated his concern that if phase one was completed and the remediation could not take place, that phase two would not be possible.
Mr. Wright explained that it could take place but not as currently designed. Mr. Wright added that Phase II could be redesigned solely on the property currently owned by the petitioner.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dave Jorgensen, a resident of the area, expressed concern that these units might become rental units and stated that they had too many rental units in their neighborhood already. Mr. Jorgensen stated that most of his major concerns had been alleviated when the additional amenities had been added to the project. Mr. Jorgensen asked if an apartment complex could be constructed on the phase two parcel if abatement were not accomplished.
Mr. Wright responded that the zoning for the entire property was RMF-30 which would allow attached single family dwellings or apartments to a certain density via approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright explained that the property boundary line was such that if abatement were not possible, Phase II would have to be redesigned and the project would have to come back before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that he would not want to see an apartment complex developed in Phase II. Mr. Howa stated that the Planning Commission could recommend that Phase II consist solely of single family dwelling units.
Mr. Gary Hicks, a resident of the area, asked if the restrictive covenants, proposed by the developer, could prevent people from buying the town homes and then renting them out.
Mr. Howa stated that there really was not any way to prevent someone from buying a town home and renting it out to someone else. Mr. Howa stated that a town home offered a deed to the land under the unit and there would be less risk of rental with town homes than with condominiums.
Mr. Gary King, a resident of the area, expressed concern at these units becoming rental units and the possible overcrowding of the schools in the area.
Mr. Wright stated that the staff had informed the school board about the number of new projects going up in this area. Mr. Wright suggested that concerned citizens contact the school board to make sure their concerns were expressed to the appropriate body.
Ms. Julie McKenney, a resident of the area, asked if anyone would clean up the parcel designated to be developed in Phase II. Ms. McKenney stated that there had been two fires in that field in the past week and expressed concern for the safety of her home because the area was not properly cared for.
Mr. Doug Bowers said they planned to cut down the weeds on that parcel within the next few days.
Mr. David Swan, Chair of the Jordan Meadows Community Council, stated that they supported this project though that support had not been unanimous. Mr. Swan stated that they were concerned about the overcrowding of the schools and the density of the project. He added that they planned to review the town home configuration at their next meeting.
Ms. Faye Jensen, a resident of the area, stated that the proposed project was better than what currently existed on this parcel.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Petition No. 41 0-1 31:
Mr. McRea moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-131 to modify a previously approved site plan based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Me Rea, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-185 by Park City Construction Company requesting a planned development/conditional use approval to convert the old V.A. Hospital into 27 residential condominium units. This project is located at approximately Thirteenth Avenue between “D" and “F" Streets in the Foothill Residential “FR-3" zoning district: and Petitions No. 41 0-1 76 and 400-95-55 by Capitol Park Development. L.C., requesting planned development/conditional use approval and preliminary subdivision approval for 54 single family lots and the vacation of the Panorama Subdivision located on the site of the proposed planned development. This project is located at approximately Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues between Bonneville Boulevard and “E" Street in the Foothill Residential “ER-3" zoning district.
Mr. Howa left the meeting at this time and turned the position of Chair over to Mr. Becker.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report on Petition No. 410-185, 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. Dan Beyer, representing Park City Construction Company, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and gave a brief history of the buildings on the site and outlined their development plans. Mr. Beyer stated that they wanted to eliminate vehicular traffic from the front of the project and explained that the parking structure would probably have one level below ground and one level above ground.
Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission was bearing these two matters at the same hearing because of their proximity and connection to each other but added that a decision would only be made at this meeting on the Capitol Park Development, not the old Veterans' Hospital issue. Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Richard Dunlop, Vice Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that they were in total agreement with the 27 units proposed for the old Veterans' Hospital project. Mr. Dunlop said they were concerned that the parking structure would sit twelve feet above ground with tennis courts on top and that lighting from the tennis courts might be intrusive. He requested they rework their plans for that structure and added that they also did not like the fact that cars from the proposed parking lot in the rear would have to back out right onto the street. He suggested the parking lot be moved further in toward the interior of the project and buffered with landscaping.
Ms. Jacqueline Dieke, a resident of the area, stated that she was pleased with the reduction in the number of units proposed but very upset about the lack of notification relative to this matter. Ms. Dieke stated that she had made the same complaint about notification at the issues only hearing on this matter several months ago. She stated that they had not known about this hearing until just a few days ago and had not received any notice from the City in the mail. Ms. Dieke stated that she believed the traffic increase would make a difference to their area considering the amount of traffic the area lived with at this time. She requested that something be done to control the speed of the traffic such as the installation of speed bumps, or the redirection of traffic toward Eleventh Avenue or that the streets be designated at one-way streets. Ms. Dieke expressed concern that some of the grass and trees on the property were not being taken care of and might die before they could be saved.
Mr. Dan Beyer, representing Capitol Park Development. stated that they were watering their parcels. Mr. Kevin Oakes, representing Park City Construction Company, stated that the only areas they were not watering were where the trees would be graded but added that any trees that would be retained were being cared for.
Mr. Becker asked what the notification policy was. Mr. Paterson stated that notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project had been notified 14 days prior to this meeting and the sign had also been posted 14 days before the meeting.
Mr. Paterson stated that the community council had also been fully informed of this issue.
Ms. Allred, a resident of the area, stated that she had specifically requested Their street receive notification of this matter and that request had been denied. Ms. Allred said she could find no excuse for that lack of notification. She stated that she had finally received a hand written notice that she did not believe had come from the City. Mr. Becker apologized for any inconvenience a lack of notification had caused and added that the City would continue to work on improving that process.
Mr. Brian Johnson, a resident of the area, stated that he would prefer the old Veterans' Hospital be demolished and these two projects be combined as one residential development. Mr. Johnson stated that if the goal was to preserve a historical structure, the parking structures should not be allowed and that parking should all be underground and unobtrusive.
Mr. Kevin Oakes, representing Capitol Park Development, stated that they intended to develop a more traditional look to their development and felt the preservation of the old hospital would add to that ambiance. Mr. Oakes added, however, that they did not agree with the proposed location for the upper parking structure. He said
Ms. Susan Allred stated that they had not lived in the area when the hospital had been operational and probably would not have purchased a home in that area if it were operational today. She added that she did not believe it was fair to compare the proposed traffic impacts to what had existed years ago. She said they had not paid to purchase their home on a hospital street and should not be required to deal with these kinds of impacts. Ms. Allred said there had been no evidence that the interests of the existing property owners had been taken into consideration, only those who would be purchasing the proposed units. Ms. Allred said she felt they were only being humored and not really listened to.
Mr. Becker asked what they had expected this property to be developed into.
Ms. Allred responded that they had hoped the LDS Church would develop it as a park and that she did not feel they had been obligated to anticipate and defend against this type of development, and they should have been able to expect some sort of protection and guidance of traffic down to Eleventh Avenue.
Mr. Iker asked if they had lived in the area when the LDS Church's original proposal had been to put an office building on this site.
Ms. Allred stated that she was not familiar with that proposal.
Mr. Iker said he lived very close to the Allred's and he believed these proposals offered a better use of the land than the original proposal.
Ms. Allred said she was not addressing the best use of the property, but rather, the existing residents of the area being given a little bit more consideration.
Mr. Becker asked the developers if it would be at all feasible to adjust the access to the project so that it did not line up exactly with Thirteenth Avenue.
Mr. McCandless stated that to move the street would create a difficult curve to maneuver, that the area contained difficult slopes and established trees and they felt alignment with Thirteenth Avenue worked better. Mr. McCandless stated that their only other option involved land owned by the LDS Church.
Ms. Allred stated that the distribution of the traffic onto Thirteen Avenue was highly disproportionate to other areas of the Avenues. She stated that as a resident of the City she felt their needs should be taken into consideration with dignity. She requested speed bumps be placed on their street to reduce the speed of the traffic.
Mr. Iker stated that they had a speed bump on his street which created some problems with snow removal and stated that depressions worked better.
Ms. Allred said they would appreciate some efforts to control the speed in the area.
Mr. Richard Dunlop stated that the Greater Avenues Community Council was in the process of working with the City on the issue of controlling speed in the Avenues and suggested the residents concerned about that issue get involved with their traffic committee.
Mr. Dunlop said they would be discussing and voting on this matter on the first Wednesday of September and invited all interested parties to join them. they would prefer it be set back about 20 feet and the proposed height of the parking structure was too high. He also requested that tennis be restricted to day use only.
Mr. Jay Allred, a resident of the area, questioned the advisability of a planned unit development within a planned unit development in which there did not seem to be any communication between the two developers. Mr. Allred expressed concern about the traffic impacts these two developments would have on their residential street. He asked if a planned development within a planned development was allowed under the existing ordinance.
Mr. Wright stated that the proposals before the Planning Commission were allowed under the ordinance and that consideration of two parcels in proximity to each other was not that unusual.
Mr. Allred stated that it had not originally been two separate parcels.
Mr. Becker stated that the City actually encouraged developers of adjoining but separate parcels to work together to coordinate their efforts since the impacts to the neighborhood were similar.
Ms. Nancy Leham, a resident of the area, expressed concern about the traffic impacts these developments would have on the area. She said she felt an additional access ought to be developed.
Ms. Kirk stated that she lived in the area and when the Primary Children's Hospital was open for business there was a great deal of traffic in the area which she did not believe had had a negative impact on the residential area.
Ms. Kirk stated that this use of the land would have less traffic than when the hospital had been in operation.
Ms. Susan Allred, a resident of the area, asked how many cars were predicted to go down Thirteenth Avenue, based on the traffic studies.
Mr. Steve Meyer, representing Sear Brown, the company who had done the traffic study for this project, stated that they had looked at the morning and afternoon/evening peak hour traffic. Mr. Meyer said they projected 69 vehicles exiting the site in the morning and 90 vehicles in the afternoon/evening.
Ms. Allred asked how they had arrived at that number. Mr. Meyer responded that they had looked at the number of residential units being proposed.
Mr. Chris McCandless, representing Capitol Park Development, stated that they had included the LOS Church property to the north of the two proposals to make sure all of the potential impacts were analyzed.
Mr. Meyer said they had used a trip generation manual based on national studies of trips per day for different types of land uses. He stated that they had compared their numbers to the trips per day during the operation of the hospital from a 1990 study. He stated that at that time 684 morning peak hour trips per day had been generated and 647 in the afternoon/evening peak hours. Mr. Meyer said they had conducted actual traffic counts during peak traffic hours to determine trip distribution at various intersections in the area. He stated that after that they had done a capacity analysis and had determined that the delay times at intersections would be very low even though the impact felt by residents might feel different relative to impacts.
Ms. Allred requested the Planning Commission support her requests in their recommendation on this matter.
Mr. John Van Kirk, a resident of the area, stated that there was an existing curved road from the hospital property which emptied out onto ''E" Street which would be easy to reopen to diffuse traffic. Mr. Paterson stated that that road was a narrow driveway, not a road and was not being considered for these projects.
Mr. Jay Allred suggested the grid system of roads be continued up into this area to solve some of the problems and diffuse the traffic.
Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and reminded everyone that this was an issues only hearing and that no Planning Commission decision would be made at this time. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Staff would now prepare their staff report and take the public comment into consideration. He added that this matter would come back to the Planning Commission for a decision in the future and promised that the notification issue would be examined and improved.
Petitions No. 41 0-176 and 400-95-55
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report on Petition Nos. 410-176 and 400-95-55, 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. Chris McCandless, representing the petitioner, outlined their proposal and demonstrated some of the issues by showing several slides of the area. Mr. McCandless addressed the issues of lot orientation, number and size of lots, preservation of trees and monuments, protection of trees during construction, buildable lot areas and building pads, grading, restrictive covenants and street locations.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Richard Dunlop, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that they appreciated the efforts made to revise the original plans for this project and stated that these developers had been the most cooperative developers they had ever worked with. He stated that they were in support of this project.
Mr. Jay Allred, a resident of the area, stated that he felt density should be determined from usable land, not total acreage. He expressed concern relative to traffic impacts and distribution of traffic.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Petition Nos. 410-176 and 400-95-55:
Mr. Iker stated that he felt this project had been significantly improved since the issues only hearing and commended the petitioners for addressing the major concerns that had been raised.
Mr. Iker then moved to approve Petitions No. 41 0-1 76 and 400-95-55 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote.
The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.