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 Laurie Noda, Vice Chairperson, Babs De Lay, Craig Galli, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Peggy McDonough, and Jennifer Seelig. John Diamond and Tim Chambless were excused.
Present from the Staff were Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner, Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, Neil Olsen, Principal Planner, Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Programs Supervisor, Maggie Tow, Secretary.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Vice Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, July 13, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:46 P.M.)
Vice Chairperson Noda asked for a motion to approve the minutes of July 13, 2005. Commissioner Seelig asked that Petition #400-05-01 be amended to read that Commissioner Scott, and not Commissioner Seelig, made the motion that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the Council and that Commissioner De Lay seconded that motion. This recommendation was noted, the recording of the July 13, 2005 minutes reviewed, and the minutes corrected. Commissioner Scott said she believed the minutes regarding Petition #400-05-22 should be amended to include comments made by Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director. Commissioner Scott said her statement was that home owners can ascertain that their home might be a historical landmark site by calling Salt Lake City Corporation offices or the State offices. The minuts were so amended. Vice Chairperson Noda thanked Commissioner Scott and asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner De Lay moved that the minutes be approved with the noted corrections. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. The July 13, 2005 minutes were unanimously approved as written with one abstention from Commission McDonough. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough abstained. Commissioner Diamond, and Chairperson Chambless were excused. The motion passed and the minutes were approved.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:50 P.M.)
Vice Chairperson Noda said that she and Chairperson Chambless met with the Chair of the City Council to discuss the city in-fill ordinance. The City Council passed the Yalecrest Compatibility Overlay ordinance. It was decided that before they pass any new in-fill ordinance more community involvement and input from the City Planners is needed. Potential in-fill ordinances are being considered for other area.
The next item discussed was the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan issue. It was noted as being a high priority and will be moving along later this year. Vice Chairperson also noted that the City Council is looking for two new members for the Planning Commission. The need for two new members was stressed. There are concerns and problems regarding finding appropriate members to serve with the Planning Commission. She stated if anyone has any recommendations to please forward them to Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:52 P.M.)
Mr. Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, discussed two issues. 1) The Planning Commissioners were asked about their feelings regarding a change in procedure; hand delivery of Planning Commission packets or mailing the Planning Commission packets. If mailed, the packets would be mailed early enough to ensure that Commissioners would receive their packets by Friday. The Commissioners all felt that as long as they had the packets by Friday to review over the weekend, there was no problem with mailing. 2) Mr. Zunguze then discussed an important City project sponsored by the RDA located on 300 West between 500 North and 600 North. Given the magnitude of the project and the location in an historic district, it was proposed that a joint sub-committee be set up composed of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission members. Times will be established to meet and discuss the issues involved. This issue also met with no negative responses. Commissioner Babs De Lay, Commission Seelig, and Vice Chairperson Noda volunteered to sit on this committee on behalf of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Zunguze informed the Planning Commission that their packets contained a priority list for Master Plan Development. They were asked to please review it and be prepared at the next meeting to discuss and finalize the list. Staff would then know how to proceed with master plan development.
Commissioner Seelig had questions regarding the phrase “never published” on the West Salt Lake Community Plan. Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, addressed that question, defining terms, guidelines, errors made and reasoning. For several reasons the project was delayed. It is now being updated and will be published in its entirety when ready. Ms. Coffey said that what was adopted in 1995 is in effect and is being used to review projects. The updated plan is not ready to for public review. Commissioner Seelig had concerns with the project being accessible. Ms. Coffey said that she would definitely have the adopted plan put on the web site. Commissioner Seelig then asked about the Central Community Master Plan, the Sugarhouse Master Plan and the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. Mr. Zunguze said that the first three are locked into place and funding would be found for all plans.
Mr. Zunguze announced that Monday, August 15, 2005, the new Planning Director, Mr. Alexander Ikefuna will begin his job. Mr. Ikefuna will attend the Planning Commission meeting on August 24th as will Mr. Zunguze. The involvements and interactions between Mr. Ikefuna and Mr. Zunguze will be on-going and they will work together.
Mr. Zunguze then excused himself from the Planning Commission meeting due to personal matters. Cheri Coffey and Brent Wilde were still in attendance. Vice Chairperson Noda extended the thanks of the Planning Commission to Mr. Zunguze for his work and time as Planning Director.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters. NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-05-10, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission for zoning map and master plan amendments to correct the zoning designation of four properties in the 9th and 9th area. The petition includes the following addresses: approximately 916 South 900 East, 909 South 900 East, 932 East 900 South, and 919 South Lincoln Street. The properties are zoned R-1/5000, Single Family Residential, or R-1/5000 and CB, Community Business. The purpose of the petition is to correct zoning map errors resulting from the 1995 Zoning Rewrite by changing the zoning designations of the subject parcels to CB only.
At 5:59 P.M. Ms. Carroll, Associate Planner, gave a Power-Point presentation for this proposal. Four properties are included. Item #1 - 916 South 900 East is a parking lot behind Cahoots, and Orion Music. Item #2 - 909 South 900 East is a parking lot for various commercial uses such as Starbucks and Great Clips. Item #3 - 932 East 900 South is a parking and storage garage for Mutual Beauty Supply. Item #4 - 919 South Lincoln Street is a former residential structure with a rear-yard parking lot. Ms. Carroll then gave a history of these 4 lots.
#1 – County records show the lot has been paved since 1967, a parking lot for 38 years.
#2 – City and County records do not indicate when the lot was paved, but a viewing of the 1980 aerial maps shows the lot was paved in 1980; at least 25 years as a paved parking lot.
#3 – The Board of Adjustment approved the parking lot in 1975. Parking lots in residential districts were allowed at that time if approved by the Board of Adjustment.
#4 – This parking area, including the rear-yard parking, was approved by the Board of Adjustment in 1966. The former residential structure was used by the Bethel Baptist Church for classrooms and a recreation hall at that time.
Ms. Carroll pointed out the former residential structure has not been used for residential purposes since the 1950s and the parking on the site behind that structure has been there for 39 years.
In summary, Ms. Carroll stated that most of the properties were intended to be commercial rather than residential. The community questions what will happen to the property at 919 South Lincoln if the southern portion is rezoned to commercial. The northern portion of that property has now been approved for a new veterinary clinic. Ms. Carroll showed the area on the map and said the parking lot shown there has been approved. If the zone does not change the former residential structure would remain with a paved backyard and the parking shown would be allowed. If the zoning is changed, the property owner would like to revise the parking plan shown by Ms. Carroll. The revised plan would include the demolition of the former residential structure, a wider parking lot and more landscaping.
Questions were addressed to Ms. Carroll on alternatives and were referred to discussion with the property owner.
Ms. Carroll stated that the goals of the Small Area Plan focused on providing adequate off-street parking for commercial businesses, avoiding expansion of the core commercial district and avoiding the use of alleys for commercial purposes. The draft Central Community Master Plan focused on developing in a manner compatible with surrounding uses. Ms Carroll has determined that this rezone petition is not viewed as a commercial encroachment because all the properties have been used for non-commercial purposes for at least 25 years and many of them much longer than that. The over-all character of the existing development would remain the same. Staff also determined that due to the continuance of the uses on Items #1, #2, and #3, and the improved parking and landscaping on Item #4, the proposed amendment would not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. The rezone will not increase the demand for services to the properties. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Commissioner Galli entered the meeting and was seated at 6:05 p.m.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked for comments or questions and asked for input from the Community Council Chair.
Margaret Brady, speaking for the East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) noted as a point of clarification, that the rear-yard parking at 919 Lincoln was reviewed by the Board of Adjustment two years ago and it was determined that the1966 approval for rear-yard parking did not run with the land. The current owner may not use the rear-yard for commercial parking because the land use has changed. Ms. Brady referenced a meeting held, and comments made, by various people and City staff. The East Liberty Park Community organization voted in favor of rezoning this lot. They prefer the revised parking plan to the existing plan.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked if there were other Community Council Chairs wishing to speak.
Lois Snyder stated she has lived in the neighborhood 25+ years. She stated she is very concerned about the proposal. She has no problem with the clinic building. Her concern is with the property owner’s desire to add additional land to his project by rezoning property, purchasing the property and then landscaping that property. Her concern was that the code has no authority to maintain landscaping once it is installed and that a building will be torn down rather than updated to become a home that is a viable neighborhood asset.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked for any other comments.
Dennis Guysell, Chair East Central Community Council stated that this issue was debated for multiple meetings and no strong feeling one way or another was determined. They were divided. Because of where the land falls, they decided to defer the decisions to ELPCO. Mr. Guysell then spoke from a personal standpoint. He stated he had met with Dr. Ack, reviewed plans with him and has no problem with the 919 South Lincoln Street property being zoned as requested. He will defer to the preference of ELPCO on the other three parking lots.
Chris Johnson, Vice Chair East Central Community Council stated she feels that Dr. Ack is a good neighbor and has been patient and indulgent with their requests. She is personally in support of the rezoning of the properties.
Dr. Jim Ack - 965 East 900 South (business address). Dr. Ack clarified a number of points previously addressed. He stated the BOA meeting mentioned before by Margaret Brady was centered on an entirely different issue than the issue being addressed today, namely rezoning initiated by the Planning Department, not by Dr. Ack or his organization. He spoke to the serious decay of the buildings that occurred before he purchased them. He wants to aesthetically improve and beautify the community while improving his site. This improvement will include increased landscaping between the building and the parking lot and on the perimeter and within the parking lot itself. Dr. Ack does not need more space and is currently looking at reducing the foot-print of the building for budgetary reasons. He is committed to this area and will not be moving for a very long time.
Questions were asked by the Planning Commission regarding the buffer zones, over-hangs, landscaping, increasing foot-print of building, when the lot was consolidated and 2-way traffic. It was stated by Planner Sarah Carroll that all standards, criteria and zoning regulations would be required and upheld. Deputy Planning Director Cheri Coffey added that the other three parking lots would not be required to add landscaping because they already exist. Vice Chairperson Noda closed the public portion of the meeting.
Planning Commissioner Muir commented that he is against Item #4 because a house adds fabric to a neighborhood and demolishing a home takes away the neighborhood’s character and distinctiveness. He can however, support Items 1-3.
Motion for Petition 400-05-10:
Regarding Petition No 400-05-10, based on the analysis and findings of fact outlined in the staff report, Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation on all four items to the City Council to approve the proposed zoning map amendments and amend the East Central and Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as community commercial land use. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were opposed. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner Chambless were not present. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-754, by Dr. Nancy C. Larsen requesting conditional use approval to utilize an existing retail building, located at approximately 1441 South 1100 East Street, for the operation of a veterinary clinic that specializes in feline health. The property is zoned RB Residential Business. Veterinary Clinics may be allowed as a conditional use in this zone.
6:35 P.M. This petition was withdrawn by the petitioner, Dr. Nancy C. Larsen.
Petition No. 410-751, by the Boyer Company for a planned development for a retail/office building located at approximately 40 North 500 West (between 500 West and Rio Grande), and conditional use approval to modify building materials, setbacks, minimum height and modification to the 500 West residential requirement.
At 6:38 P.M. Vice Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 410-751 and Doug Dansie, Principal Planner. Mr. Dansie stated that all new construction in the G-MU Mixed-Use District is a planned development. That is the reason the petition is here. In the Gateway G-MU zone there are also design guidelines. Mr. Dansie briefly explained some of those guidelines and explained what guidelines the Planning Commission can and cannot modify or waive.
This specific project is a retail project and is generally located just northwest of the Olympic fountain at Gateway. The Planning Commission dealt with a similar petition last December, directly west of the Olympic fountain; the Apple store and the Ann Taylor Loft. They are now under construction. Mr. Dansie then gave background information for Petition No. # 410-751 and the petition approved December 2004. He used two drawings in his presentation, explaining the lay of the drawings in conjunction with directional facades, mentioning pedestrian walkways, elevation, proposed construction sites, current and completed buildings and structures and what the petitioners have agreed to continue doing.
Mr. Dansie proceeded to explain the various issues in this petition that have been a concern. Some of those issues are use of appropriate construction materials, and location and access of loading docks. Meetings have been held with Kevin Young, Deputy Transportation Director. In these meetings, and in the telephone conversations, Mr. Young reiterated his concern with the location of the loading docks.
Mr. Dansie stated that with this background, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Petition 410-751 as follows:
1. The planned development be approved.
2. The conditional use for modifications to the housing requirement, minimum height and building materials be approved.
3. The conditional use for 40% glass at the pedestrian level be modified.
Subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner develops an acceptable façade treatment for the 500 West frontage that provides visual interest in lieu of the glass. Spandrel glass is not allowed.
2. Transportation issues regarding parking entry and internal circulation are resolved.
3. All parking calculations verified to insure adequate parking.
4. The loading dock be screened from public view.
5. The façade along the entry plaza at South Temple and 500 West include windows, openings and other architectural detailing similar to those approved in petition 410-707 (south of South Temple).
6. Detailed drawings be provided in order to provide a more thorough Development Review Team review.
7. The final design be approved by the Planning Director.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked for questions and Planning Commission Muir responded. He commented that the scale of the Gateway Development has set a wholesale variance from the Zoning Ordinance and asked if we should not follow this up with a request to look at the Zoning Ordinance and the 30% limit on the minor portion for EIFS. He felt that otherwise we are imposing criteria on smaller property owners that has been waived for the benefit of Gateway.
Mr. Dansie explained that when Gateway zoning was approved in 1998 the only “out” we had for the design criteria was the conditional use process. He stated that we may want to modify the criteria but we must also realize that now we have a simpler process to deal with design issues (Conditional Building and Site Design Review) and we may want to transfer these kinds of changes into that process rather than keeping it in the conditional use process.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked if the applicant wanted to speak. Jake Boyer of the Boyer Co. came forward. The Boyer Co. is the developer of the Gateway. He reiterated that he has met with Doug Dansie, the Transportation Department and the Planning Commission to discuss possibilities of putting a different kind of glass window or frame in. He stated that if you look at the circular portion of the plaza area it is clear Boyer does not have retail space. However, Mr. Boyer does want to put something similar to an all glass display case on the Plaza area. He also stated they have tried to be sensitive to the architecture and that it is important to the Boyer Co. that this area maintains its pedestrian feel as they believe that people are going to be walking up and down 500 West.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked if there were other questions for Mr. Boyer. Commissioner McDonough asked if Mr. Boyer had considered the idea of landscape on the wall itself with architectural features that encourage vine growth in an orderly fashion. She continued that it is a utilitarian function behind the wall but it must still welcome the pedestrians right against the building. Commissioner McDonough stated that large panels of blank wall would not be as friendly as something softer and related to the amount of landscape that is in the park zone. Mr. Boyer stated they have discussed the possibility of a trellis, etc., but it is out of the question on the corner. The maintenance factor is a problem. Commissioner McDonough then asked if Mr. Boyer’s team had come up with any proposals. Rob Cottle with Babcock Design Group spoke to this question.
Rob Cottle stated that one of the challenges they face at on this frontage and the corner is that they are basically right at the property line and trying to hold the street edge that has been established by the previous Gateway project. There is a 2-story parking structure under this building and in trying to make all parts work they are at their limit as to where they are allowed to build. Mr. Cottle stated that they have entertained ideas, such as a low hedge in a small buffer area but what they are saying is that they have tried several ideas and as of yet don’t have the exact answer. They are still exploring many ideas to soften that area and respond to the realities that Jake is dealing with in the maintenance of his buildings.
Commissioner McDonough commented that the Smith’s store in Sugar House on 900 East and 2100 South on the Elm Avenue side seems to have dealt with that condition and she viewed it as a successful endeavor.
Commissioner Muir responded that it is a similar dilemma faced in Sugar House where buildings stand block to block and one must determine where to bring in the service entry. Commissioner Muir said he would hope that in the design and construction of this area Boyer Co. would build the west façade in a way that would enable a retailer at some future date to see the wisdom in this style and in return open out both sides of their store, much like Galleons, or Virgin Records, where you have a lot of activity on both frontages.
Vice Chairperson Noda thanked Mr. Boyer and asked if any of the public would like to speak. No one came forward. The petition was turned back to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Commissioner De Lay asked what is “THE GATEWAY TO”, and then stated that she lives in the neighborhood and it is a “GATEWAY” to the ethnic community that was established here at the turn of the century. Within a few blocks you have “J” Town, the Greek community, the Italian community, etc. The panels could reflect a “District Feature” that reflects the history of the Gateway and the surrounding area. Commissioner De Lay stated she felt the Boyer Co. and the architects have tried to make it as pleasing as possible given what they have and the attraction that they have down there. She stated that she does not have a problem with this proposal.
Commissioner Scott, Muir and De Lay commented on the “process” and the exceptions that enter into each proposal each time a proposal comes along. Everything is an exception and it could end up being unfair.
Motion for Petition 410-751:
Commissioner Muir moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No 410-751, based on the analysis and findings of fact and subject to the seven conditions as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner De Lay voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott was opposed. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner Chambless were not present. The motion passed.
Petition No. 400-05-21, by the Boyer Company requesting approval to amend the Gateway Master Plans (Creating an Urban Neighborhood and the Gateway Specific Plan) regarding the 500 West right-of-way and declare a portion of the land adjacent to the 500 West right-of-way, at approximately 175 South 500 West, surplus and sell to the applicant for development of retail / office uses.
At 7:11 P.M. Vice Chairperson Noda introduced petition, #400-05-21. Doug Dansie then asked the Vice Chairperson if he may combine this petition and the next petition, #410-739, because they both deal with the same parcel. Vice Chairperson Noda agreed and read the next petition into the meeting.
Petition No. 410-739, by the Boyer Company for a planned development for a retail/office building located at approximately 200 South and 500 West (Northeast corner -between 500 West and Rio Grande), and conditional use approval to modify building materials, setbacks, minimum height and modification to the 500 West residential requirement
Mr. Dansie stated that the petitions have different approval paths. Petition #400-05-21 has to do with the declaration of surplus property and amending the Gateway Master Plan. That petition gets transmitted to the City Council and City Council will ultimately make the final decision on whether the plans should be amended. Petition #410-739 is a planned development. Planning Commission makes the decision. It is not forwarded to the City Council.
Mr. Dansie stated that regarding Petition No. 400-05-21, Planning Commission has heard a similar petition before. This petition basically requests property surplus that is adjacent to the power station on 500 West. Several maps were used to show location layout and surrounding areas. Mr. Dansie stated the intent of the Master Plan was to provide an open space area large enough to provide a larger usable space. The original petition had to do with the vacation of 2 parcels. An aerial photograph showed the parcels in question and the sub-station area and shape with regard to road ways. Mr. Dansie then went on to give a brief history of certain petitions.
Mr. Dansie stated that The Boyer Co. has initiated Petition No. 400-05-21 to purchase RDA property located on the corner of 500 West and 200 South and to purchase a parcel to the North to construct a retail office building. With the stated staff report conditions, the staff recommends Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the change of the Gateway Master Plan to accommodate this land sale. The staff further recommends the Planning Commission not declare the particular property surplus and for sale. At this point Mr. Dansie further defined the problems associated with this petition and restated possible solutions.
Mr. Dansie addressed Petition No. 410-739 and stated that this is a petition for a planned development on land that includes one of the parcels of land proposed for vacation. Planning staff recommends approval of Petition No. 410-739 with the following conditions.
• The building is limited to the site presently owned by the Boyer Company and the RDA. The parcel owned by the Municipal Building Authority is not included.
• The design has an urban approach that maximizes building coverage of the site, keeping any surface parking or loading behind the building – not along street frontage.
• The roofline of the building be lowered to 75 feet or, as an alternative, at least 50% of the roofline be non-flat in order to qualify for the 90-foot height limit.
• The massing of the structure and the building design does not treat the corner of 500 West at 200 South as a subordinate corner (when compared to the corner of Rio Grande and 200 South).
• The site plan and elevations are adequate for review by the Permits Office and Transportation.
• The petitioner investigate the possibility of upgrading the underground connection between this site and the existing parking structure from pedestrian only to auto and pedestrian to allow for parking beneath the office structure.
Vice Chairperson Noda thanked Mr. Dansie and asked for questions. Commission Muir responded with his understanding of the problem and asked if the intent is to eliminate the surface parking and have a more cohesive development property line to property line. He stated he thought that would probably trigger more underground parking to accomplish that. Mr. Dansie responded by saying that he felt they shouldn’t go so far as to say no surface parking because there may be an instance where, in the back hidden behind a building, a service area that is not visible from the street, may be needed.
Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Dansie would explain the housing component regarding how the 50% is calculated. Mr. Dansie responded that basically the ordinance says that new buildings constructed along 500 West have to have a certain percentage of housing and the buildings just north of this project on 500 West are basically almost 100% housing. He then clarified a question asked by Commissioner Scott with the explanation that this is dealt with as a project in its entirety. There is not a percentage of requirements for the entire zone.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked if there were any other questions. Seeing none, she asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Boyer referred to maps he provided, citing areas his design team had evaluated to bring portions of this building to the property line, which is not yet the property line, but would be consistent with the other buildings along the 500 West corridor. He feels it would be a visual perception of the park blocks extended even if in reality, based on the configuration of the sub-station, they are not actually widened at this current time. He then clarified one point. Mr. Boyer stated he has attended two other Planning Commission meetings on this issue and based on how it was represented to him then, it was instead the Municipal Building Authority’s request that was considered, as opposed to Boyer’s request. Mr. Boyer said that right after the last meeting he received a call from Mr. Louis Zunguze to clarify that Mr. Boyer had to go back through the process with the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyer wanted to emphasize that he is not trying to repeat or push this request through. He wants a decision and thought he was getting a decision.
Vice Chairperson Noda expressed her appreciation and asked if there were other questions of the applicant. Commissioner Muir had a follow-up question on Mr. Boyer’s comments. Commissioner Muir said that the last time the Commission heard this at the end of May, the Planning Commission did not give a negative recommendation. The decision of the Planning Commission was not to hear the request because the Planning Commission did not see any additional information. He thought to some degree that was a mistake. The Commission probably should have weighed in with a recommendation one way or the other so that the application could have been forwarded on to the City Council, which they were entitled to hear. He believed the Commission was in error in not hearing the application at that time. He stated the Commission needed to give the applicant that hearing and that judgment tonight.
Mr. Boyer again responded with his thoughts. He recognized the desire of the Planning Commission to widen the blocks at some future time on 500 West. It is his feeling that the park block decision has been made. It still could revert back, based on the proposal he has with the purchase of the Municipal Building Authority parcel. Mr. Boyer does not want to purchase the ground that could conceivably be 500 West in the future. He feels it is really a power line issue and the power lines, which comprise another area and not the parcel being discussed today, currently infringe on 500 West. He stated that Utah Power and Light told him that in order for the power sub-station to accommodate everything if the 500 West park blocks were widened, would be of considerable expense, between four and five million dollars.
Mr. Boyer said he doesn’t know what the future will be with regard to the power sub-stations. But right now he has a good proposal for this building and the decision has been made to build 500 West the way it has been built. He feels it works well.
Further questions were addressed to Mr. Boyer by Commissioner Muir regarding facades and sub-station orientation to streets. Mr. Boyer further expressed his concerns and his recommendation for orientation of the building.
Valda Tarbet, Deputy Director of the Redevelopment Agency, was asked to speak by Vice Chairperson Noda. Ms. Tarbet stated a letter is in the packet of each Planning Commissioner, explaining the RDA’s position with regard to this application. She said she would answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. No questions were asked.
Vice Chairperson Noda turned the meeting to the Public Hearing portion. No public responded. She then asked if Mr. Boyer had further comments. He summed up his position regarding this parcel. Ms. Tarbet responded to his comments by clarifying his comments and stating the RDA’s position, actions and help they have taken and given. Various Planning Commissioners talked regarding the issues Ms. Tarbet discussed. Ms. Coffey clarified that the RDA still owns the property and the Boyer Company has an option to purchase it.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked for a motion.
Motion for Petition 400-05-21:
Regarding Petition 400-05-21, Commissioner Scott moved that, based upon the analysis and findings of the staff and recommendation and testimony heard this evening, Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation regarding amending the Gateway Master Plan to reflect any policy change regarding the 500 West park. Commissioner Scott also moved that, based on the staff recommendation, the Planning Commission not declare the public property adjacent to the power sub-station that is parcel number 15-01-176-009 and located near 200 South and 500 West, as surplus. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Muir voted “Yea”. None opposed. The motion was approved.
Petition for 410-739:
Vice Chairperson Noda asked for a motion regarding Petition No. 410-739.
Regarding Petition 410-739, Commission De Lay recommended that in light of the comments, analysis, and testimony noted, particularly in review of Petition No. 400-05-21, the Planning Commission conceptually approve Petition No. 410-739 with all the following and all of the conditions noted below.
• The building is limited to the site presently owned by the Boyer Company and the RDA. The parcel owned by the Municipal Building Authority is not included.
• The design has an urban approach that maximizes building coverage of the site, keeping any surface parking or loading behind the building – not along street frontage.
• The roofline of the building be lowered to 75 feet or, as an alternative, at least 50% of the roofline be non-flat in order to qualify for the 90-foot height limit.
• The massing of the structure and the building design does not treat the corner of 500 West at 200 South as a subordinate corner (when compared to the corner of Rio Grande and 200 South).
• The site plan and elevations are adequate for review by the Permits Office and Transportation.
• The petitioner investigate the possibility of upgrading the underground connection between this site and the existing parking structure from pedestrian only to auto and pedestrian to allow for parking beneath the office structure.
Commission Seelig seconded that motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Muir voted “Yea”. None opposed. The motion was approved.
Petition 410-752, by Rick J. Klein, for Conditional Use approval to construct an 11-stall off-site parking facility accessory to permitted uses located behind approximately 809 and 817 South 1000 East. The proposed site is located in the RMF-30 (Low Density Multifamily Residential) zoning district.
At 7:55 P.M. Vice Chairperson Noda announced Petition No. 410-552 and introduced Principal Planner Neil Olsen.
Mr. Olsen stated the request is for a Conditional Use of an off-site parking area on City owned property. The purpose of the request is to satisfy parking requirements for a four-unit apartment building located at 807 South 1000 East. That property is currently able to provide three parking spaces. The applicant, Rick J. Klein, purchased a six-plex at 1018 East 800 South which had some off-street parking on the City owned property. A previous lease agreement from the owner of that six-plex is being renegotiated by the applicant. Mr. Olsen referred to his map and pointed out the various sites in question.
Mr. Olsen stated that the second issue is that a portion of land, owned by Utah Power and Light, with a very large sub-station on it, is required for access to the proposed parking lot. There is an access alley that comes off approximately 820 South McClelland that services the parking area. That access alley is owned by the power company. That area has existed for years. A consent easement agreement would need to be secured as one condition of approval for the Conditional Use. Mr. Olsen said that staff is recommending approval of this because it would improve the existing area. The parking area is dirt, and there are unsightly items around it. The applicants would clean up the area, hard surface and stripe the lot and there would be a landscape buffer to the west which would be on the level above where the two apartment buildings are located. The applicants put a stairway down to the four-plex and there would be a landscape buffer to the south because that is required between the two zones; the R2 zone being the less intense zone. Mr. Olsen recommended the request be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) Secure an easement/access agreement from Utah Power for the alley at approximately 820 South from McClelland Street to the proposed residential parking lot. The agreement shall run with the proposed eleven stall residential parking lot.
2) Secure a lease agreement from the Property Management Division to utilize the City owned parcel for the lot. Pursuant to obtaining the building permit or Conditional Use permit, documentation of the off-site parking facility shall be recorded against the principal use property. The Lease Agreement shall be negotiated to include a condition that the property owner retains the necessary parking requirement for the subject properties. If the Lease Agreement becomes invalid, the property owner shall be required to submit to the Planning Division an amendment to the Unit Legalization Case file demonstrating where the required off-street parking will be satisfied.
3) Compliance with all departmental requirements.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Olsen if a sub-division process is required to build an off-site parking lot. Mr. Olsen replied that it is not required in this circumstance. Mr. Wilde also responded by saying a lot line or a division line is not being created. The purpose is to introduce a new use on that lot. He further stated that the lot is not being cut up and there are no sub-division issues.
Commissioner Scott also asked for clarification regarding maintenance of the whole City lot versus maintenance of a portion of the City lot. Mr. Wilde stated that it was his understanding that a lease agreement would include lease of the entire City lot, use of only a portion of that lot, and proper maintenance of the entire City lot.
Commissioner Scott asked for clarification regarding the four-plex that does not have enough parking and the three-plex to the north that does have enough parking. Mr. Olsen explained existing parking and also the parking that would be created with the request of Mr. Klein, the petitioner.
Commissioner Scott also questioned the lease agreement’s status on the number of parking spaces now and the number of parking spaces that could be created. Mr. Olsen sited the Parking Plan, Exhibit 1, included in the Planning Commissioner’s packet, showing the conceptual parking lot that has been approved by the City’s Transportation Division. Commissioner Scott also asked what the City’s generated income was for the lease of the parking spaces and whither this proposed plan would be in harmony with the community plan. Commissioner De Lay asked if this was relevant and Mr. Wilde cautioned that the Planning Commission cannot bring economics into their discussions. A discussion by Mr. Wilde and Mr. Olsen then ensued on the general history and background of this unit and the surrounding area.
Laura Roberts, real estate agent for applicant Rick J. Klein, asked if she might clarify some information. She gave a history of the six-plex that is currently owned by both Mr. Klein and her and stated the issues that they now have to deal with. A discussion by Commissioners Galli and De Lay with Mr. Wilde, Ms. Roberts and the applicant then ensued on the ability to buy and sell City owned property.
Commissioner Seelig asked for clarification on the current status of the parking lot. Mr. Olsen stated it was a dirt surface with a small amount of paving.
Vice Chairperson Noda asked if there was anyone present from the public that would like to speak. Mr. Wilde stated that the Planning Commission may consider the issue of property maintenance and also hard surfacing or patching of the parking lot and the drive-way access to City standard. That issue will be determined by the permit process. A discussion ensued regarding buffers and what would be in the agreement. Mr. Olsen told the Planning Commission that buffering requirements for the required areas were stated in the conditions of the lease agreement.
Motion for Petition 410-752:
Commissioner Galli moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No 410-752, based on the analysis and findings of fact as outlined in the staff report and subject to additional conditions the City Attorney’s Office include in the Lease Agreement with all appropriate language to ensure maintenance of all City property. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner De Lay voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott was opposed. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner Chambless were not present. The motion passed.
Commissioner De Lay announced that Neil Olsen, Principal Planner, will retire tomorrow and the Planning Commission thanked him for a job well done.
Commissioner Muir requested to initiate a petition to have staff analyze the Gateway Master Plan or the ordinance as written again to determine if changes were warranted regarding building design. It was so noted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. by Vice Chairperson Noda.