SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:22 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Emily Drown, Vice Chairperson Andres Paredes; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Ivis Garcia, Carolynn Hoskins and Clark Ruttinger. Commissioner Matt Lyon was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Chris Lee, Associate Planner; Michelle Moeller, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Maurine Bachman, Carolyn Hoskins, Ivis Garcia, and Clark Ruttinger. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris and Maryann Pickering.
The following sites were visited:
• 640 E. Wilmington Avenue - Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked if the parking had a time limit on Wilmington Ave. Staff stated yes a two hour limit on the north side of the street.
APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 2016, MEETING MINUTES. 5:30:44 PM
MOTION 5:30:50 PM
Commissioner Ruttinger moved to approve the July 27, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioners Gallegos abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:31:22 PM
Chairperson Drown stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Paredes stated he had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:31:41 PM
Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Manager, stated the elections for Chair and Vice Chair were to be held next month
5:32:15 PM
Mr. Michael Maloy, Senior Planner reviewed the time extension for Camper Reparadise.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The time length for the extension and if a time limit could be put on the petition.
• If conditions should be put on the time extension.
MOTION 5:34:55 PM
Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding, Camper Reparadise Conditional Use Approval Extension PLNPCM2015-00284, based on the plans submitted, the Staff Report and testimony provided, he moved that the Planning Commission grant the time extension as requested. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
5:35:38 PM
Liberty Place Townhomes at approximately 640 E. Wilmington Avenue – Dan Lofgren of Cowboy Partners is requesting Planned Development approval from the City to develop a 70 unit townhome project with eight buildings on approximately 1.72 acres. The proposed project is approximately 35 feet in height and will provide 79 parking stalls. The applicant is also requesting as part of the Planned Development request to increase the height to 35 feet where 30 is allowed and reduce the rear yard setback (along the Sugar House Streetcar Line) from 10 feet to eight feet. Currently the land is developed with an office complex and the property will be developed under the CB (Commercial Business) because the application was submitted prior to the zoning of the property being changed to Form Based Streetcar Edge (FB-SE) zoning district. This type of project must be reviewed as a Planned Development. The subject property is within Council District 7, represented by Lisa Adams. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at (801)535-7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNSUB2016-00427
Ms. Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The setbacks for the property and proposal with each zoning.
• The reasoning for the proposed zone change.
Mr. Dave Abraham, architect, reviewed the reasoning for the zoning request and that it was a benefit for the area.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• Four story town homes were not profitable for the development.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:44:22 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council, stated the Community Council supported the proposal and it fit with the area. She stated the rent was compatible to other units in the area and the Community Council was glad it was middle housing filling a gap in the housing stock. Ms. Short stated the proposed exterior looked like a housing complex and should be broken up, vertically, to visually separate the different units. Ms. Short stated the north/south walkway was a benefit, the proposed trees were an issue and the parking for the proposal needed to be increased or a permit system put in place. Ms. Short stated the parking in Sugar House needed to be addressed because of the growth of the area and not at the expense of the single family homes. She stated there were no affordable units in the proposal and may need to be a request or condition to the proposal.
The Commission and Ms. Short discussed the price point of the proposal, the commercial uses on Wilmington Avenue and if the parking challenges were from the businesses or the proposal.
The following people spoke to the petition: Mr. George Chapman, Mr. John Tice, Ms. Carolyn MacFarland, Mr. Anthony Rosy, Ms. Emily Pennock, Mr. Dennis Kosvois and Ms. Diane Wilson.
The following comments were made:
• Should not approve the petition as many of the residents were against it.
• Requiring residents to pay for parking was a disgrace.
• The parking was an issue and the development would make it worse.
• Businesses have to accommodate parking so the development should be required to as well.
• Proposal was essentially giving the developer use of park land with the reduction in setbacks.
• The form based zone was to encourage walkability and the proposal did not follow that.
• Welcomed development but the traffic and additional cars would create a huge problem in the area that required mitigation.
• If a study was done on the impact of additional traffic and use of 600 East.
• Two parking stalls should be required per unit.
• Safety and noise levels would be an issue.
• The entrance to the development would be difficult to navigate.
• Would take a quiet area and make it less appealing.
• People have already been impacted by the S Line and this would increase that impact.
• Units are not the same style as other units in the area.
• Driveway location would create a false intersection and should be on Wilmington.
• Decrease the number of units and increase the parking.
• Keep the design with the spirit of the neighborhood.
• It was not right for the City to allow the development of seventy units.
• Need to attract young families and not drive them out.
• Neighboring properties did not have driveways and the proposal would hinder the parking in the area.
• People living in the proposal would have two cars and would not use Trax.
• Where visitors would park.
• All parking for the proposal should be onsite.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• The allowed density under the different zoning districts.
• The parking requirement for the proposal and the maximum requirement in the ordinance.
• If the Transportation Department reviewed the proposal.
• If traffic flow conditions could be required for the proposal.
o Conditions would have to be linked to a standard of review.
• How to mitigate the traffic impact for the proposal.
• The parking permits programs in the City, cost and how they were enacted.
• The current two hour parking spaces and how the development could affect those spaces.
• The number of residents in the area that did not have parking stalls on their property.
• Who the public would speak to regarding the speed limit and flow of traffic on 600 East.
• The parking study for the Sugar House Business District.
• If the proposed setbacks would affect public lands in the area.
Mr. Abraham stated the development met the parking requirements as the density could be much higher but the developer took the neighborhood fabric into consideration. He stated the project reflected its time with materials and design and had been reviewed by the appropriate city departments. Mr. Abraham stated it should not be the burden of the proposal to provide parking for other property owners in the area.
The Commission, applicant and Staff discussed the following:
• If the units would be owner occupied or rentals.
• The parking for the proposal.
MOTION 6:32:28 PM
Commissioner Ruttinger stated regarding, Liberty Place Planned Development at 640 E. Wilmington Avenue, based on the plans submitted, the Staff Report and testimony provided, he moved that the Planning Commission approve
PLNSUB2016-00427 with no conditions of approval. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion.
Commissioner Gallegos asked if a recommendation could be put on the proposal for a site traffic flow analysis to be done for the proposal and the results be reported back to Staff. In case there were opportunities for Staff to act on any recommendations of Transportation to enhance the traffic flow on the property.
Commissioner Ruttinger accepted the recommendation as an amendment to the motion. Commissioner Bachman seconded the amendment. Commissioners Gallegos, Bachman, Hoskins, Paredes and Ruttinger voted “aye”. Commissioner Garcia abstained from voting. The motion passed.
6:37:37 PM
FB-UN2 Text Amendment - A request by the Salt Lake City Council to add side and rear yard setbacks and building step backs to FB-UN2 zoned properties when adjacent to properties within a residential zoning district with a maximum building height less than 35 feet. The FB-UN2 zoning district is currently located in the Central Ninth Neighborhood and these changes would not impact any of those properties because none are currently adjacent to residential zoning districts. However, if the FB-UN2 zoning district were adopted in other areas of the city, it may be adjacent to residential districts. This proposal will also add general design standards to the FB-UN zoning districts. These standards address building scale and the design of parking garages. (Staff contact: Christopher Lee at (801)535-7706 or christopher.lee@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2016-00463
Mr. Chris Lee, Associate Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:45:25 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.
The following people spoke to the petition: Ms. Cindy Cromer and Ms. Judy Short.
The following comments were made:
• Move the proposal forward as it was consistent with how the city approached zoning in the past.
• Allowing the zone to stand alone was inconsistent with city master plans, went against the standards and did not fit the way the City did business.
• Alleys needed to be included in the fifteen foot separation.
• Include the RMF 35 not just zones less than thirty five feet.
• Need to keep studying form based zoning.
• It was important to have a zoning code that was consistent throughout the city.
• Protect the single family zones from the large developments.
The Commission and Ms. Cromer discussed how form based code was used in Historic areas of the city.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Alter the language to address the concerns of the public regarding building height.
• How alleys were measured and if they should be included setback measurement.
• Ensuring zoning was consistent and usable throughout the city.
• The purpose of the proposed changes to the ordinance.
• The areas of the city where the subject zones were located.
• Projects that were reviewed under the subject ordinance.
MOTION 7:02:51 PM
Commissioner Gallegos stated based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding petition PLNPCM2016-00463 for text amendments to the FB-UN2 zoning district with the following changes
1. To change language relating to any residential district that has a maximum building height less than thirty five feet – would be changed to districts that have a maximum building height of thirty five feet or less.
2. Strike the language stating parcels separated by an alley are not considered adjacent.
Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission and Staff discussed initiating a petition to study the relationship between form based zoning and Historic Districts. They discussed the City Council’s agenda and the items that would be coming to the Planning Commission.
The Commission discussed the training on August 29, and who was interested in attending.
The meeting adjourned at 7:07:46 PM