SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 315 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda. John Diamond and Jeff Jonas were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey and Planners Doug Dansie and Everett Joyce.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, July 18, and Thursday, July 25, 2002.
July 18, 2002, Minutes
Motion
Laurie Noda moved to approve the minutes of July 18, 2002, as written. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Arla Funk abstained since she was not present at the July 18 meeting. Mr. Diamond and Mr. Jonas were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
July 25, 2002, Minutes
Mr. Muir referred to Page 4, last paragraph, and requested that the word “contractual” be inserted in the first sentence. The corrected sentence would read, “Mr. Muir stated that it appeared that the contractual agreement between WorldCom and Union Pacific would address what Union Pacific is obligated to do if it moves the rail line.”
Mr. Wheelwright referred to Page 3, middle of the page, and request that the words put back be replaced with the word backing. The corrected sentence would read, “Everywhere else, either existing or future development will be backing onto the rail facilities site.”
Mr. Muir asked that the findings be typed in after the motion and prior to the vote.
Ms. McDonough referred to page 5, second sentence from the bottom, and requested that the sentence be corrected to read, “Relocation of MCI facilities is dealt with through a contract between Union Pacific and MCI, and Mr. Uhrich believed it was inappropriate for MCI to ask the Planning Commission to rule on the contract matters.” She believed the revised language would more accurately reflect Mr. Uhrich’s comment.
Chair Daniels noted that WorldCom is referred to in some places and MCI in other places in the minutes. He suggested using the wording WorldCom/MCI throughout the text.
Motion
Prescott Muir moved to approve the minutes of July 25, 2002, as corrected. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Laurie Noda abstained since she did not attend the July 25 meeting. Mr. Diamond and Mr. Jonas were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-601, by the Chasebrook Company, requesting a planned development approval for a 1400 square foot retail building. The applicant requests modification of the previously approved planned development (410-302) to incorporate the 661 East 400 South property into the 4th South Market planned development. The applicant also requests modification of zoning ordinance standards reducing the front yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet and to provide a patio in the 15-foot front yard landscaped area. This front yard treatment is consistent with the design of the 4th South Market planned development. The Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission has approved the proposed development.
Planner Everett Joyce reviewed the petition as presented in the staff report. He noted that the master plan identifies the rezone uses and directs toward pedestrian-oriented activities. The 4th South Market is in the Historic District. During the process for the previous approval by the Planning Commission and the Landmarks Commission, the decision was made to reduce the 30-foot setback requirement in the CS zone to 15 feet, and the proposed building complies with that setback. The building to the left of the petitioner’s building has an outdoor patio and landscaped front yard, and the petitioner proposes to do the same for his building. The petitioner has requested a modification of the zoning standards, and through the planned development process, the Planning Commission may modify the minimum standards for lot and yard area requirements. Mr. Joyce reported that the Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed and approved the building design. The Staff supported reduction of the setbacks as identified.
Christopher Webb, representing the petitioner, requested approval of an addition to the 4th South Market. He commented that this request would allow for an addition to the existing streetscape along 4th South and the light rail corridor. He reported that he had interested tenants which he believed would add to the life of the 4th South Market. Pedestrian-friendly elements have been added, one of which is east of the pedestrian walkway which is well lit and landscaped and will allow people to enter into the center from the sidewalk. Eventually, they would also add to the pedestrian traffic on the north side of the walk. Mr. Webb discussed plans for the exterior of the structure which he believed would add to the character of the area.
Mr. Muir noted that the master plan before them would impose housing on all the properties fronting 4th South and asked about Mr. Webb’s reaction. Mr. Webb replied that using the 4th South corridor to its maximum with higher density housing would be the best choice. People are using light rail, and the area would be more dynamic if more people live along the corridor. Mr. Muir asked if Mr. Webb would be willing to accommodate that incrementally on his property and if he would prefer that to the idea of development transfer rights where he could transfer the housing component to another parcel. Mr. Webb replied that, above and beyond more retail, he would love to see high density housing in the area.
Mr. Goldsmith asked Mr. Webb if his sales had increased since TRAX started running. Mr. Webb replied that there has been an increase since TRAX started running, but that was inevitable because everything hit rock bottom during the TRAX construction.
Mr. Chambless asked about February and March sales numbers during the Olympics. Mr. Webb replied that they were not good and were not nearly what the retailers had hoped for. However, the retailers are happy now that the locals are back. He noted that business should also pick up once school starts because they see a lot of students in their establishments during the lunch hour. Mr. Webb believed future housing would help build the density to support a mixed-use district. Mr. Chambless asked about breakfast activity. Mr. Webb replied that a bagel shop in the center used to bring in a breakfast crowd, but the bagel shop is gone, and there is nothing else to bring in breakfast activity other than Starbucks.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Webb if he planned to keep the fence directly east of the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Webb stated that the plans show a modification to the fence and beautification of the area. The plan is to install concrete block along the fence line that will be raised a little higher for separation from Jiffy Lube.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition 410-601
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 410-601 for a planned development for a one story building at 661 East 400 South based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Prescott Muir seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact - Conditional Uses
A. Retail uses are allowed in the CS zone, and planned development approval is required.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and is compatible with goals and objectives of applicable master plans. The building scale and design, the outdoor seating amenities, and the pedestrian corridor support the planning goals and objectives of the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan.
C. The development access and impacts were reviewed and approved by the Transportation Division in the previous planned development Case 410-302. New access for this pad site will not be required. Approval of the proposed building will not degrade existing service levels of adjacent streets, and access is adequate. An existing dead drive approach on 400 South will need to be removed.
D. The internal circulation system is properly designed for pedestrian circulation. The existing 4th South Market provides adequate vehicular access and circulation. The provision of two bicycle racks will bring the 4th South Market and the proposed retail development in compliance with City Code.
E. Utility services are adequate for the proposed development, subject to City approval of building permit plans.
F. Appropriate buffering to protect adjacent land uses is provided and is consistent with existing development.
G. The proposed development layout is consistent with the existing shopping center site and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. The Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed the proposal and approved the design for compatibility with the Central City historic district guidelines.
H. The proposed landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development.
I. There are no historical, architectural or environmental features to preserve on the site.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development will meet all other applicable codes and ordinances prior to the issuance of a building permit other than the zoning standards modified as part of this planned development approval and amending planned development case 410-302 making the subject parcel a pad site of the 4th South Market parcel.
Findings of Fact - Effect of Planned Development on Minimum Standards
Minimum yard requirements
1. The reduced front yard setback is consistent with previously approved setbacks for the 4th South Market. Reduction of the rear and side yard requirements is appropriate for commercial properties fronting on 400 South Street adjacent to the University light rail line and is consistent with the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan.
Landscaped Yard Requirements
1. The proposed front yard patio matches the standard set with the approval of planned development case 410-302 and previous Historic Landmark Commission approvals. The front yard design is consistent with the objectives of the East Downtown Master Plan.
Findings of Fact - Planned Developments
1. The proposed site layout is consistent with the existing shopping center and provides a more desirable pedestrian environment than possible through strict application of the zoning ordinance.
2. The proposed development will result in a better physical design layout for the shopping center that provides an aesthetic pedestrian amenity and supports the light rail transit line on 400 South.
3. The proposed development provides design features that create a pleasing, pedestrian-friendly environment.
Findings of Fact - Other Planned Development Standards
1. The entire shopping center planned development meets the minimum lot area requirement. The proposed site is to be a pad site to the 4th South Market.
2. The residential density limitations do not apply to the proposed pad site.
3. The consideration of reduced street width does not apply to the proposed development.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond and Mr. Jonas were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. Funk expanded her motion for Petition 410-601 as follows:
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition 410-601 for a commercial planned development at 661 East 400 South based on the findings as previously approved and specifically with the reduced front, rear, and side yard setbacks and with the modified front yard landscaped area with conditions 1 through 6 outlined in the staff report. Mr. Muir seconded the motion as modified.
Conditions of Approval
1. The architectural plans for the building are consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission approval.
2. The developer incorporate the subject lot into the primary shopping center parcel by legally eliminating the lot lines prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. Two bicycle racks be placed within the 4th South Market development as approved by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division.
4. Removal of the dead drive approach on 400 South Street.
5. The Planning Director or designee approves the final landscape plan.
6. The final plans meet requirements of the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond and Mr. Jonas were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-36, by Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting adoption of the Central Community Master Plan, which will update and replace the existing plan that has guided development of the Central Community since 1974. The Central Community is generally located between North/South Temple and 2100 South Streets, and between Interstate 15 and 1300 East.
Planner Everett Joyce explained that, during a briefing, several issues were raised, and additional input was requested for the CBD boundary. Mr. Joyce stated that he has worked with the Downtown Alliance on this issue, and they support expanding the CBD boundary as previously discussed by the Planning Commission. He stated that the community generally favors this plan. He recalled that a year ago the Planning Commission asked Staff to revise the master plan for seven neighborhoods, which has been done, and the new plan will replace the 1974 master plan. However, small area neighborhood plans will continue to be administered. The master plan being composed supports creation of other smaller neighborhood target area plans, with six being identified in the master plan. Mr. Joyce noted a conflict between the general policy plan being reviewed now and the neighborhood plan and commented that there is some belief that the neighborhood plan should have some precedence. Neighborhood plans were mostly adopted before 1995, and there is an issue that some were actually modified in 1995 when the City-wide zoning ordinance was adopted. A major change between this and the 1974 plan is transit-oriented development as outlined in the staff report. A key issue the neighborhood commercial evaluation. The City has been in the process of looking at non-conforming commercial businesses throughout the City and existing commercial businesses on a neighborhood scale. Mr. Joyce explained that the master plan follows State law in terms of criteria for approval. It allows for including a number of options for addressing transportation and land use. He referred to a letter from the Central City Community Council requesting that the Planning Commission postpone a decision until August 21 to allow them more time to thoroughly review the final document.
Ms. Funk commented on low, medium, and high densities for transit-oriented development and asked if there are numbers for those densities. Mr. Joyce replied that the language only identifies the general intent. Ms. Funk commented that she thought the TOD for this specific area might be different from the others. Mr. Joyce replied that the 400 South corridor is being addressed at this time, but it will still be the same kind of structure. Ms. Funk asked if the low, medium, and high density is different from the transit-oriented development in terms of numbers. Mr. Dansie explained that the two transit-oriented districts before the City Council do not contain a residential density, and that is not uncommon. He explained how densities are determined for the RMF-35 zone and TC-75 and TC-50.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Lois Brown, representing the Central City Community Council, stated that she is co-author of the letter submitted to the Planning Commissioners requesting a postponement to August 21. She noted that the letter addresses three documents; the proposed TOD Zoning Ordinance, the 2001 Central Community Master Plan, and the East Downtown Neighborhood Master Plan approved in 1990. The Community Council felt it would be important to see all three documents together to evaluate the bigger picture. Ms. Brown stated that the East Downtown Master Plan established a view corridor covering the east downtown neighborhood. The intent was to protect the view of the mountains to the east and historical buildings in the area. She noted that the policy allows development at 45 feet and 75 feet. The Community Council did not believe 75 feet was consistent with protection of the view corridor and asked that it be deleted from the document, and they believed the 45-foot reference should be changed to 50 feet in accordance with the TOD Ordinance. Ms. Brown requested that the reference to the 75-foot height in the TOD ordinance be deleted as well as in the master plan. She felt it was imperative not to change the residential neighborhood character and that the City should not open the door to possible urban change resulting from large housing developments and tall buildings in their neighborhoods. She believed there were many questions left to answer about the documents, and she asked that the Planning Commission not approve the master plan this evening and allow more time for satisfactory answers.
Ana Archuleta, stated that she was the other author of the letter. She stated that the Central City residents wanted more focus put on infill and preservation of housing than on apartment complexes built along 400 South. The people would like to see a community management plan and asked that the Planning Commission postpone its decision until the end of August so they can gain more input from residents.
Cindy Cromer, a resident of the Bryant neighborhood, stated that last summer the Planning Director assigned two staff people to work with them to write this plan. They had all worked tirelessly and put forth their best efforts but there are still areas of disagreement on the plan between the professionals and the people who live and work in the area. Ms. Cromer does not like the plan’s language for non-conforming uses. They have a real neighborhood, not a Disneyland look alike. Ms. Cromer commented on the amount of commercial in and around her neighborhood and she feels like housing is becoming an endangered species. They have many businesses to walk to but too few residents to walk there. Mr. Cromer believes that if the Planning Commission approves this plan they will be fueling speculation regarding the non-conforming properties and that speculation will occur. Ms. Cromer asked the Planning Commission to re-think the policy for non-conforming uses because the neighborhood needs more neighbors and not neighborhood services.
Gil Iker, representing himself and Marion Cummings, owner of Cummings Candies, stated that he is a former member of the Planning Commission, and he was involved in the zoning re-write. It was an enormous project that required many meetings, but one thing he felt they did wrong was related to zoning for the Cummings Candy business. He presented a history of the Cummings Candy business and explained how it has expanded through the years in the same location. He believed Cummings Candy was the kind of business that would be wanted in a neighborhood because it is a quiet operation with daytime hours and is an asset to the neighborhood. He commented on the impacts that non-conforming zoning has on a small business. He stated that Planning Commission decisions have had a good impact on the City and are generally made in an effort to help or enhance. If the Planning Commission allows the proposed residential zoning, it would be the end of Cummings Candy because it would not be allowed to continue as a non-conforming use.
Ron Love, a resident of the Central Community since 1974 and an active member of the community council, stated that he first started working on this master plan in 1993. The master plan is supposed to give long-range vision to the City, but he questioned how long range it could be since they have spent nearly 10 years putting the plan together. He thanked the Planning Department for the hours they had spent working with the community to develop the plan. He underscored Ms. Cromer’s comments about non-conforming uses. The master plan is designed for the City and what is best for the City, and it is the opinion of the East Central Community Council that conversion of house uses into non-residential uses is not in the best interest of the City. He cited examples of zoning that was supposed to be corrected and instead the zoning is for uses that are non-conforming. He thought the issue of looking at non-conforming uses in individual small areas was resolved, and unfortunately it is not. In this process, the citizens have continually said this is not what they want. He had been under the impression that the language saying that the non-conforming uses would be evaluated for commercial use or conforming use had been removed from the plan, but it has not. Mr. Love believed the statement they should make is to evaluate residential uses, not commercial uses, in their neighborhoods. He felt that the northeast section of the community had suffered tremendously because of this because they have more non-conforming uses than any other section of the City. He hoped that statement in the master plan would be corrected so they do not have a continuation of non-conforming uses or that evaluation of the non-conforming uses become commercial uses in their residential neighborhoods.
Ms. McDonough asked Mr. Love if the discussions regarding non-conforming uses and the conversion from housing to non-conforming uses entertained the question of why these uses crop up. It appeared to her that a contributing factor to the vitality of some neighborhoods is diversity of uses. She felt there was some value in having some working use designated so non-conforming uses do not come in and create havoc.
Mr. Love replied that this particular matter has received robust discussion, and as a resident of the central area, he had seen more harm that good come of these uses. He referred to Warshaw’s Market, which was on 9th and 9th to show how businesses can gobble up a neighborhood. Warsaw’s was able to expand as a non-conforming use and took out 44 housing units in the neighborhood. Mr. Love believed the concept of a walkable community was a noble idea, but when a little market starts to gobble up the housing around it, it is an atrocity. He agreed that there are benefits in being able to walk from his house to the Top Stop, but there are also drawbacks which carry the greatest impacts.
Ms. McDonough asked Mr. Love if involving the residents in the master plan process and writing guidelines would empower the residents to draw the line. Mr. Love replied that he hoped so, because if not, he would have given up working on the master plan long ago. Ms. McDonough clarified that her question did not suggest eliminating the use but allowing the residents to define the limits. Mr. Love replied that evaluation of non-conforming uses as individual uses was a good thing. However, evaluating non-conforming uses to determine their eventual use as commercial zoning was not a good thing, and the language in the master plan would allow that to happen. He felt it was inappropriate to allow commercial uses in the neighborhoods, especially if they do not serve the immediate walking neighbors. He believed those uses should be put in commercial zones and taken out of residential neighborhoods. He agreed that small neighborhood businesses are needed and enhance a neighborhood, but not when they turn Warsaw’s into Smith’s.
Ms. McDonough asked Mr. Love if he supported the language as currently drafted. Mr. Love replied that the language in the draft should be changed to evaluate the use to return back to the use of the neighborhood, which should be residential and not commercial.
Mr. Chambless stated that, when he looks at the Central Community Map, he realizes that for 100 years that was the most population area of the Valley. He asked Mr. Love if his perception was that over time there has been an overuse of conditional uses and non-conforming uses which changed the residential character of Salt Lake City. Mr. Love believed that was an accurate statement. The City allowed non-conforming uses and then institutionalized them to the extent that they are now the predominant use.
Kathy Scott, a resident in the East Central Community Council area, stated that she had the privilege to be involved in the master plan process and thanked the people who gave so much time to put together a good plan. She agreed with comments that the plan should not be adopted at this time because there are several things going on that will impact the plan, specifically TOD conversations and compatibility and architectural review policies. She believed an inventory of neighborhoods was needed so all non-conforming, non-traditional use of properties in their neighborhoods could be assessed. She commented that people involved in discussing the master plan and people who come forward at community meetings did not want to see businesses expanding. Ms. Scott commented on performance zoning and explained that people are not adverse to these ideas, but when businesses are successful, they expand and gobble up residences, completely disrupting the fabric of the neighborhood. She recommended that the Planning Commission consider postponing approval of the master plan at this time.
Rawlins Young commented on the committees he sat on involved with this master plan, and 17 years later it is still not complete. He stated that part of the problem with the plan is that it cannot be visualized or quantified. There is no description of what is on the ground. He stated that the difference between this plan and the previous plan is that it is less optimistic about what should be done in Central City. Mr. Young believed the plan corresponded with the zoning map, and there is enough commercial zoning for all of the Great Basin put into one area. He commented on the amount and intensity of commercial uses in the area and noted that three zones cannot support three elementary schools, because residential is being driven out.
Joe Briscoe, a resident and member of the Salt Lake City School Board, read from page 13, the Historic and Neighborhood Description, and asked the Planning Commission not to destroy single-family homes and to encourage development that promotes families and children.
Frank Lilly, a resident living across the street from Fred Meyer, stated that he is a citizen who is interested in the future of the City. He does not own a car and is fortunate enough to live within a 15-minute walk of anything he could possibly need. He commended the Planning Staff and others involved for putting a lot of thought into the master plan. He believed the plan showed a great amount of time, effort, and energy. He agreed with comments that this plan may need more thought. It is important to make sure that the business uses within the Central City area are compatible with the residential uses, and he was not certain that this document completely or accurately reflected that. He stated that a master plan can be a grand and ambitious document where details are lost, and he asked the Planning Commission to heed this when they continue their surveillance of what the City should look like.
David Facer, a resident in the University neighborhood, stated that he was generally pleased and grateful for the amount of work that had gone into the master plan. He felt that the zoning density guidelines and the historic fabric of the neighborhood provide the framework for working with people in the neighborhood who find themselves in poorly managed properties. He shared Mr. Love’s and Ms. Cromer’s concerns about non-conforming uses. The plan should not be a one-way street toward rezoning for those types of uses, and that should be addressed with better planning. He believed it was good for the neighborhood to have business and commercial uses that people can walk to, but when those uses become a destination and other people start coming into their neighborhood to use them, the residents have to start picking up bags of trash out of their yards.
Judi Short stated that she started working on the master plan in 1993. It took a long time and a lot of work, but she believed it was a good plan. She commented that she has had the good fortune to live in the Emerson neighborhood for 28 years, and there is not much non-conforming use in that neighborhood except for one certain strip where 28 years ago there were maybe two businesses, and now it is probably 90% businesses. She was aware of a plan to amass three or four properties and try to turn a nice residential neighborhood into some bigger things. She referred to 9th South and 9th East and noted that within the last year there has been a downturn, and some of the businesses that have been there for years are empty. She noted that there are many vacant commercial-use properties, and the City has no business creating more. The neighborhood need housing and a place for people to raise kids.
Maha Barrani stated that she believed the master plan was a vast improvement. She noted that, in looking at an aerial plat map of her neighborhood taken in 1982, 17 of the homes have been demolished for commercial reasons. She agreed with the comment that the master plan had been in the process too long. Although there are some issues with the master plan, it is a better plan than what they have, and she would hate to see the plan bogged down for a few items. She suggested moving the plan forward and resolving the issues of non-conforming and conditional uses at a later date.
Thelma Iker felt some of the reasoning in the comments which had been made was specious. One piece of reasoning was that neighborhoods are impacted by living and vital businesses. From her travels around the City, she felt neighborhoods were impacted far more by blight created by businesses that close because of zoning difficulties. Another form of specious reasoning was the assumption that, if the businesses go, housing will come back. In many cases, if the businesses were to go, the property would remain vacant.
Don Brook, a member of the East Central subcommittee which has worked on the document, commended Mr. Joyce and Ms. Coffey for their work and the advice provided over the last few years. He read from page 28, second paragraph of the Residential Section, and objected to the word “closing.” He commented that it sounds like something cosmic and inevitable forced a change to the neighborhood, and that is not true. He stated that the change in neighborhoods is caused by applications for rezoning made by developers who have accumulated a lot of residential property who blight the property and then complain about blight when they come to the City to apply for an upzone because of a hardship. Mr. Brook believed that was a zoning issue, and there was nothing inevitable about those changes. He believed that thinking this paragraph would avoid upzoning was cynical, and he asked that it be removed. Mr. Brook referred to the Environmental section and references to water. He suggested withholding the water references in the environmental section until they hear from LeRoy Hooten and Stephanie Duer.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir stated his interest in moving the master plan forward and stated that what he likes about the plan has nothing to do with wordsmithing. He suggested that the Staff take a second look at responding to the State statute. He noted that page 3 of the staff report talks about managing future growth of the Central Community, but there is not much discussion in the master plan. State statute stipulates that they accommodate growth and, to some degree, this needs to be part of the broader policy so they realize the City has the responsibility to balance growth against other things.
Kay (berger) Arnold left the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Muir commented on the time and difficulty involved with writing these types of documents so they have a considerable shelf life. He felt it would be helpful to define some words, such as “sustainable” and “compatible,” so some intent will be transmitted to future generations who will still be dealing with this document. Mr. Muir referred to Mr. Joyce’s synopsis for the vision of the Central Community of the future and assumed that it was taken from other documents. Mr. Muir suggested adding a bullet item to promote design excellence as a fundamental goal. He also suggested avoiding policies that encourage urban sprawl. He stated that he understood that the Central City Historic overlay takes precedence over other components of the master plan, but on page 87, there is discussion of creating more historic district designations as a matter of policy. He asked if that comes from a true desire to preserve existing densities, a desire to preserve specific contributing structures, or a desire to implement design review on a broader scale. If that is set up as priority in the East Central overlay, it would take precedence over subsequent policies of the plan but then recommend that the Historic District expand, which would basically diminish the viability of all other components of the plan. He believed they could be setting up a difficult conundrum for themselves down the road. He stated that he did not have a solution, but he hoped they could get to the gist of the motivating factor behind the creation of historic districts and setting them up as a priority in their planning agenda. Mr. Muir referred to page 2 of the Synopsis and the heading, Vital and Sustainable Commerce. The bottom of that page discusses historic preservation efforts contributing to commerce through tax credits, and Mr. Muir suggested adding a bullet point referring to historic urban fabric as a building block form. He referred to the last page of the Synopsis under Pedestrian Mobility and Accessibility and the bullet point that states higher density residential land uses are located near commercial areas and light rail stations. In light of the strategy surrounding Library Square, he believed adding open space to that bullet point would make sense.
Mr. Muir commented on input he received from the Downtown Alliance about whether it made sense to describe the downtown core combined with the Downtown Alliance boundaries. The Alliance boundaries correspond with the service district, so there is a statutory boundary set into the level of services being provided within a specific district. He was uncertain whether the district should be defined by urban form and land use or by the type of services provided.
Ms. Funk felt this plan was a great achievement over what they previously had and complimented all who were involved. She had mixed concerns about pushing forward versus waiting too long. Enough concern has been raised by the Central City Community Council District about waiting a little longer that she did not think the Planning Commission should vote on this tonight to allow Mr. Joyce to re-evaluate some of the suggestions made. Ms. Funk tried to calm the fears of Mr. and Ms. Iker and Ms. Cummings and explained that the intention was not to run their business out of the neighborhood or make it impossible for them to function. She believed the future land use map or neighborhood commercial evaluation map needed to be reviewed. She explained that the comments heard this evening were not an attempt to put Cummings Candy out of business but to strike the word commercial from the plan and look at uses from a neutral standpoint, evaluating each property rather than allowing blanket commercial use. Ms. Funk suggested that the word “commercial” be deleted from the text on Page 45 and that each property be looked at for the best use of the land. She recommended that the Planning Commission give Central City the two weeks they have asked for. She noted that the plan will never be perfect, and chances are it will change the day after they pass it. She commented on the height proposal and felt there was a conflict in the plan. Either the view corridors need to be removed, or the building height needs to be reduced to 50 feet.
Mr. Chambless shared Ms. Funk’s mixed concern about waiting much longer to move ahead. On one hand they should try to resolve the problems, but it has taken many years to get this plan completed.
Ms. Noda complimented the Staff for their work on this project. She agreed that it is not perfect and that it would change, but it is as good as it can possibly get. She agreed with Ms. Funk regarding commercial uses and wanted businesses like Cummings Candy to know that they are not trying to put them out of business. Cummings Candy is a nice facility on a busy corner, and they keep their property looking nice. The plan would target situations where businesses come in and do not keep up their properties, then want to expand in a way that heavily impacts the community. Ms. Noda agreed with Ms. Short that they should be concerned about what is happening at 9th and 9th, because there has been a drop off of business in that area. She believed the residential feel of that neighborhood should be preserved. She recommended that the Planning Commission move forward with some additional study and believed two weeks was sufficient time for the community council to address their questions.
After discussing meeting dates to be included in a motion, Stephen Goldsmith suggested that the Planning Commission continue their discussion to August 15 under other business if more discussion is needed and schedule public comment with possible action on September 5.
Motion for Petition 400-01-36
Arla Funk moved that the Planning Commission discuss the Central Community Master Plan on August 15 with proposed changes and that the matter be opened for public hearing on September 5 with possible action. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Diamond, and Mr. Jonas were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the proposed Housing Overlay Zoning District
Mr. Goldsmith stated that the Planning Commission should limit discussion to the housing overlay and noted that it may overlap with some secondary Central Community planning issues.
Planner Doug Dansie recalled that the Planning Commission initiated a petition to create a housing overlay in the east downtown area in response to the library block master plan. The Planning Commission had an informal conversation in April surrounding the idea of how to encourage housing and whether zoning is the best tool. The two major issues in terms of zoning are whether to create an overlay zone or just modify the base zones to require more housing. Each has advantages. Mr. Dansie explained that many other things that do not have to do with zoning are done by other cities to create housing. He commented on the issue of offices and number of workers that can be expected per square feet of office space and whether to target the amount of housing to coincide with the offices. In checking with the Building Department to see if there is a correlation between square footage and number of people, he found there was none. There is not a maximum per thousand load limit for an office building, but they are generally designed around 10 per thousand. Mr. Dansie commented on previous conversations regarding transfer of development rights and stated that many existing zones are set up with separation of mixed-use, with commercial on the ground level and housing above. On the issue of whether they uses should be in separate buildings side by side, Mr. Dansie noted that the conditional use process could put them in separate buildings, and the RO and RMU Districts could be modified to do the same thing. He commented on some of the difficulties of trying to transfer development rights to another site. He requested direction from the Planning Commission as to whether they would be more comfortable with overlays or changing the base zoning.
Mr. Muir stated that he had a conversation with Zion’s Securities, and the problem they see is that people cannot envision an urban neighborhood experience as they build isolated housing projects surrounded by urban commercial fabric or offices. They know the strategy, and it makes no sense to target people based on a specific zone. To some degree, the City needs to step in and help subsidize the market to create a full-size streetscaping market where there is neighborhood commercial and significant housing density on both sides of the street to create a sense of neighborhood. This does not happen with condominiums, because they are stand-alone projects. Mr. Goldsmith asked Mr. Muir if he was looking at this as a marketing strategy. Mr. Muir replied that the market sector is not picking up on it. Mr. Goldsmith explained that, in order to model particular zones, the hypothetical densities ordinance states that connections and similar types of things would be a way to get the housing overlay implemented without necessarily throwing out the idea of creating a housing overlay. Mr. Muir felt they should be more proactive in imposing those criteria. Once people can visualize it, hopefully they would grasp the concept. Mr. Goldsmith noted that something similar was done with west downtown.
Mr. Dansie reported on conversations he had with cities in other states, and what happened in San Diego is germane to what is happening in Salt Lake. At one time, downtown San Diego was a Navy port and not a very nice place to live. San Diego focused heavily on access with light rail and housing. They targeted housing projects over a 20-year period, and now the Marina district is a very fashionable place to live. Mr. Chambless agreed that in the late 1960's San Diego was not a desirable place to live. Now it is very beautiful, but it is also very expensive. He asked how much affordable housing exists in San Diego and what Salt Lake could potentially learn. Mr. Dansie replied that, in conversations with San Diego city planners, he did not get into details of affordability. An observation was made by one city planner that cities die at ground level, and Mr. Dansie felt that was a succinct way of saying that attention to detail at the pedestrian level makes or breaks the area. Mr. Goldsmith felt that one thing they could learn from San Diego was mixed income housing. They are extraordinary and function well, and the projects have a good design element. He stated that helping communities visualize change is something the City does not do very well. Referring to previous comments, he felt it would be helpful if Mr Muir would recommend adding language to the implementation strategy to do moderate, growth-specific districts to show how they could function as a neighborhood as opposed to the independent project. One of the implementation strategies of the master plan could be modeling.
Referring to previous discussions, Ms. McDonough commented on the effectiveness of the RMU zone and felt it was worthy of discussion. Mr. Dansie noted that there are three major zoning districts in the east downtown area between the library and Trolley Square. There is a petition currently in process to change the CC district to Trans-Corridor, which is much more housing friendly. A huge block of RMU lies to the north, and the rest is Residential Office, RO. He pointed out that RMU is only mapped in this area and nowhere else in the City, so any change to the text regarding RMU would only affect what they see on this map. He explained the history of the City zoning beginning in 1927 and leading up to the current zoning.
Mr. Muir stated that he understood the Redevelopment Agency and Staff had been talking with developers about creating housing around Library Square. They had not been able to solicit much interest and were entertaining the idea of taking on the task themselves. Mr. Goldsmith explained that they are most specifically talking about the City Center parcel which the RDA has been marketing for several years. It is not true that private developers are not interested, and they are negotiating intensely with Price-Prowswood on how to modify earlier restrictions placed on that parcel. Negotiations are ongoing, and schematic designs for the site have been provided by some developers. Mr. Goldsmith believed they would see this debate come to a head within the next few weeks. There have been many administrations which believe the City should not become the housing or office developer.
Chair Daniels asked Mr. Goldsmith to comment on what developers might be feeling about height limitations on developing housing in the library area. Mr. Goldsmith replied that he was looking at two proposals where height was not being debated. One parcel proposed on 500 South would be a four-story structure at the 50-foot height that has been discussed. The Ken Holman project ended up being 75 feet on 600 East. In terms of developer conversations regarding height, there have been developers across the City wanting to do 20- to 25-story housing developments on the library block. At the time they did not feel that was an appropriate conversation because they were addressing the open space piece and did not think a 25-story building around the library would be appropriate. After debating density and height, Mr. Goldsmith stated that, because of land values, the developers wanted to get as much density as possible on the smallest piece of land. The higher they are allowed to go, the more units they will need to absorb over time. If they place a cap, it will have to spread out. He stated that this is an instance where they could use the expertise of good modeling. Trying to visualize these things is easier for those who have done it all their professional lives, but the rest of the community has a hard time visualizing it.
Chair Daniels asked if there was a drawing showing what 4th South might look like in the next generation or two. Mr. Goldsmith replied that he had not seen any, and that was precisely what he had been talking about. It can easily be done with modeling using a video to show how one building goes up and another goes down over time. Chair Daniels stated a preference for modeling that Mr. Goldsmith had described. Everyone has their own vision, but the most fruitful vision would be one they could all share. Mr. Goldsmith suggested that the Planning Commission send a letter to the City Council or RDA requesting funds for this type of modeling. Mr. Goldsmith estimated that it would cost $25,000 to $35,000 for modeling of the street from 200 East to 700 East. Mr. Daniels felt the cost would be beneficial and suggested that the Planning Commission consider drafting a letter to the City Council. Mr. Chambless offered to draft a letter for the Planning Commission to approve.
Mr. Dansie asked if the Planning Commission was committed to the current square overlay or whether they might be interested in modifying it. He asked if it was appropriate to force housing on the Trolley Square, Modern Display, and Fred Meyer blocks. Ms. McDonough stated that she would prefer to see alternatives. She believed a blanket rectangle overlay would pose some problems. She felt they should look at options on the basis of comparison. Chair Daniels agreed that options would be nice and commented that a rectangular overlay has already been deemed somewhat arbitrary. Mr. Muir asked if the overlay boundary could occur mid-block to preserve streetscapes. Mr. Dansie replied that he prepared a draft of how the overlay might work including both sides of the street and would return with proposals for an overlay and how they could change the base zoning district.
Mr. Muir commented on the scale of the streets and asked if density could be modified to respond. Mr. Goldsmith stated that it is one thing to look at the size of the buildings and model them, but another urban form question is to look conceptually at South Temple to 900 South. Ms. McDonough suggested that a sectional analysis be built into their request for dimensional software.
Chair Daniels allowed Jacob Meadows, a member of the audience, to make comment. Mr. Meadows wanted to know the Planning Commission’s attitude on density and why they worry about having too much density. Mr. Dansie commented that it is a matter of perception. A duplex may be high density to some people, and to other people 150 units per acre is high density. Another reason for modeling is to see exactly what a certain number of units per acre would look like. Mr. Meadows asked about ill effects of a high density area. Mr. Dansie replied that an argument could be made that it increases traffic, population, pedestrian traffic, etc.
Ms. Funk referred to Mr. Muir’s earlier comments and felt it was important to look at the neighborhood aspect all the way through. She did not think they should look at this as being only for 400 South or South Temple or any single street. If it is a good procedure, it should be good for anywhere in the City. Chair Daniels stated that the modeling procedures and software he had in mind could be used anywhere in Salt Lake City. After polling the Commissioners for a consensus, Chair Daniels directed Mr. Dansie to proceed according to the discussion.
Chair Daniels commented on condominiumization of apartments and asked about the history and whether the Planning Commission ever considered tracking them. Mr. Wilde offered to provide numbers.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.