SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 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, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda. John Diamond was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey, and Planners Melissa Anderson, Everett Joyce, and Greg Mikolash
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, August 1, 2002
Chair Daniels asked that the minutes reflect that Cheri Coffey was present at the last meeting.
Mr. Muir referred to page 11 and asked that Warsaw’s Market be corrected to read Warshaw’s Market. Stephen Goldsmith noted that this correction should be made throughout the text. Mr. Muir referred to page 15, middle paragraph, and asked that the word implicit be replaced with combined. The corrected sentence would read, “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.
Mr. Chambless referred to page 4, fifth line from the top, and noted that the wording “the plan it to install concrete block” should be changed to read, “the plan is to install concrete block. He referred to page 11, fifth line from the bottom, and asked that “. population area of the Valley .be changed to read, “most populated area of the Valley”
Motion
Laurie Noda moved to approve the minutes of August 1, 2002, as corrected. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas abstained as he did not attend the August 1st meeting. John Diamond was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Stephen Goldsmith commented on a memo from Joel Paterson to the Planning Commission asking them to initiate rezoning of parcels from institutional to R-1-5000. The request for the rezone is due to City error. If the rezone is initiated by the Planning Commission, the property owner will not be required to pay the $500 zoning amendment fee.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to direct the Staff to initiate Joel Paterson’s petition for a rezone as requested. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” John Diamond was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Goldsmith reported that the Planning Commission retreat is scheduled for September 14 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Staff is still looking for a location for the retreat. Margaret Hunt will be the facilitator. The time and place will be confirmed at the next Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-594, by Ron Hill, requesting a conditional use approval to allow an accessory use of a 420 square foot aviary on the lot adjacent to the applicant’s single family residence, located at 421 E 600 South Street. The property is located in an RMF-45 zoning district.
Planner Everett Joyce reviewed the conditional use petition for an accessory use which is typically allowed on a principal lot in a residential district. Since the aviary would be an accessory use on an adjacent parcel, it must go through the conditional use process. The property owner has chosen not to combine the lots, which would be one option. If he were to remove the lot line, he could not reestablish separate lots in the future under the ordinance. Mr. Joyce explained that a condition of approval would require that the property owner maintain ownership of the two parcels as long as there is an accessory use on the adjacent lot. Another condition would require the property owner to maintain the appropriate required animal control permits. Another condition requires that both parcels be considered as one property and that the applicant not exceed the ordinance limitation on the number of animals permitted. The properties are located at 419 and 421 South 600 East. The single-family home is to the west, with the remainder of the property containing the aviary, a garden, and a patio. Based on the findings in the staff report, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this accessory use on an accessory lot with the conditions in the staff report.
Mr. Jonas commented that the first part of Condition 3 sounds more like a finding. Based on the language in Condition 1, he was unsure why the first part of Condition 3 was needed. Mr. Joyce explained that, if animals are approved on the accessory lot, the owner would not have the right to include another set of animals on his principal lot, and to prevent doubling the quantity of animals permitted.
Ron Hill, the Petitioner, explained that he has an aviary, and his hobby of keeping birds started when he was 14. He stated that there is no profit involved in this venture, and he usually loses money every year. Birds are not high producers like dogs or cats, and they typically lay two eggs a year. Possibly those eggs will be fertile and hatch. Mr. Hill stated that he does not keep the birds from the few eggs that do hatch, and he finds homes for them. He stated that the birds add a nice environment to his yard.
Ms. Arnold asked how long Mr. Hill had lived at that address. Mr. Hill replied that he had been there since 1991. He landscaped the side yard and planted trees and flowers. He noted that the aviary opens up the block and breaks up the rows of houses. The accessory lot is not big enough to accommodate a residence, and he believed this was a good use along with the patio and garden.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Arlan Winterton, representing the Town Park Homeowners Association, asked how this aviary could be permitted in a residential district. Mr. Joyce replied that zoning is for multi-family uses, and all residential zones in the City allow animals. He explained that this would be a permitted use, but because Mr. Hill wants to use a separate property, he must get conditional use approval. Mr. Winterton asked about the number of birds. Mr. Joyce replied that there would be ten cockatoos and four chickens. Mr. Winterton verified with Staff that the number of birds would not increase. Mr. Hill explained that the flights are outdoors and are cleaned out every spring. He noted that birds do not generate much odor. Mr. Winterton commented that birds are noisy, particularly in the morning and at night, and asked if the noise could be controlled. Mr. Hill replied that when the sun comes up or goes down, it triggers a natural behavior. In the winter, the birds would be in the shelter, which greatly reduces the noise. He explained that when it gets dark, birds quiet down and sleep, unlike barking dogs. Mr. Winterton asked if the birds would attract mosquitos or other insects. Mr. Hill stated that he did not think mosquitos would be a problem. Mr. Winterton stated that he opposed the petition due to noise. He stated that the Town Park homeowners were also concerned with the amount of waste and number of birds.
Patricia Roylance spoke in support of the petition. She stated that she manages apartments across the street from the petition and took on that responsibility in order to clean up the neighborhood and push out the drug dealers. As a member of neighborhood watch, she was anxious to keep the neighborhood cleaned up for her and her family. When Mr. Hill brought in the chickens and birds, it was like bringing the country to the City, and she thought it was wonderful. She stated that the birds have not been obnoxious and are much quieter than dogs or cats. She had learned that it takes three days for mosquitos to hatch, so if people keep their water containers emptied, there should not be a problem. She did not think noise would be a problem. There has never been any smell or flies and, in her opinion, this aviary improves the neighborhood.
Julie Hill, the Petitioner’s wife, stated that they have tried to be good neighbors and have always been sensitive to noise. On occasion they have canvassed the neighborhood to ask the neighbors if there were any concerns or problems that needed to be corrected. When someone has a complaint, they do what they can to try to resolve it. She stated that one neighbor went to bed at 9:00 p.m., and during the summer that is when the sun goes down and the birds “call home their flock.” After hearing his complaint, she became sensitive to the noise which lasts about 20 minutes and would try to scare the birds inside. Ms. Hill discussed the poor condition they found the cockatoos in when they purchased them and explained that the aviary provided larger cages and plenty of room to move around and fly. They took them from an unhealthy situation and put them in a safe environment. She was concerned about what type of situation the birds would end up in if they are not allowed to keep the aviary. She noted that she and her husband presented their case at council meetings two months in a row, and this request was supported. She commented on another letter that was sent to the Planning Department in support of this petition.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Winterton if his concerns had been alleviated by the Hills’ comments. Mr. Winterton replied that the Homeowners Association members had no idea what to expect, but after hearing the explanation this evening, he did not oppose the request.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Kay (berger) Arnold stated that when she drove by the property it was evident that the property is well maintained and a beautiful asset to the street. With the outside of the home being as meticulous as it appears, she was confident that the aviary was equally maintained and that the birds would be an asset to the neighborhood.
Ms. Funk agreed and stated that, because it is an allowed use in the neighborhood, she felt the Planning Commission would have difficulty denying it.
Motion for Petition No. 410-594
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 410-594 by Ron Hill approving a conditional use to allow an accessory building at 421 East 600 South based on the findings of fact and the three conditions specified in the staff report. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed development requires conditional use approval as per Section 21A.24.190 of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance.
B. The proposed residential accessory use is in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinance. The use is compatible with the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable master plans.
C. The accessory use will not materially degrade the service level on adjacent streets.
D. An internal circulation system standard for the accessory use is not relevant.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate.
F. A building permit was issued for the accessory structure with a site plan layout that meets setback requirements. The keeping of animals in a manner that creates a nuisance is subject to penalty.
G. The aviary is consistent with the existing site and accessory uses on the property. The accessory structure is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and maintains a residential character. The landscaping on the accessory lot is appropriate for residential land use.
H. The accessory lot maintains the required landscaped yard areas. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development.
I. The accessory lot use does not impact historical, architectural, and environmental features on the property.
J. Residential accessory uses are compatible land uses, and the aviary does not have conflicting operating and delivery hours.
K. The 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 accessory use and lot are adjacent and under the same ownership. The accessory lot is landscaped similar to the principal lot. The accessory building is properly located and meets the height requirement. The adjacent residential structure is approximately 25 feet from the aviary. The aviary is in compliance with regulations for an accessory use on an accessory lot. With Planning Commission conditional use approval, the aviary would be brought into compliance with all City codes.
Conditions
1. The property owner maintains common ownership of the principal residence and the accessory lot.
2. The applicant maintains applicable animal control permits.
3. That both parcels are considered as one property and that the applicant does not exceed the ordinance limitations on the number of animals permitted for a single property.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” John Diamond was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-610, by the LDS Church - Special Projects Division, requesting a Conditional Use approval for a parking structure located at approximately 1850 East South Campus drive in an “I” Institutional zoning district on a 21-acre site.
Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the petition as described in the staff report and presented the site plan, four elevations, and a color rendering of all the structures on the 21-acre site. He indicated the location of the parking structure and reported that a conditional use approval was granted for the institute of religion parking lot over a year ago which is directly west of the proposed parking structure. The structure will be leased parking, off-site parking, and a park and ride lot. The University of Utah does not own the property and will lease parking from the LDS church. The proposed parking structure is a three level parking structure with three levels above ground on the west side of the building and two levels below ground on the east side, accommodating 656 parking stalls. Materials and lighting will match the Institute of Religion building. Mr. Mikolash explained the process that resulted in the plans presented this evening and stated that Staff was pleased with the results. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this petition with four conditions. According to the zoning ordinance, since this is connected to off-site parking, a lease or deed agreement is necessary between the two institutions, which is addressed in Condition 4. Condition 3 states that the Planning Director will approve the final landscape plan, and a landscape plan has been submitted. The master plan prohibits up lighting, and Condition 2 addresses this lighting requirement. Condition 1 requires compliance with all City departmental comments and recommendations, and all City departments are comfortable with this petition. Drainage issues were addressed with Brad Stewart who believed the drainage issues could be worked out.
Ms. Arnold verified with Staff that the property owner is the LDS Church. She asked if the Planning Commission could require a lease agreement for a term longer than five years. Mr. Goldsmith stated that he was unsure if the Planning Commission could require that, because it would be an agreement between two separate parties.
Mr. Muir asked if the condition that the parking structure look like the church was imposed by Staff or the applicant. Mr. Mikolash replied that the applicant volunteered to do that, and Staff was pleased with the suggestion. It was not a requirement.
Ms. McDonough asked Mr. Mikolash to indicate the pedestrian route from a parked car to enter or exit the structure. Mr. Mikolash preferred that the Petitioner explain the route.
Mr. Muir remarked that the pedestrian route is a big concern, particularly with light rail and times of special events. He hoped this would be carefully orchestrated by Staff rather than leaving it to the property owners.
Mr. Chambless agreed and noted that he could not find the location of the light rail stop. He asked if law enforcement would be available to direct traffic on special event nights. He noted that the Staff report does not indicate whether the University of Utah would have parking on the bottom two levels of the parking structure or whether it will be fully integrated. Mr. Mikolash replied that, in speaking with a representative from the University, he learned that the first two levels would be leased to the University of Utah. One question that has not been answered is whether the structure will be gated. Mr. Mikolash noted that a gate would create flow problems, particularly during special events. Mr. Chambless discussed the structure exceeding 35 feet. Mr. Mikolash explained that would require separate conditional use process, and he was unsure if that was contemplated. Mr. Chambless asked if an emergency pole was planned near this facility. Mr. Mikolash felt that could best be answered by the Petitioner.
Ms. Funk suggested sorting out the questions within the Planning Commission’s purview and eliminating discussion of items the Planning Commission cannot control or regulate. Mr. Goldsmith commented on issues that are not within the Planning Commission’s purview and explained that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend that these concerns be studied.
Mr. Mikolash reported that the petition has been approved by the City Transportation Department. Enforcement and congestion issues are within the purview of the University Traffic Department, and contractual issues are between the University and the property owner.
Mr. Jonas referred to Standard B and the reference to the East Bench Master Plan. The language discusses how institutions must incorporate provisions for resolving traffic problems in their long-range planning, but nothing in the findings addresses that. He asked how this could be seen as resolving traffic problems. Mr. Mikolash replied that the language says “their long range planning,” so if it meets [their] goals, the City is fine with it. Mr. Jonas felt that the traffic problems would be the City’s. Mr. Mikolash reiterated that the City Transportation Department is comfortable with this plan. Mr. Jonas referred to Standard F and the discussion in the zoning ordinance that all uses and development shall provide adequate lighting to insure safety and security. He believed lighting was a major issue in this case because of late night uses. He felt that the finding only referred to buffering, and it was his opinion that buffering was not as critical as safety issues. He suggested that the finding address that. Mr. Goldsmith agreed and asked that the Planning Commission require the Planning Director to approve the final lighting plan. He could also review the plan with the CPTED people at the Police Department.
Chair Daniels noted that Finding B refers to a three-level parking structure and asked if that addresses only the levels above ground. Mr. Mikolash replied that two levels will be underground only on the north side. He explained that his earlier reference to five levels on the field trip was incorrect. There are three levels total. Three will be visible above ground on the west elevation, and one is visible above grade on the east elevation.
Sean Onyon, representing the Petitioner, answered questions raised by the Planning Commission. He indicated the location of the light rail station and transportation on South Campus Drive. He explained that there would be a light at the intersection, but he was unsure if the light would be installed during construction of the station or after. He explained the route the light rail would take and indicated the entrance and egress for the parking structure and the pedestrian walkways to stairs and elevators.
Mr. Chambless asked about the bus shelter and an additional pedestrian crossing. Mr. Onyon replied that the bus shelter location allows stacking of buses. He deferred the question of other pedestrian crossings to Trax, because they laid out the plan. Mr. Chambless asked if “right turn only” signs would be posted on the exit to South Campus Drive. Mr. Onyon replied that the intersection will be posted, because traffic cannot cross the tracks.
Ms. McDonough referred to the rendering, noting that the center portion of the structure looks glazed with a pediment and asked what would go on behind that. Mr. Onyon replied that it is metal that looks glazed. With the structure being completely open, there is no need for glass. The institute building has the same pediment arrangement, and the intent was to give more definition to the parking structure. Ms. McDonough was concerned that it could be mistaken for a pedestrian entry.
Mr. Jonas was unclear on the pedestrian access to the parking garage and stated that the one on the east side appears to go nowhere. Mr. Onyon explained that it was included to accommodate handicapped parking. People could use it to access the bus shelter or go out the other way. Mr. Jonas clarified that there is no crosswalk on the east side, so people would have to come out the extreme west side and walk around instead of going directly north out of the structure. Mr. Onyon explained that the stairs that serve all three parking levels come down at that location. They also hoped to draw people into the intersection to use the crosswalk across South Campus Drive. Mr. Jonas expressed concern about the lack of crosswalks and the pedestrian flow. He understood those questions were out of the Planning Commission’s purview, but he felt it was important for the Petitioner to know their concerns. Mr. Chambless agreed and expressed concern about jaywalking and pedestrian safety.
Ms. McDonough asked the widths of the sidewalks. Mr. Onyon replied that the sidewalks are 6 feet wide, and the one along the Trax line is 8 feet wide.
Norm Chambers, representing the University of Utah, stated that the University of Utah is working with the LDS Church on this project. He offered to verify whether there are crosswalks in the areas of concern to the Commissioners. He explained that some crosswalks were considered but eliminated due to safety issues with TRAX.
Chair Daniels stated that he could not remember a special event when the University Police or someone else was not there to help direct traffic and take care of public safety. Mr. Chambers stated that the University would continue that enforcement. He referred to the contract between the LDS Church and the University and noted that the term of the agreement will be 25 years. He explained that they plan to install emergency phones on each end of each parking level.
Mr. Muir complimented the LDS Church for providing this asset and sharing it with the University. He believed the LDS Church should be recognized for this wonderful gesture.
Mr. Chambers remarked that the parking structure is an integral part of the light rail project, and the park and ride spaces are being counted as matching funds toward the project. He noted that the light rail project has been helpful to the University, and they are encouraged by the positive impact it has had on parking and traffic.
Mr. Chambless asked about gates. Mr. Chambers replied that gates are not planned for this structure as they damage cars and traffic does not move as well as it should. Mr. Chambless asked if plan provides for full integration between the University and the Church. Mr. Chambers explained that the University is planning to lease approximately two-thirds of the structure. They are waiting for the LDS Church to determine which level they would like, and the University will take the remaining two levels. Mr. Chambless asked if consideration had been given to putting in another level further below grade. Mr. Chambers stated that he believed cost was a factor. The original plan was for five levels, but the City requested that it be lower, and the structure has not been engineered for additional floors.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Chair Daniels echoed Mr. Muir’s comments and commended the LDS Church and complimented the University of Utah for working together on excellent planning. Chair Daniels requested that both parties consider making this safer by adding more crosswalks. Ms. Funk stated that she did not think more crosswalks would be safer because the pedestrians would have to cross Trax. Mr. Daniels believed that would happen anyway because people will jaywalk. Ms. Funk noted that the University has planned major intersections where people can cross, and they are safer than crossing in the middle of the block. Mr. Goldsmith explained that it is not a City street, so the City cannot control it, but he offered to recommend that the City Transportation Department take another look at it. Mr. Chambless stated that he supported that idea.
Motion for Petition 410-610
In the matter of Petition 410-610, a request by the LDS Church Special Projects Division for conditional use approval of a parking structure and off-site parking in the “I” Institutional zoning district on a 3.98-acre site just east of the University of Utah Institute of Religion building at 1820 East South Campus Drive, and based upon the findings of fact and the testimony heard, Jeff Jonas moved to approve this petition subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all City department comments and recommendations.
2. That any new lighting being placed outside the perimeter of the parking structure be shielded to prevent uplighting/light pollution.
3. That the Planning Director approves the final landscape plan.
4. Submittal of a deed/lease agreement showing contractual relationships between the University of Utah and the property owner.
5. That the Planning Director approve the lighting plan.
Tim Chambless seconded the motion and asked Mr. Jonas if his motion addressed the concerns for an additional crosswalk. Mr. Jonas added to his motion the Planning Commission’s suggestion to the applicant, the Transportation Department, the State of Utah, or whoever controls the street, to address the crosswalk issue as well as the issue of ingress and egress to the parking structure.
Findings of Fact
A. Parking structures and off-site parking may be approved as a conditional use in the “I” Institutional zoning district.
B. The proposed three-level parking structure will be constructed to match the architecture of neighboring buildings and will be in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City.
C. South Campus Drive will adequately carry anticipated traffic, and the proposed parking lot will serve to upgrade the service level of traffic on adjacent streets. The Development Review Team has reviewed development proposals for the site and has approved the transportation issues. Having reviewed abutting site development and the functions of the roadway classifications with shared usage by the Trax system, it was determined not to require a Traffic Impact Report on this location.
D. The intent of constructing the parking structure is to upgrade the existing parking and circulation problems that currently exist on site.
E. Existing utilities will serve the development in a manner that will not have an adverse impact to adjacent land uses or resources.
F. Appropriate buffering will be provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts. Safety and security lighting have been addressed.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent and compatible with adjacent structures.
H. Landscape buffering must be installed where/if applicable subject to Section 21A.48 - Landscaping and Buffering, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping as proposed will be appropriate for the scale of this development.
I. To the City’s knowledge there are no historically significant features on the property.
J. The proposed parking structure in association with off-site parking will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact.
K. The proposed development must comply with all other applicable codes and ordinances; initiation of the development review process and application for a building permit will ensure compliance with all codes.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Muir recalled discussion at the last meeting about more clearly defining the notion of compatibility and asked if this project was exemplary of compatibility. He knew design was not within their purview, and that is why he did not mention it during the petition discussion, but in his opinion, making a parking structure with long span trusses to look like a pitched roof is like making a banana look like a cockatoo. Mr. Goldsmith explained that the ability to address compatibility with the University of Utah for this project is something the City cannot exercise. Mr. Muir understood that the Staff could not influence the design, but it was characterized that Staff encouraged the Petitioner to go down this road. Mr. Goldsmith stated that he was not personally involved in those conversations, but Staff shared the opinion that they would like to see design review on all matters.
Ms. McDonough believed that the issue of compatibility eventually gets into design review. For design review purposes, she asked if there could be a better definition for compatibility to help Staff encourage the applicant as they go through the process. Mr. Goldsmith felt this would be an appropriate discussion for the September retreat, because it is impossible to have compatibility without good design review. Chair Daniels asked that this issue be added to the retreat agenda.
Jeff Jonas left the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-612, by the Salt Lake City Police Department, requesting a conditional use permit for the property located at 1040 West 700 South, including the portion of the property abutting the Jordan River Parkway, to facilitate the renovation and expansion of the existing building for a new Salt Lake City Police Pioneer Precinct. Modifications to the existing building and site generally include additions to the north and west side of the building, a parking lot, and landscaping improvements.
Petition No. 400-02-24, by the Salt Lake City Police Department, requesting a rezone of the western portion of the property located at 1040 West 700 South, abutting the Jordan River Parkway, from R-1-7000 residential to the Public Lands (PL) Zone. The site is proposed for use as the new Salt Lake City Pioneer Precinct.
Planner Melissa Anderson reported that this project was previously seen by the Planning Commission for a rezone for the site of the proposed Pioneer Precinct at 1040 West 700 South. The rezone was completed by the City Council on June 4, 2002, but due to a discrepancy between the property description and site layout, Staff is processing a rezone for the parcel adjacent to the Jordan River. Additionally, to allow this project to move forward and resume the construction schedule, the Petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit for a municipal service facility in the R-7-7000 Zone. Ms. Anderson explained that many aspects of the project are similar, and some adjustments were made with respect to the Jordan River, including increasing the setback from the Jordan River so the total setback is 72 feet from the river bank. She used a map to illustrate the adjustments and discussed challenges for the designers to maintain the setback with landscape on the North side of the property that was approved by the Planning Commission. She clarified that the trail is not jeopardized. The mature trees around the parking lot will remain, and the plan is to give credit for interior landscaping, by retaining the mature trees. The total hard surface area has been decreased, and the public parking previously included was shifted to diagonal parking on the street with a walkway to the facility. The ordinance requires 75 stalls, and 79 stalls are provided. The staff report included the same fencing description that was proposed on the north side, and Ms. Anderson presented an elevation showing the wooden fence and existing chain link fence. The description in the previous staff report did not foresee any changes, but the applicant does have concerns and would like to discuss the fencing on the north side with the Planning Commission. Staff suggested that the fence be light proofed to mitigate lighting from the parking lot for the residents on the north and that the materials should be consistent with what the neighbors had expected. Staff commented that the fencing should be able to mitigate the impact of the parking lot. Ms. Anderson stated that Staff supports the project and would like the applicant to proceed with their construction schedule. The only two conditions are that the gun range be designed to meet the noise ordinance and that the final landscape plan approval be given to the Planning Director for review for drought tolerant landscaping and CPTED requirements.
Mr. Muir asked if any conditions from the previous approval were carried forward. Ms. Anderson replied that the previous conditions were implemented in the design, much of which referred to the buffering on the north and increased landscaping. She noted that a project is planned along the Jordan River Parkway that will proceed after this project is underway. It will include only landscaping improvements and will be covered as a separate budget item.
Ms. Funk asked if the parking lot would handle its own runoff and was told that it would. Ms. Funk referred to a request that any pesticides used on plants to the west would not be allowed to go into the Jordan River. She asked if there was a process by which the drainage system could be worked out to keep that from happening. Ms. Anderson replied that it is a tricky issue, and she preferred to have the representative from the Public Utilities Department clarify that issue.
Brad Stewart, representing the Public Utilities Department, explained that it is difficult to create a cut-off trench to catch chemicals. Any time there is a setback area from a stream, it behooves the property owner to be very careful in the application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. Mr. Stewart stated that the parking lot drainage goes through the regular public system, which ultimately goes to the Jordan River. Ms. Funk asked if there was any reasonable way to catch those pesticides. Mr. Stewart replied that best management practices must be exercised by the property owner. He explained that cut-off trenches would do more damage to the frontage than leaving it the way it is. Mr. Goldsmith asked if placing drought-tolerant plants on the west would require less pesticide. Mr. Stewart replied that native plants require less chemical maintenance.
Gaylord Smith, representing Salt Lake City Engineering, explained that the gun range will be designed by the architect with assistance from an acoustic engineer. Regarding pesticides, he stated that there is no plan to use pesticides for any reason as part of the construction process. What City Parks does beyond that is a separate issue. He explained the water retention and drainage process. He clarified that all conditions from the previous approval have been honored. He commented on the fence and the difference of opinion on what they agreed to. The record states that they agreed to a wood fence along the property line. One neighbor has a wood fence already, and another neighbor has a chain link fence. They would both like to keep their fences, and Mr. Smith did not want to put up a fence that would require a lot of maintenance. What they intended as a visual buffer was a slatted chain link fence.
Ms. McDonough referred to the landscape plan contained in the staff report and construction documents offering additive alternatives. She asked what would not be in the plan if these were not accepted. One was the employee patio, another was improvements to the east side, and third was covered parking.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Mike Johnson, a resident at 622 South Senate Circle on the north side of the project commented on the sound buffer. He stated that work continues late at night, and nothing has been done to accommodate them. Construction begins at 8:00 a.m., which is difficult when you have only been asleep for a few hours. He was not opposed to the plan and liked the idea of having a precinct in the neighborhood. He did have issues with how they would be accommodated over the next two years with construction going on and they have to work nights and sleep days. He stated that he bought his house in a well-developed area so he would not have to contend with construction. There is a nice stream in the backyard, and it is a comfortable place to live. and they did not think they would have to contend with jack hammers. He stated that an agreement was made at the last meeting for some type of visual and sound buffer on the back side of the wall, but nothing has been done. He attended this evening to express his displeasure and concern with how things are going. He stated that he had not been notified of landscaping or anything that was being done and wanted to know his options.
Lori Monteforr, a resident at 622 Senate Circle, stated that they tried to find a tape recorder to record what they hear from the middle of their home. She supported the project but wanted to know how much longer they would have to deal with the noise. She stated that they have been awakened by construction workers arguing. She asked if the huge roll-up doors could be closed when the men are working. She stated that it is very disturbing to be awakened by construction noise and vehicles. They bought their house in the area so they could enjoy peace and serenity. She expressed concern about the shooting range. If they can hear this kind of noise with construction, she wondered what they would hear with the shooting range. This has been a disruption of their lives, and she wanted to know when they could expect it to end.
Mr. Johnson stated that their backyard used to be their favorite place to garden or read books, but since the construction has been going on, their backyard is no longer enjoyable, and they no longer find any serenity.
Mr. Smith stated that the demolition is done, so the jack hammers should have quit. Mr. Johnson replied that jack hammers woke them up this morning. Mr. Smith offered to check into that, because the noise should be finished. In terms of schedule, assuming they can obtain a building permit, they plan to break ground in October and finish in October next year. Mr. Smith reviewed the construction process and what could be expected in terms of noise and timing. Mr. Johnson noted that there is a considerable difference in noise when the doors are up or down and asked if the doors could be kept down as much as possible. Mr. Smith stated that the demolition contractors should be through, and he hoped the workers under the next contract would be more sensitive. He asked Mr. Johnson to call him when there is a problem.
Chair Daniels recalled a verbal agreement that Mr. Smith would do whatever he could to keep the construction from disrupting the neighbors’ peace and quiet. If the jack hammer has to work four hours a day, he felt it should be later in the day so Mr. Johnson and Ms. Monteforr could sleep. Mr. Smith explained that the work hours are regulated by County ordinance, but he would do what he could. Chair Daniels asked Mr. Johnson and Ms. Monteforr to provide Mr. Smith with reasonable times when the jack hammer could be used. Mr. Smith stated that he was willing to work with the neighbors, but he could not guarantee that the contractors would abide by those times. Mr. Johnson stated that he knew construction must go on and was not asking them to bend over backwards to accommodate them because they do not work normal hours. He was only asking for reasonable consideration for the disruption of their lives.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the fence line. If a fence were added behind his, it would create a strip for trash and weeds to collect.
Ms. Monteforr asked about the shooting range. Mr. Smith replied that they should not be able to hear any sound above 50 decibels at the property line.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Arnold asked if concrete sound walls similar to those along the freeway could be used temporarily to help with the construction noise. Mr. Smith replied that concrete is a reflective surface that would amplify the sound. Sound also flows over things as demonstrated by other sound walls. He preferred to work with the neighbors on acceptable hours.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-24
Arla Funk moved that Petition 400-02-24 to rezone the property located at 1040 West 700 South, the western portion of the property which was left off the last rezone petition, be approved and sent to City Council for further approval. Mr. Muir seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed rezone to PL is consistent with the future land use map, and the policies related to the Jordan River as well as police services of the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan. The proposal is consistent with the policies of 1) the Salt Lake City Open Space Plan by providing a large setback against the Jordan River Parkway; and 2) the Salt Lake City Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report by providing neighborhood police offices an a visible neighborhood police presence in the West Salt Lake community.
B. The proposal includes reusing an existing vacant building for a new police precinct to better serve the community. The zone change to PL is consistent with the previous and proposed land use and harmonious with the overall character of existing development.
C. The new public facility will increase activity on the property with a 24-hour police station that operates throughout the year. Impacts to the adjacent properties have been mitigated with landscaping, buffers, fencing, and an increased setback to the Jordan River Parkway. The facility will be designed and constructed to mitigate noise disturbances to the neighborhood and to meet the requirements of the noise ordinance. The Pioneer Police Precinct will also benefit the West Salt Lake Community by increasing the police presence in the neighborhood, ensuring adequate response time, and providing space for the public gatherings and local community meetings.
D. The proposed site modifications adhere to the setback regulations of the Lowland Conservancy Overlay District.
E. The proposed police station will add a benefit to the community by increasing the public facilities serving the area. The public utilities and streets are adequate to serve the new facility, and the Jordan River Parkway is protected.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas and John Diamond were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition No. 410-612
In the matter of Petition 410-612 and based on the findings of fact in the staff report, Arla Funk moved to approve the conditional use permit with conditions 1 and 2 outlined in the staff report with the addition of Condition 3 that the lighting and fencing design be approved by the Planning Director and Condition 4 that, as far as possible, natural and drought-tolerant plants be used on the west side of the building to reduce the runoff into the Jordan River. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir suggested an addition to the motion stipulating that no construction begin before 8:00 a.m. Ms. Funk stated that she was not comfortable adding that to her motion because contractors have their own schedules, and it is difficult to direct what they do. Mr. Smith could make that request, but she believed it was unreasonable for the Planning Commission to make it part of the petition. Mr. Muir did not think is was unusual to impose these restrictions on grocery store deliveries, but he respected Ms. Funk’s unwillingness to accept his amendment. Ms. Funk noted that grocery store deliveries are long term, and this construction is temporary. Ms. McDonough was comfortable with the proposed amendment because time restrictions can be imposed, and part of the Planning Commission’s job is to evaluate the issues and mitigate the impacts. She believed this was a reasonable request and not beyond the ability of the contractor to negotiate. Mr. Chambless agreed that this is a reasonable accommodation in terms of time, place, and manner. He believed it was fair and made sense. Chair Daniels encouraged Ms. Funk to reconsider, because Mr. Muir was only suggesting that the contractor hold off one hour. Ms. Funk preferred to keep her motion as stated.
Ms. Funk voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Nay.” John Diamond and Jeff Jonas were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Motion for Petition No. 410-612
Prescott Muir moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition 410-612 for a conditional use permit based upon the findings of fact and including conditions 1 and 2 in the Staff report, Condition 3 that fencing be approved by the Planning Director, and Condition 4 that construction not commence before 8:00 a.m. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Ms. Funk suggested that Mr. Muir include lighting in Condition 3. Mr. Muir accepted the amendment to his motion.
Findings of Fact
A. Municipal services are listed as a conditional use in the R-1-7000 Zone (21A.24.190).
B. The proposed project is consistent with the future land use map and the policies related to the Jordan River as well as police services of the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan. The proposal is also consistent with the policies of 1) the Salt Lake City Open Space Plan by providing a large setback against the Jordan River Parkway; and 2) the Salt Lake City Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report by providing neighborhood police offices and a visible neighborhood police presence in the West Salt Lake Community.
C. The streets are adequate for the development, and pedestrian access is provided.
D. The internal circulation system is adequate for the proposed development.
E. The proposed police station will add a benefit to the community by increasing the public facilities serving the area. Utility services are adequate for the proposed development and must meet city design standards during site plan review.
F. Impacts to the adjacent properties have been mitigated with landscaping, buffers, fencing, and an increased setback to the Jordan River Parkway. The facility will be designed and constructed to mitigate noise disturbances to the neighborhood and to meet the requirements of the noise ordinance. The Pioneer Police Precinct will also benefit the West Salt Lake Community by increasing the police presence in the neighborhood, ensuring adequate response time, and providing space for public gatherings and local community meetings.
G. The proposal includes reusing an existing vacant building for a new police precinct to better serve the community. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
H. The landscaping is appropriate for the project and is used to mitigate potential impacts effectively. Staff recommends that final landscaping design approval is given to the Planning Director to ensure that: 1) CPTED requirements are addressed; and 2) drought-tolerant landscaping is used to the extent possible, especially near the parkway.
I. The site plan adheres to the setback regulations of the Lowland Conservancy Overlay District, and the State Division of Parks and Recreation has approved the proposal. The setback to the Jordan River has been increased to benefit the parkway, and mature trees on the site have been preserved.
J. The new public facility will increase activity on the property with a 24-hour police station that operates throughout the year. Measures to mitigate the impact to the surrounding properties have been incorporated into the design such as fencing, buffering, landscaping and structural design features.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. Compliance with all other applicable codes will be required prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Conditions
1. The final landscaping plan is reviewed for CPTED compliance and drought tolerant landscaping with approval by the Planning Director.
2. The gun range is designed by an acoustical engineer and constructed to meet the sound ordinance.
3. Fencing and lighting shall be approved by the Planning Director.
4. Construction shall not commence before 8:00 a.m.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” John Diamond and Jeff Jonas were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Continued discussion of the Central Community Master Plan
Mr. Joyce reported that several issues were raised by the Planning Commission at the last meeting, and the Staff has responded to those issues in the staff report.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Muir if the definitions of sustainable and compatible covered his request from the last meeting. Mr. Muir felt they were adequate for now. Sustainable may not have the same meaning in ten years, so he felt it was good to place more substance on what they think it means. Mr. Goldsmith explained that the definition selected by Mr. Joyce is internationally accepted at this time.
Ms. Funk referred to the text on page 4 of the staff report regarding neighborhood commercial designations and asked where it would be in the master plan. Mr. Joyce replied that it would be on page 43 in the commercial section. Ms. Funk expressed concern about the map being labeled commercial or being changed to non-conforming commercial properties evaluation. She was concerned with the word commercial being used over and over again, because it points to where they want to end up. She requested that the word “commercial” be eliminated from the map designation and that it be called “Future Neighborhood Evaluation” or “Properties for Future Neighborhood Evaluation.” She also asked that the word commercial be eliminated from the map legends. Mr. Joyce offered to remove the word “commercial.” Under the legend, he identified that properties be evaluated for appropriate land use classifications. Ms. Funk was comfortable with the legends but wanted commercial to be eliminated from the title of the map because commercialism is a sensitive issue for this neighborhood.
Chair Daniels commented on his previous issue with height limitations and asked about the probability of having many structures in the area that would exceed 75 feet. Mr. Goldsmith replied that it is impossible to predict. Over 1 million people will have to be accommodated in the metropolitan area over the next 16 years, and the Planning Commission is obligated to address where that growth is directed. The density will occur in places that are decided now. He believed this corridor was a perfect place to direct certain intensity for growth.
Cheri Coffey remarked that the East Downtown Area in the master plan is very specific about view corridors and triangles and identifies where the 75-foot height limit can be exceeded up to 120 feet. Currently, the only way to exceed 75 feet is through a conditional use, and it must comply with the master plan and the map dictates the height. Mr. Joyce noted that the same information was incorporated into the Urban Design Map on page 92. Mr. Muir commented that it is hard to grasp what 75 feet means, and a good example is older East Coast cities that were designed at 5 stories maximum. The buildings are broken up with a defined base elevation and two or three stories of intermediate building and a nice crown, and it is a lovely pedestrian comfortable scale. Salt Lake benefits from front yard setbacks and wide streets, so a scale that works with narrow streets should be comfortable and pleasing here. The comments from the new Dean of the architecture school are that they hold the line on this scale and encourage that kind of infill. Holding to this height gets rid of the gaps in the City and provides continuity. Chair Daniels stated that his dilemma is with heights from 75 feet down to 50 feet. He was trying to decide how much he wanted to fight for lowering the building height limit to 50 feet. He wished that he could see what the City might look like. He was willing to back off a little because he was starting to see that 75 feet is not extremely detrimental to the view corridor and provides room for future density. He wanted a way to show people what it would look like if a certain number of buildings were allowed to go that high.
Ms. Funk asked about the average life of a master plan and was told that it is 10 years. She asked how much demand there is for buildings of this height in this corridor. Mr. Goldsmith replied that within the last three years they have seen two requests.
Ms. McDonough referred to page 84, title page for the Historic Preservation section, and the phrase, “.in modern architectural design these meet details of all that disappeared.” She did not disagree with the intent of the introduction but asked that the word “modern” be stricken from the phrase. Historic buildings offer architectural detailing unique to their time and have value to the community, but the phrase as written implies that current design cannot achieve that level of excellence. Mr. Muir supported Ms. McDonough’s request and did not believe there should be any comments about style. Chair Daniels suggested striking the sentence because it could be interpreted differently by different people. Ms. Arnold agreed.
Motion
Prescott Muir moved to direct Everett Joyce and Cheri Coffey to move forward to the next public hearing and complimented them on their good work. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas and John Diamond were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. Arnold noted that the procedures discussed by the Planning Commission have not been approved. Mr. Goldsmith replied that the procedures were approved at a previous meeting and are currently in place. He offered to provide new copies at the retreat.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.