SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Mary McDonald, Judi Short and Arla Funk.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Doug Dansie, Joel Patterson and Wayne Mills.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as the Planning Commission heard cases. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Smith declared the first order of business as the approval of Minutes. There are two sets, one from June 15 and one from August 3, 2000.
Mr. Jonas stated that in the June 15 Minutes on Page 6, Case 410-468, there seems to be some inconsistencies. The initial staff report had a recommendation about three parking stalls for clients “shall be striped and marked for visitors or clients.”
Mr. Jonas continued that an additional requirement was made that “All parking stalls shall be striped according to the site plan.” Mr. Jonas wonders if Item 6 should be deleted from the conditions. It seems to be inconsistent in that in one place it says three stalls have to be striped and the other place they have to stripe according to the site plan.
Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Jonas is suggesting they leave it out?
Mr. Jonas replied Item 6 should be deleted.
Ms. Short stated she understood it to state that they are going to stripe all the lots and three of them would be marked for visitors and clients.
Mr. Daniels said he felt Item 6 and Item 8 together take care of the issue.
Mr. Jonas then directed attention to Page 11 with regard to Alan Prince’s project and asked that an addition be made to the Minutes stating, “The Planning Commission had
a responsibility to the City to be judicious in the use of making these reduced size public
streets public rather private instead of every time making them a public street.”
Mr. Daniels stated that in these Minutes the record shows Dave Conine as having stated that NHS hopes to provide a product within the $85,000-$90,000 range. However, at a subsequent meeting, Mr. Newman stated those same properties would be up around $135,000-$145,000. Mr. Daniels wondered if there is a lack of clarity somewhere because he was unable to find anywhere in the record where Bruce Newman made that statement about higher cost of the housing.
Ms. Short replied that occurred in the last meeting. Ms. Froisland informed the group they do not have the Minutes for July 13, 2000.
Mr. Daniels stated he was certain that the amount stated was in the $135,000-$145,000 range. He would like that to appear in the Minutes.
Mr. Jonas moved to approve the minutes from Thursday, June 15, 2000 and Thursday, August 3, 2000 subject to the discussed corrections being made. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms Funk, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye.” Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearing – Considering recommendations to the City Council on the adoption of on an updated and revised Liquor District Map #19372. The City is proposing the transfer of the hand-drafted information of the 1987 map onto a computer based Geographic Information System (GIS). Policy changes, which have been adopted by ordinance since 1987, will be integrated into the new GIS map. Revision to the map recommended to implement adopted City Policy in the Gateway area were specifically discussed.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the recommendation.
Mr. Dansie stated that this item is somewhat unique in that the last time it came before the Commission was 13 years ago.
Mr. Dansie explained that to get a liquor license in Salt Lake City, you have to be within a zoning district that allows liquor, for example the Downtown D-1 Zone allows liquor. You also have to be on the business license liquor map. The liquor map has three zones and those zones determine spacing. In Liquor Zone A you can have two establishments per block face, in B you can have one every 600 feet and in C you can have one in every 2,000 feet. This issue is being brought to the Planning Commission at the recommendation of the Attorneys office because, even though this map is administered under the business licensing section of the City Code, it does affect land use.
Mr. Dansie stated this issue has been placed before several community groups including the Retail Merchants Association, Downtown Alliance, Community Council Chairs. It was noticed in the newspaper a copy of which Mr. Dansie pointed out to the Commission.
Mr. Dansie briefly explained the changes on the maps. He pointed out the 1987 map was hand drafted. There are three alternatives for the computer-based map that was shown. He explained that the depth of the liquor zone along State Street was 165 feet off the street. These depths didn’t relate to a parcel boundary. On the new maps, all the information is parcel based, thus the line may not be straight anymore. That is the first change reflected on the map.
Mr. Dansie continued by explaining that since 1987 there have been many zoning
changes. Parcels that may have allowed liquor at that time, but don’t allow it now, have been dropped. Probably the best example is 300 West. That area used to be all Zone C-1 which allowed liquor. It is now C-N, C-B which does not.
Ms. Funk asked if there are establishments there that serve liquor?
Mr. Dansie stated the establishments he knows of along 300 West are still in a liquor district. As far as he knows, there aren’t any businesses that will become non-conforming.
Mr. Dansie that the City has annexed new land since 1987 and that area is zone industrial. Industrial zones do allow liquor, but it is not added to the liquor map. In discussing the issue with the police, they didn’t want to add a lot of new establishments when they don’t have facilities out there. Based on the map, if an area is not in a liquor district, liquor is now allowed.
Mr. Dansie pointed out that in order to get a license you have to be on a major street. There are streets listed as major streets, but they are some streets, particularly near the airport, which are purely paper streets. When they were entered on the computer map they listed real streets instead of paper streets.
Mr. Dansie pointed out the airport boundaries and stated that state law has provisions that apply to international airports. It is not a liquor zone, but since our business licensing people were dealing with these areas they have included the airport boundaries on the map.
Mr. Dansie explained that as part of the Gateway Master Plan adoption, there was a policy statement regarding reviewing the liquor ordinance to conform to the new Gateway District Zone in the zoning ordinance. When they reviewed the Master Plan process, it was his understanding, and that of other staff members that worked on the Master Plan, the idea was to extend District A to the freeway. This policy is not clear in saying that as they searched through the Master Plan.
Mr. Dansie stated he has provided three alternatives in the Gateway area. The only difference in the three is the boundary between District A and District B. Alternative 3 reflects current boundaries. Alternative Number 2, the Planning Commission and City Council have adopted a new Gateway mixed-use zone and they expanded the B-3 zone, so those zones are folded into Liquor District A. Alternative 1 takes Liquor District A all the way to the freeway, including the entire Gateway Master Plan area.
Mr. Dansie concluded by saying that the current Liquor District Map is not parceled based and is not accessible from our computer system. Also, it should be updated so that it can be accessed and also reflect all the ordinance and policy changes that have been enacted over the last 13 years. Also it is the staff’s finding that the policy statement regarding liquor in the Gateway District needed clarification. The recommendation is to adopt Alternative 1 which includes all the Gateway Area.
Mr. Smith called for questions from the Commission.
Ms. Short asked if there are any negative reasons why we shouldn’t go clear to the freeway?
Mr. Dansie replied the difference between Liquor District A and District B is roughly A allows two establishments per block face and B allows one every 600 feet.
Ms. Short asked how many feet is a block face?
Mr. Dansie replied a block is 660 feet, and a street is 132 feet. It does increase the number. Also in Liquor District A you could locate on minor streets if you get the Planning Commission and Police to provide a recommendation to the Mayor’s Hearing Officer. As clarification, Mr. Dansie explained that in Liquor District A, if you don’t occupy a site that fronts on a major street, the Mayor’s Hearing Officer can approve a site for example interior to a mall like Trolley Square or on a minor street like Pierpont. The Mayor’s
Hearing Officer is Larry Spendlove. But this can be done only after a recommendation from the Planning Commission and Police Department.
Mr. Jonas asked if this is any kind of liquor license.
Mr. Dansie responded that this applies to Class C Taverns which sell beer. There you can sell draft beer and no food. Class B Private Clubs you can sell hard liquor and no food. It also applies to micro-breweries and brew pubs. They have to be in a liquor district although their spacing is a little different than the other two. It does not apply to restaurants or to a grocery store that sells beer.
Ms. McDonald stated in her understanding, there is a possibility that at some point in time the Gateway District could support a school. How would District A affect having a school in the area?
Mr. Dansie said it wouldn’t because state law requires that schools, churches, parks and libraries have to be 600 feet away. Unless the liquor establishment is there first, schools, churches and parks trump.
Mr. Dansie added that there is one caveat. In the Gateway Mixed-Use Zone that was adopted by the Planning Commission, outdoor taverns and private clubs a traditional use to deal with the conflict between residential and taverns. This does not preclude further restrictions.
Ms. Short asked what happens if you put in taverns and then you identify a parcel for a school? Do you tell them they have to leave?
Mr. Dansie replied that they don’t have to leave, but they become non-conforming.
Ms. Short asked if locations for institutions have been identified in the Gateway District. If not, should we do so?
Mr. Dansie reported that normally the school district, in working with the City, will identify sites for schools. But the reality is that the group they are marketing to in the Gateway Districts tends to be young professionals with no children or empty nesters. There may be children in the area, but right now there are 500-700 units going in which may not provide enough children to warrant a school. The students would likely end up going to existing schools.
Ms. McDonald stated that if the Gateway goes beyond what is being done right now, the potential is greater that there will families with children living in the area.
Mr. Dansie answered that the greatest potential for housing tends to be in the northern area and mid area between 400-600 South is primarily designed for hotels and that sort of establishment. There isn’t a great potential for housing in those three blocks. The southern end of Gateway is designated as a small business incubator.
Mr. Goldsmith pointed out it is true that as the neighborhood forms over 30-50 years that those kinds of family densities could occur down there. But it would be difficult for us at this time to create an institutional zone.
Mr. Jonas asked if it is beyond the scope of this meeting to ask how they ever came up with the number of two per block. He said that if we are trying to revitalize downtown and get people back on the street, is that restriction contrary to that effort?
Mr. Wheelwright replied that it goes back at least into the 1970s.
Mr. Dansie stated that an interesting caveat that the same spacing requirement applies to brew pubs and micro-breweries and to taverns and private clubs. But they don’t have to be space from each other. A tavern and private club are one group and they have to be space two per block face. Micro-breweries have to be two per block face. But the two can overlap. You could also have restaurants in the area that serve liquor. The reason there is a difference is because micro-breweries and brew pubs are required to sell food. Food has to be 40 percent of their sales. Where private clubs and taverns are not required to sell food.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Short moved that we approve Alternative 1 for submission to the City Council to readopt the liquor map and clarify the Gateway Policy. Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye.” Ms. McDonald voted “Nay.” Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Public Hearing on Petition No. 400-00-13: A legislative action from City Council Member David Buhler requesting amendments to Section 21A.24.010 of the Zoning
Ordinance to clarify the definitions of “grade” in order to determine the point from which building height is measured.
Craig Hinckley presented the matter before the Commission. Mr. Hinckley explained that presently building height is measured from two different points depending upon the situation. The established grade is the grade of the property before anything is constructed but after infrastructure improvements have been installed. The second definition of grade is finished grade. The finished grade is the grade that is left after a home is constructed based on the approved building permit plans. In the staff report there appears a number of provisions on established grade, finished grade and what applies when and where. By this action the City would like to establish three things. One is that the height of a new residence in a foothill zone will be measured from established grade. The second is that the height of any addition to a home in a foothill zone will be measured from finished grade. The third thing is that the height of both new residences and additions outside of foothill zones would also be measured from finished grade.
Mr. Jonas asked for a clearer definition of established grade. Mr. Hinckley explained that when a developer starts a subdivision project, he is obviously going to put in a road. That road is going to affect the lot in some way, usually just the front of the lot. The portion of the lot that the developer has not disturbed when he has finished is the established grade. It is whatever grade is established as the approved grade before development, and if there is any area on the site that has not been disturbed when he has finished the initial development, that is also the established grade.
Mr. Jonas pointed out that, in that instance, the wording should be revised to read, “the natural topographic grade on undisturbed areas or the grade that exists on disturbed areas.”
Mr. Jonas then referred to draft of general provisions, 1A. The first sentence, “Building height for additional construction of the building in a foothill zone shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and established the grade at any given point of the building coverage.” Mr. Jonas stated he had trouble with the word “any.”
Mr. Hinckley explained that is the way the foothill regulations were established. In establishing height in foothill zones, we are really creating an envelope. It would be like throwing a blanket over a lot and saying that the maximum height is 28 feet. You would raise that blanket up 28 feet above any point on the lot, and that is the envelope within which the building must fit. In a foothill zone, you measure to the highest point of the building roof ridgeline. The building cannot exceed 28 feet above any given point on the site.
Mr. Jonas then called attention to Page 2 of the draft, Item 1E. A new last sentence has been added to this item. “The height of any structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from the finished grade existing at the time the building permit is requested.” Mr. Jonas asked why the same grades aren’t used in both sentences.
Mr. Hinckley explained the point of these amendments is that when you build the initial structure, you are measuring from established grade. But, during the course of construction, based on the approved site grading plan, the grade of the lot will be changed. When the final inspection of the building is done, at that point you have finished grade based on the approved plan. The historical grade is evaluated through the permit process, based on foothill regulations. At that point it is the approved legal, finished grade of the lot.
Mr. Jonas inquired as to what is meant by adding 4 feet or 6 feet. Does that mean you can add 4 feet or 6 feet of fill above the established grade and that is the finished grade, so actually the addition can be 4-6 feet higher? Mr. Hinckley said if that is what is approved during the initial construction, as far as the grading of the lot is concerned, then it could be higher. Under the ordinance this could be approved. Mr. Hinckley added that the additional footage would be the height of the original structure because when the original structure is being built is when it is determined whether or not they need the additional 4-6 feet. That is all part of the original, approved site grading plan. When the original plans are brought in, the people at the permits counter evaluate whether they are cutting or filling more or less than 6 feet, as the case might be, and if they are within the standards, then they will approve the plan. Then once the house is finished, that is the finished grade. That may or may not have been modified from the established grade.
Mr. Hinckley reiterated that what we are trying to say is that any grading that is done legally, that is the grade from which future additions will be measured.
Mr. Smith stated that he understood that whatever you have been approved to do in the initial construction, in granting a permit to make an addition, the permits counter will look at what was approved originally.
Mr. Jonas stated that he feels the last sentence should be declared about which building permit is being addressed, whether it is the permit for initial construction or the building permit for the addition. Mr. Hinckley asked if it should read, “at the time the building permit is requested for the modification or addition”? Would it clarify it somewhat if in the last sentence it said, “***from the finished grade existing at the time the initial building permit is requested”? Mr. Hinckley emphasized that is not the intent in writing this. He explained that the intent of the last sentence is to address additions, not the original construction.
Mr. Hinckley then made a drawing to demonstrate the concept of established grade and finished grade.
Mr. Smith recognized the Petitioner Mr. Buhler. Mr. Buhler stated he appreciates the work the Planning Commission does on these complicated issues. He stated that Mr. Hinckley has captured the intent of issue.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that in developing a new foothill subdivision a grading plan has to be submitted. For most of the land that is a contour map of the undisturbed land. It is modified for cuts and fills for the road installation. Then the last total regrade subdivision was done in 1976 and in 1981 that was toughened up so that you couldn’t have a mass regrade subdivision. You could only grade to the extent that you installed the streets and left the rest of the ground in its natural condition. Thus, there would be a grading map on file with the City Engineer that showed the contours of the natural ground and then the modifications authorized by the Grading Plan in subdivisions approved since 1981.
Mr. Smith stated that if Mr. Hinckley’s very clarifying example of this 28 foot blanket conforming to the ground underneath, then we could always go back as a city and say yes, but you can’t violate the height of the original.
Mr. Wheelwright pointed out there is always some change of grade necessary to fit the building on the site. The change of grade allowance started out being 2 feet; anything between 1 and 2 feet of cut and fill. This created a number of board cases develop because it was an impractical requirement. So, we have changed to 4 and 6 feet in an attempt to give some flexibility in siting these houses, but it has come back to bite us with people outfoxing us on that.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that perhaps the “original elevation” when the subdivision was approved, which would be either natural or as modified by the grading plan, is probably a pretty good approach.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that by default it finally gets us to address some of the view corridors that we’ve never been able to address prior to the 1995 zoning rewrite.
Motion to Redraft to Simplify the Amendment
Mr. Jonas moved that the Commission continue Item 400-00-13 to give staff time to redraft the language in accordance with the directions of the Planning Commission and to develop graphics illustrating the changes. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms Funk, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye.” Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Public Hearing – Case No. 410-465 by Construction Recycling, Inc., requesting preliminary subdivision approval and a conditional use for a concrete and asphalt recycling operation to be conducted at approximately 250 South Orange Street in a Light Manufacturing “M-1” zoning district.
Mr. Craig Hinckley led the discussion regarding the matter. He pointed out that the truck traffic would generally access the plant through the 400/500 South diagonal. At that point 400 South connects with 500 South then Orange Street intersects with 500 South at about 1800 West. Ms. McDonald verified that the trucks would use Redwood Road to 400/500 then up Orange Street. Trucks would not necessarily be using 400 South east of Redwood Road.
The Petitioners, Mr. Bob Furstenau, the property owner, and Mr. Bruce Nelson, and Mr. Kelly King, co-owners of Construction Recycling, Inc., were introduced.
Mr. Furstenau explained that there are actually two issues involved here. There is a subdivision application that is a separate issue from the recycling application. The two issues were combined because the recyclers would like to purchase the second parcel in the subdivision; however, they are separate issues. Mr. Furstenau is looking for subdivision approval while the recyclers, are looking for conditional use on recycling.
Mr. Hinckley pointed out that in the staff report two separate motions are listed: one for approval of the subdivision and the requesting a conditional use permit.
Mr. Jonas asked the property owner why in the letter from the Transportation Engineer it describes the proposal as two-lot subdivision, Lot 1 with 144 feet of frontage and Lot 2 with 26 feet of frontage and a 24-foot wide access. Mr. Jonas asked what happened to the other 2 feet. Mr. Furnsteau demonstrated on a drawing the angles that constitute the difference in dimensions. He then continued to describe the various issues involved concerned with right-of-way, etc. The recyclers pointed out to Ms. McDonald that the asphalt and the concrete are both recycled for use in road base. Both are cold recycling processes. There is no liquid residue produced from the asphalt recycling process. It was pointed out by the recyclers that the only way you could tell one product from the other is the color. All of it still produces a rock product. The goal of the process is to bring all of it back into usable material. Both asphalt and concrete end up being used in the same field for road construction and building material.
Ms. McDonald asked if there are byproducts from the dust. Mr. King stated that is virtually no dust produced by either product. The only dust you get from it is the dirt that may remain on the asphalt when it comes in for processing. Mr. Nelson pointed out the EPA is constantly monitoring the facility for air quality, etc.
Mr. Hinckley pointed out that the other consideration with this property is that any development site must have frontage on the street. That is the reason for the flag lot.
Mr. Furstenau displayed a map and pointed out the pieces of property that he owns along with the piece of property that the recycling business is currently operating on. Presently they are using the UP&L right-of-way to access the property. The recyclers have a rent/purchase agreement to buy the property where they are currently located.
Parcel 1 does have frontage on Orange Street, Parcel 2 does not.
Mr. Jonas asked if both parcels would have to share the same access point. The petitioners pointed out they would not have to share access.
Mr. Furstenau explained he has owned the piece of ground for about 6 or 7 years. A number of years ago he began to fill it. When he got to the back of the property, Mountain Fuel stopped him from filling stating that he couldn’t fill over their gas line. They have a 90-year-old, 15-foot-wide easement for a gas line passing through the property at that point. He was filling to about 8 feet at that point. Mountain Fuel informed him he could not put any more fill on it because it could cause settling, it could break the line, and it is a major 14-inch gas line. The end result of it was that there is a huge ditch going through the middle of the property. He has been unable to sell the property as a result. He is now looking at sloping the property down so that lower area becomes a retention pond for drainage. The water can then trickle down and end up collecting in a wetlands area. That is the reason they want to subdivide because he is unable to sell it because no one wants the back piece since there is a ditch in the way and they will not allow him to build a bridge.
Mr. Smith asked if there were questions for petitioners or staff. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Committee has a letter from Poplar Grover Community Council stating they are in accord with the plan as long as trees are planted between the freeway and the facility.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing.
Ms. Funk asked whether the petitioners had any objections to putting in trees along the property.
The petitioner responded that that has been addressed and will be a requirement.
Ms. McDonald asked if the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers still has to review this recycle.
Mr. Hinckley stated that mention of the Corp of Engineers was included in order to cover all facets. If it was felt that it looks like a wetlands then there are federal requirements that would apply to the property. The intent of the recommendation was to get someone from Corp out and make a determination as to whether it is wetlands. At this time it has not been declared a wetlands, but may become one in the future.
Mr. Furstenau pointed out that it is a wetland but it will not be disturbed at all by this operation. It was created when the freeway was built because they blocked off the natural flow of water. The water that comes off the freeway has nowhere to go, so it lies in the ditch off the freeway to the side of all the property. Thus part of the wetland is on the property, and part of the wetland is on the UDOT freeway right-of way. The water is supposed to go to the south where it can be carried under the freeway in conduits that were put there when the freeways were built, but because of the lay of the land and
because of the way the freeway was built, the water can’t get there. Therefore, it created a wetland that is very small, just one-quarter acre.
Motion for Petition No. 410-465 regarding the subdivision approval.
Mr. Jonas moved to approve the preliminary subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Recordation of the final subdivision plat, and;
2. Meeting all departmental requirements including widening the flag portion of Lot 2 to 26 feet to meet Fire Department requirements.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms Funk, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye.” Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for second part of Petition No. 410-465
Mr. Jonas moved that based upon the findings of fact we recommend approval of the application by Construction Recycling for a recycling processing facility on flag lot 2 and the other portion they are currently operating on. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms Funk, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye.” Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. McDonald added that under Point No. 3 all applicable environmental standards for both concrete and asphalt recycling be applied. Ms. McDonald wanted to ensure that wetlands issued are covered. Mr. Smith stated that the Army Corp of Engineers has to be satisfied as to the wetlands issue. Mr. Hinckley pointed out that the Army Corp of Engineers is satisfied as long as the land is not disturbed.
Mr. Smith stated that the Commission is not requiring the Petitioners do anything more than you would normally, prudently have to do.
Public Hearing – Case No. 400-00-14 – A legislative action by City Council Member Keith Christensen to rezone three Sugar House neighborhood areas. Area 1 is located between Downington Avenue, 1100 East, Hollywood Avenue and 1000 East and is proposed to be rezoned from Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential “RMF-35” to Single-Family Residential “R-1/5,000.” Area 2 is located between Ramona Avenue, 1100 East, Hollywood Avenue and McClelland Avenue and is proposed to be rezoned from Community Business “CB” to Residential Business “RB.” Area 3 is located between Hollywood Avenue, 1100 East, 2100 South and Lincoln Street and is proposed to be rezoned from Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential “RMF-35” to Single-Family Residential “R-1/5,000.”
Mr. Wayne Mills presented the staff report and stated that is petition was originally heard on July 13, 2000. The Planning Commission tabled the petition at that time in order for further work to be done on the Master Plan. However, because there is a moratorium on the subject properties, that moratorium will expire on October 18, 2000, and we are entering into a transition time with a new Planner, the Sugar House Master Plan is quite a ways out. Therefore, the Commission needs to reconsider this and try to arrive at a decision regarding the rezone prior to the expiration of the moratorium.
Mr. Mills then reiterated the specifics of the rezone in the three different areas. Mr. Mills informed the Commission that there is a discrepancy in his first report; therefore, he has made some changes and amended the staff report to indicate that there is a land use discrepancy. This error was pointed out by someone who lives in the area and did a walk-around tour. Consequently, there are more multi-family properties in Area 1 than was previously thought. Area 1 contains 24 single-family homes, 6 duplexes and 14 multi-family properties of three or more units.
Mr. Mills then stated that Areas 2 and 3 are the same. He pointed out that two other properties are actually duplexes. These two properties look like they are duplexes on the outside, but Mr. Mills did some checking into the building permits, and these are actually listed as single-family dwellings. Consequently, they are currently illegal duplexes. Thus, those two are listed as single-family.
Mr. Mills continued by stating that all the multi-family properties in the area are currently non-complying due to the lot sizes being too small for the RMF-35 zoning regulation requirement. This was because previous zoning allowed more units on smaller lot sizes. Further, he pointed out that the duplexes in this area are legal, conforming duplexes. That means that they were legal prior to 1995. If the area were to be rezoned to R¬1/5000, they would still be legal, and if they were destroyed, the owner could rebuild the properties with the same number of units as they now contain.
If the rezone goes through to the R-1/5000, all the multi-family properties in Areas 1 and 3 will become non-conforming. With a non-conforming use, if the structure were to be destroyed to the extent of 50 percent, that structure could not be rebuilt with the same number of units as are presently contained. This applies to structures of three or more units.
Mr. Mills stated that in his first staff report they could only be rebuilt with single-family homes. He has done additional research into the matter and discovered they would actually be able to be rebuilt into legal conforming duplexes. He apologized for not catching this in the first place, but advised the Committee that this information is not stated in the zoning ordinance; it is an administrative interpretation.
The purpose for rezoning the areas is to preserve the single-family character of the area. If you look at the land use map and all the adjacent areas, they are predominantly single-family. The feeling coming from the neighborhood is that people are fine with the multi-family properties that are currently there, but they would prefer no more be allowed to be built in these areas. With the rezone, it would limit development to single-family.
It is proposed that Area 2 be rezoned from CB to RB. According to Salt Lake County data, the area contains three office, one retail conversion which is a retail to a single-family structure, one single-family home, one duplex and one retail mixed area. Actually, the properties listed as residential properties do seem to have a business in them in that there are signs on the front that indicates one is an art gallery and the other is used for some other business purpose. No uses would become non-conforming with the proposed rezone. The purpose of the RB district is to actually allow for a mix of residential and business and to limit the size of the business that come in. There also three structures that have a home-type character, and under the RB regulations it is
stated you can’t rip out the home structures and build an office complex. There are also density regulations. RB would allow a commercial use on the ground floor and have a residence above.
Under the current Master Plan Areas 1 and 3 are designated as medium-density residential. With the proposed rezone, there would also need to be a Master Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Map from medium-density residential to low-density residential. On the Future Land Use Map, Area 2 is designated a neighborhood-scale commercial area with residential. The proposed rezone to “RB” would actually fit in very well with the Master Plan designation.
Mr. Mills stated the staff recommendation is that Areas 1 and 3 be rezoned from “RMF¬35” to “R-1/5,000”, with a Master Plan amendment involved, and Area 2 to be rezoned from “CB” to “RB.”
Mr. Smith then asked if the Committee had questions for Mr. Mills.
Ms. McDonald asked what is the urgency to accomplish the rezone at this time?
Mr. Mills responded that the urgency is coming from the community itself. There are a number of community members who have gotten together with Council Member Keith Christensen, took a walk through the neighborhood, showed him how they thought their residential character is being lost, illustrated the traffic impact with the Sugar House business district, and with told him they feel that if additional multi-family units are permitted more traffic would be created.
Mr. Mills stated that under the “RMF-35” developers could go into an area, accumulate property, take down homes and build apartments. Rezoning to “R-1/5,000” would preserve the single-family homes that are still there. Mr. Mills further said he has received phone calls from residents in the area in favor of the rezoning action now to reduce the possibility of this occurring.
Ms. McDonald asked why Area 2 is not a separate recommendation from Areas 1 and 3?
Ms. Funk added that this action is one petition. Mr. Mills went on to explain that it is, in fact, one petition and under one legislative action from Council Member Christensen. He further stated that the Planning Commission probably has the option of separating the issues.
Mr. Jonas then asked how long the rewrite of the Master Plan has been going on?
Mr. Smith asked staff member, Mr. Everett Joyce how long the Master Plan rewrite has been in process. He replied that it has been over a year. As emphasis, Ms. Short added that the Central Community Master Plan was started in 1992 and is not yet before the Commission. It was pointed out the Master Plan process can be a very long affair.
Mr. Jonas said that these things seem to take a long time, but now all of a sudden there is this great urgency to act on this petition. He said he agrees with Ms. McDonald that conceptually the proper process should be for the Master Plan to be completed and then the rezone.
Mr. Mills stated that even if there wasn’t a Master Plan rewrite going on right now, he feels there is good chance this petition would still come through.
Mr. Smith asked if the Petitioner, Councilman Christensen was present. He was not at the meeting. Mr. Smith then moved into the Public Hearing and told those present that this is the second time this petition has been heard, the first time being in July. He stated the Commission has heard a lot of dialogue, and to those who had an opportunity to speak last month, it was likely the Commission would remember what was said.
Ms. Short asked that the respondents speak to the urgency of the petition. Mr. Smith then pointed out that this is a very specific issue, this is not the venue to talk about open space, parks, garbage collection or the lack of it, or other matters. The purpose of this meeting is to focus on this specific item.
Mr. Smith asked for response from Sugar House Community Council members.
Ms. Helen Peters representing the Sugar House Community Council addressed the Commission. She stated she is the developer liaison on the Council. She stated the Commission has received letters from individuals who were unable to attend this meeting that are part of the staff report
Ms. Peters informed the group that the Sugar House Community has worked with the City in preserving its housing stock. The Westminster neighborhood has a long history of challenges facing the housing stock. Thus, the Community got together with Councilman Keith Christensen to look at rezoning several critical areas of that neighborhood. She stated that lately a number of developers are taking advantage of this window of time where we have an old Master Plan in place and have a new one coming on board; the area lost their Planner and have new Planner coming on board. Right now we are in a period of transition that is viewed as an open window for a number of individuals.
The first area she addressed is the area along McClelland Street. The area has lost a number of single-family dwellings since 1960. She pointed out that many of the houses have been chopped up into apartments, even though the City or the County has not sanctioned them. There are currently many multi-family units in Areas 1 and 3 and if they were properly maintained, it would probably be an adequate mix of single-family to multi-family housing in the area.
She stated that some of the smaller, illegal units have been such that they are not attractive families because they aren’t large enough. Therefore, a base of children has been lost who might support the local elementary schools, which could result in the loss of some schools in the redistricting because of population changes. Additionally, she pointed out that by having too many non-owner, multi-family dwellings, the selling price for the actual owner-occupied, single-family dwellings would decrease. As of 1990 the Westminster neighborhood had only 40.4 owner-occupied housing units, down from 61.1 in 1960. For many of residents in the area, their home is the largest asset they own. Thus, when developers come in and say, “You’re taking away my right to develop, and this is my livelihood”, you have to think about the number of single-family homes that are there that by having the increase of the multi-family dwellings, you, in fact, decrease the value of the single-family home.
Ms. Peters also said there is a loss of community by having multi-family, non-owner dwellings. Currently there are a lot of problems with owner-occupied as well as multi-family rental units that are in poor condition. This is an area that is “on the edge.” It has been heavily impacted by the increase of retail activity, including traffic, in the Sugar House business district. Therefore, the community is looking to work with the City to start to pull that area from the edge of blight and, hopefully, start some enforcement actions. The residents of Hollywood Avenue have requested traffic calming measures that they feel have not been adequately addressed by the City. These residents are asking the Council to help reclaim the residential nature of the neighborhood. This area has always been residential, primarily single-family dwellings, and now it is facing a change, and the residents would like to rezone it so that they can preserve that nature.
Ms. Peters pointed out that a number of residences on 1100 East are presently being used for commercial establishments. It is important that these remain single-family dwellings and be allowed to have a commercial use.
Ms. Peters stated the rezoning would stabilize the neighborhood and help reclaim the residential nature of the area. The urgency is that the Sugar House Master Plan is in transition, people are taking advantage of that situation, and the residential character of Westminster and overall Sugar House area will be lost to development of multi-family dwellings in the neighborhood and possibly some large commercial development on 1100 East.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Sugar House Community Council that the properties be rezoned. This also is the intent of the new Master Plan.
Ms. McDonald asked Ms. Peters to explain which of the lots in Areas 1, 2 and 3 is being looked at by developers
Ms. Peters responded there is a number of situations wherein people are aware the Master Plan will be changing and these developers are trying to come into the old zoning that could possibly allow some of the activity of development.
Dorothy Tuddenham, a member of the Sugar House Community Council representing the Westminster neighborhood addressed the meeting. She stated the commercial strip along 1100 East extends from Cottonwood Mall on the South to 2100 South. Planners know that this kind of strip zone is not good for traffic solutions and adjoining communities. We need to draw a line at 2100 South, and businesses north of 2100 South should reflect a residential, not a business character. The goal is to provide the area with a walkable residential neighborhood that will, in turn, keep the Sugar House commercial district vibrant. She asked that the Planning Commission please help by approving the petition.
Diane Atkins, owner and resident at 1048 Ramona. She stated she is in support of the petition. Professionally she is a transportation planner and environmental specialist and worked in the field of land use planning and transportation planning for 25 years. She said that one of the worst and most destructive elements is uncertainty. The residents just need to know what the future is going to be.
She stated she chose to buy in this location more than five years ago because it had affordable housing, a delightful mix of architecture, and all those elements people talk about in having a livable, walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment. She continued by stating she is very concerned about larger developments going into the area. Since she is a transportation planner, she knows what development can do to traffic, particularly in residential neighborhoods. She encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the petition.
Ms. McDonald asked Ms. Atkins how she saw rezoning Areas 1 and 3 helping the traffic situation?
Ms. Atkins stated that by rezoning you set a baseline and you minimize the traffic that might have occurred with a development like Irving schoolhouse. If that kind of development were to be approved and came into the neighborhood, traffic would be dramatically increased. She stated enough-is-enough. It’s time to stabilize the neighborhood and minimize the traffic.
Derek Payne a resident of Hollywood Avenue next addressed the group. He stated he is in support of all three rezoning proposals for the following reasons. In Areas 1 and 3 automobile traffic from adjacent commercial areas is overrunning the streets. On Hollywood Avenue there are 1,000 car trips per day each way. Increased traffic from higher density housing would only exacerbate the situation. He explained that actual street closures have been discussed, and a test closure is going to be done on 1000 East. He pointed out that he had served on the Sugar House Master Plan committee and that Areas 1 and 3 were discussed at great length by the group. It was the recommendation of the majority of the people on the Committee that the land use of both areas be changed from medium-density housing to low-density housing. Thus, it is felt that the rezoning petitions will help maintain the unique historical accent of Sugar House.
Mike Mladejovsky, 1048 Ramona Avenue, spoke in support of rezoning all three areas as proposed. He stated that 21 of the 47 lots, by his walk-around count, in Area 1 are already duplex, four-plex, six-plex or eight-plex units. He feels the current use is okay, but increasing the ratio would present a problem. He pointed out that the biggest problem in the area is parking. He has visitors that come to his house and are unable to park within a half-block of his residence. He stated this is due to overflow parking either from commercial establishments along 1100 East or from the eight-plexes that have parking for only two cars. He reiterated he is definitely in favor of rezoning Area 1 to preclude problems of large developments coming into the area. Also is in favor of rezoning Areas 2 and 3.
Dave Peterson, 1816 McClelland Street. He opposes the rezoning, and not because he owns a duplex in the area. He feels a single-family dwelling would create more problems than his duplex does. He also stated he doesn’t see the urgency.
Boyd Seal, 5330 Baywood Circle. His family has owned property for 30 years in Area 1. He has met with City representatives and property owners of this area and has walked through are to conduct an inventory. He stated the following are some of his conclusions. The single-family homes in the area appear to date back to at least WW II. They are generally on small lots from about 4,000 sf to 7,000 sf. The homes are in varying degrees of repair and sooner or later many of the homes will be unsuitable for use. What is going to happen when these houses really start deteriorating? Area 2 is quite attractive with ample off-street parking. It has only minimal residential usage and rezoning it to a residential category would be counter-productive. His main concern is Area 1 where his two four-plexes are located. There has been very little new construction there for 30 years, with the exception of one new house which has stood unsold for some time. Building a single-family home in that area is going to be a lost cause because it would never sell.
Mr. Seal feels the staff report has a basic fatal flaw. He quoted, “Area 1 is in an area of mixed residential uses, the majority of which are single-family dwellings.” He stated this is absolutely false. By his count, and verified by the staff report count, there are 84 households living in multi-family houses and only 23 households living in single-family homes. This means that the majority of the housing is multi-family, and the down zoning would jeopardize the security of 79 percent of the households.
Gilbert Olson, owner of house at 1817 South 1100 East. Would like to build an addition to the home to make it a duplex. He is not opposed to the rezoning per se, but if the zoning is changed, would respectfully request that his property be deleted from the change in zoning so that he could proceed with plans for a duplex.
Karen Beverly, resident at 964 East Ramona Avenue. Purchased the property 14 years ago, they love the area, but it is becoming very busy. There is much more traffic on the street where they live. Don’t disturb the multi-family units that are currently in the area, but don’t add anymore. She pointed out that their lot is one-third acre, so not all of the lots are small as had been previously stated. She stands in support of the petition.
Laurie, property owner at 1895 South McClelland. Not in favor of the rezone because if it is changed to RMF-35, her four-plex will become non-conforming. Thus, a non¬conforming property would become unmarketable. It is her feeling that with this being a college neighborhood, it needs these multi-family units. She pointed out that in walking through the neighborhood, many private homes are not as well kept as the rental units. The said all her tenants having parking under a carport. There isn’t any parking on the street.
Mark Hafey, resident at 1030 Hollywood Avenue. He and his wife bought this property approximately two years ago. They moved there because they like the area and the convenience of location to shops, theaters and grocery stores. He is in favor of all three areas being rezoned as proposed. His particular interest is centered in Area 3 because there are two high-density, multi-family structures, one on McClelland and one on Lincoln Street. He again pointed to the traffic problems. While sitting on his porch recently, he counted six 18-wheelers going up and down Hollywood Avenue. Access to many of the businesses on 2100 South is hampered because the streets are so narrow and the size of the trucks that are used to deliver to those businesses. It is his feeling that if more high-density units are built, it will increase the traffic impact that now exists.
Sandra Rhem, 1056 Ramona Avenue. They bought this home 14 years ago as a rental property and turned it into a single-family home. She stated traffic has increased dramatically; McClelland has turned into “a drag strip.” On the corner of Ramona and McClelland there have been two serious injury accidents caused by speed. One of these was a rollover. She has problems with people parking across her driveway. She asked the Commission to support the petitions to help protect the neighborhood from further problems.
Peggy McDonough, Hollywood Avenue. She agrees with those who have said there is nothing wrong with the way it is now. The concern is the open possibility of greater density and the traffic impact that has occurred during the last five years. She is in support of the rezone to preserve the character of the area.
Steve Beverley, 964 East Ramona Avenue. He stated he represents the people in the neighborhood who have spent thousands of dollars to renovate older homes in the area. He said this is not merely a zoning issue to him, but a quality-of-life issue. The traffic is increasing almost on a daily basis. The petitions need to be approved to protect this quality of life.
Daniel Ogura, 1995 McClelland. He stated that in 1993 there were some cul-de-sacs proposed to separate the business district from the residential areas. He said that idea seems to have disappeared, and he doesn’t know where it went. Also asked about what happened to tax rollbacks.
Ms. Short answered that a number of people have been involved in the Hollywood Avenue issue and whether or not there should be a cul-de-sac, etc. Been having this conversation for about five years, but can’t seem to get something that is going to work and get the City to back it. So, it’s still in the works.
Mr. Goldsmith added that he would try to get an answer to these questions, and call Mr. Ogura at his office.
Mrs. Smith, a 31-year resident of Ramona Avenue was the next attendee to address the group. She feels it is urgent to protect what they have. The traffic is so bad her grandchildren can’t go outside and play. She feels the neighborhood should be protected and not allow any big developments; is in favor of the rezone.
A concerned citizen residing at 1050 Hollywood responded that he is for the rezoning. He feels the zoning does have urgency, because the people that are coming in may want to develop the property, and the neighborhood needs to be protected from large developments.
Ralph Barrus, owner of Barrus Piano Sales and Service, 2007 South McClelland. They bought the property 22 years ago and have upgraded it and made it very nice. They are currently in the process of cutting back their sales and concentrating on service. This should reduce the heavy truck traffic in and out of their establishment. But they will still have a reduced need to bring trucks up and down McClelland. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to him to shut off the street.
Agnes Greenhall, 1817 South Lincoln Street. She has lived at this location for 11 years. Her concern is that older homes will come on the market and be turned into multi-level commercial areas unless the rezoning is done.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion.
Ms. Funk stated that one of the questions we need to address is does the Master Plan drive zoning, or does zoning drive the Master Plan? Oftentimes the Commission takes actions to change zoning to accommodate a project or something that is going in without waiting for a Master Plan. She also said she feels that the people feel an urgency to have the areas rezoned to avoid being encroached up. She is personally very much in favor of the petition.
Ms. McDonald stated she doesn’t feel there seems to be any real issue with Area 2. Areas 1 and 3 and those that in the most contention. She asked the Commission of that is the way they see it also.
Ms. Short said she doesn’t have any contention with any of the issues.
Ms. McDonald added that she has a background in studying traffic. She stated that down zoning Areas 1 and 3 would not solve any of the traffic woes now or in the future. She feels that moving higher-density housing away from the area will serve to increase traffic rather than alleviate the problem.
Ms. McDonald said the third item she wanted to address was the inference that renters don’t care. She finds it offensive that renters would be look as second-grade citizens.
Ms. Funk responded that it wasn’t her feeling that anyone is looking at renters as second-class citizens. She said she feels the point that is being made that renters tend to be less long-term and that affects the quality.
Ms. Short that she lived in the area for 26 years and would like to see the wonderful character of the neighborhood preserved. She is afraid that if it is allowed to continue to develop into multi-family units mixed in with all those homes, at some point the character will be different.
Mr. Jonas pointed out that it would not be economically feasible for developers to come and buy two or three lots for multi-family dwellings. In addition, it is an enormous process to accomplish this kind of transaction. Therefore, he doesn’t see the need for the zoning change.
Discussion followed among the Commission members as to the why the rezoning should occur or not.
Ms. Short moved to approve the Petition and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted “Aye.” Ms. McDonald and Mr. Daniels voted “Nay.” Mr. Jonas abstained and Mr. Smith voted “Aye” to break the tie.
Ms. Funk then told Mr. Smith that one of the citizens who owns rental property in the area said that according to Robert’s Rules of Order an abstention is considered a “No” vote. After discussion by Commission members it was felt that an abstention doesn’t count either way. Mr. Smith asked that staff verify the meaning of an abstention.
Public Hearing – Petition No. 400-00-42 by Salt Lake City Engineering Division for a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for adoption of the proposed Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Mr. Hinckley presented the staff report. This plan was prepared by the Landscape Architectural Division of the Salt Lake Engineering Division. The project was started about five years ago and is ready to forward to the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Planning Division has reviewed the Plan, and their focus was to evaluate it based on its consistency with the various community master plans that have been adopted. After review it was determined the Plan is consistent with the other community master plans.
Mr. Hinckley introduced Debora Shepherd and Jay Bollwinkel, consultants from MGB+A who prepared the Plan, and Del Cook who is a Landscape Architect and Project Manager with the City Engineering Division.
Mr. Cook told the group he has worked for the City only a few months, with some of that time spent in the hospital recovering from an auto/pedestrian accident that occurred in Salt Lake City. He informed the group that he is not as familiar with the document as he would like to be. In view of this, he turned the time over to Ms. Shepherd and Mr. Bollwinkel.
Ms. Shepherd stated they have introduced the Plan at community meetings such as Community Council networking, by advertising in newspapers and radio, distributed 400 surveys throughout the community. They received about a 20 percent return on the surveys. But since they didn’t feel that was sufficient sampling, they then conducted a telephone survey of about 200 residents. A steering committee was then formed consisting of representatives from all seven Council Districts and City staff.
The intention of the Plan was to look at existing parks and what needed to be done to rehabilitate and rejuvenate what is existing and then new park needs were looked at as well as what recreation programs are in place
Program priorities included health and safety, mandated requirements (handicap accessible, rest rooms, playgrounds); time-sensitive opportunities (available land); positive cost benefit projects; revamping some of parks so that maintenance is cost effective; coordination with other master plans; efficiency based on demonstrated need. High priority items have been the rehabilitation of Liberty Park; development of a field sports complex; construction of new community recreation centers; complete expansion of the Steiner center; completion of Jordan River Parkway; complete automation of City irrigation system with central control; continue development of Open Space Trail Plan; rehabilitation of tennis facilities; replacement of antiquated, unsafe play equipment; conversion of Rosewood Park to neighborhood facility; conduct comprehensive master planning for Jordan, Fairmont, Warm Springs and Riverside parks; develop standards of maintenance for nature parks and open lands including Master Plans for Washington
Park at Mountain Dell and Parley’s Historic Nature Park; renovate or replace
deteriorated structures including picnic shelters and rest rooms; acquire land and develop community and neighborhood parks to eliminate deficiencies; and continue improvements to existing park facilities.
Ms. Shepherd continued by referencing specific segments of the Plan and stating the it indicates where the deficiencies lie. She pointed out that park standards are based on National Recreation and Park Association Standards. These have been adjusted slightly for the area, taking into consideration some of the surrounding cities such as Boise and Reno.
Ms. Short spoke to the problems of the Plan having been written in different stages, i.e., the list of City Council and Planning Commission members is not current. She also noted there are several inconsistencies in the Plan which need to be corrected.
Ms. McDonald stated that she didn’t see any mention of Gilgal Gardens or the new
library block park in the Plan. She felt these should be included.
Ms. McDonald addressed the issue of parks in the Avenues end of the City. The Plan says there aren’t enough parks in that specific area. She stated she feels there are wonderful parks and access to them. Most people in the Avenues have access to a park within a one-mile radius. Ms. McDonald continued by saying the issues most people have with the parks is the repair.
Ms. Shepherd explained that the major issue with Avenues community parks is the lack of large parks. This is according to the standards for population. She also pointed out that the foothills are not within the City, thus have not been considered in the Plan. (Note: This statement is not technically correct. Much of the foothills on the north side is within the City limits, and tens of thousands of acres on the east are owned by public entities for water shed.)
Ms. Funk stated it seems to her part of the master plan for City parks ought to include shared use with the schools.
Ms. Shepherd explained that this issue is referenced in the report and discussions are in process as to a cooperative agreement between different entities to consider including schools in the plan.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked for those who wished to address the Committee to please come forward.
Jeff Salts, Chair, Open Space Advisory Committee for the Mayor in Salt Lake City. Also works for the Audubon Society as Director of Jordan River Environmental Education Program. Is just finishing a seven-week program for the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center which involves taking children on Jordan River from Utah Lake to the shores and in between, showing them the whole river. Mr. Salts stated that the Open Space Committee feels the adoption of the Master Plan should be postponed by the Commission because the Plan has been presented with very little time to address the content. Also, he indicated there are a number of aspects of the Plan that are outdated and glaring. One significant omission he noticed in his brief review of the report is that it mentions the whole City is included in the Master Plan, but if you look through the sections that have maps for all the different zoning districts, the Northwest Quadrant has been omitted. There is no map or discussion of this area in the Plan.
Mr. Salts continued by stating that the Northwest Quadrant provides incredible opportunities for critical habitat restoration and natural preserves. The Northwest Quadrant is under attack for development because there is no master plan for that zoning district, which is possibly a violation of state law. He added there are several complicated issues with the omission of the Northwest Quadrant that this Commission should address with this Master Plan. He does not want to see the Master Plan rammed through simply to make sure the consultants are finished with their product and paid for their work when there are glaring omissions. He stated there are other areas within Salt Lake City that have the potential for natural parkway and preserves such as the bend-in-the-river site which is under construction but also not mentioned in this report. He suggested that the survey of 200 people is statistically insignificant since 200 people out of a population of this City is not a large enough sample. Additionally, he said the Open Space Advisory Committee has not worked with this report, it was received in too little time to study, and he would like to ask the Commission to postpone adoption of the Master Plan for at least 30 days to allow appropriate administrative and public comment. It is very import to our city to have a good quality master plan so that we can improve our park facilities and, especially, if there is an opportunity to preserve critical habitat areas along the south shore of the Great Salt Lake, that we be given that chance.
Mr. Salts presented the group with a brochure prepared by the Audubon Society The Mitigation Commission of Utah Fish and Wildlife Service. It gives a sample of projects that are happening along the Jordan River for critical habitat and nature preserve areas.
Ms. Ruth Price next addressed the group stating she is active with the Sugar House Community Council and is liaison for the Mayor’s Open Space and Parks Committee in the Sugar House area. She stated adequate time hasn’t been allowed to review the Master Plan inasmuch as they received the document only five days prior to the meeting. She called attention to the errors in the Acknowledgements. Next she referred to the 1992 survey and 1992 results of that survey but stated does not mention the figures she personally obtained from the State Statistician for the year 2000. She also addressed the information regarding citizen participation on Page 2. She remarked that it’s nice the planning process and open houses were “***held in strategic areas of the community to facilitate grass roots communication with park users.” But, she stated she is also a landowner and represents many people on the Red Butte corridor, Parley’s corridor and Emigration corridor. These people were not targeted but own homes and property in those areas. They were never consulted on the Plan and would like to be omitted from it. She asked that the Commission postpone adopting this Petition.
Cindy Cromer next addressed the group stating she read the document 2-3 years ago when it was in draft form, it was dreadfully depressing at that time. She hoped that it has changed, but sees no reason to publish such a depressing document if there aren’t solutions proposed. She pointed out that Gilgal Gardens was not included in the study, and in the process of looking for Gilgal Gardens, she noticed that Tanner Park was included which was traded to the County to resolve ownership issues on the Metropolitan Hall of Justice block. The City no longer owns Tanner Park, and all its acreage needs to be deleted from the Inventory of Available Park Space. She asked to have modifications made to the Plan to include Gilgal Gardens and delete Tanner Park from the list. Ms. Cromer recommended that the Planning Director free up time for the Planners to take time to look at the neighborhoods where they are assigned to spot items in the Plan that need to be addressed.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission.
Ms. McDonald inquired as to whether the City has a policy dealing with water issues in the parks. Are we trying to perhaps decrease our water use, and are we looking at more economical uses?
Mr. Cook responded that it is a large issue. The matter is currently being studied as well as looking at some kind of central control.
Mr. Bollwinkel responded that a central control system could monitor rainfall.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that he is not comfortable with the Planning Commission taking any action on this issue at this time. He reiterated that the Commission hasn’t had enough time to study the report. Additionally, he wants to see a scope of services from the Engineering Division before action is taken.
Ms. McDonald stated she would like to take the report to the Community Council and get some feedback.
Ms. Short noted that at the back of the report there is a sort of an implementation plan and all it really is a huge laundry list of all the work that needs to be done. It’s impossible to cost it out and then ten years from now decide to do the work. Is there a way to prioritize somehow?
Ms. McDonald stated again she doesn’t feel that some of the priorities and needs listed for the Avenues are not necessary. If you go by the national standards, it may appear as such, but if you deal with human standards or neighborhood standards, it will be determined those things really are not necessary and can be eliminated thereby reducing costs.
Mr. Jonas asked when the City bought the Country Club. He mentioned that on Page 103 it talks about maintenance costs for fiscal years 85-86 vs. 90-91. He stated he can’t understand how that can be pertinent to a document produced in the year 2000.
Mr. Smith suggested that the Commission be very clear about what they are asking.
Mr. Goldsmith answered that he would like the Planning staff along with himself to go through various parts of the report to ensure it is consistent with other master plan documents. Also would like to address some of the broader issues such as the open space corridor and how to deal with it long-term.
Mr. Smith stated he had two reactions. His thought as he went through it, was that what we are already doing, we don’t seem to be doing very well. For example, he mentioned that when he walked through Liberty Park a couple of weeks ago the beautiful water features were sitting there dry. He asked what kind of lunacy is this to have spent that kind of effort and then be not be able to activate it at a time of year when it should be.
Mr. Smith stated that another thought is when he read the agenda and found this item listed, he expected to see huge numbers of people in attendance at the meeting, but was shocked to find such a few people in attendance.
Ms. Funk stated she really liked Ms. McDonald’s idea that local groups are more aware of their needs, problems, and desires than anyone else. She really feels this issue should go back to the local groups.
Mr. Daniels added he feels the one thing everyone is trying to say is this document is just not ready.
Ms. Funk recommended that the hearing on this Petition be continued to some later date after the Planning Director and staff have had an opportunity to review it and make some recommendations. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms, McDonald, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye.” Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Public Hearing – Metropolitan Hall of Justice Block (a.k.a. Library Square) – The Planning Commission will receive public comment and consider making recommendations to the City Council on a revised Metropolitan Hall of Justice/Library Block Plan (200 East to 300 East and 400 South to 500 South) presented by the Salt Lake City Library Staff and project architects.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report. Salt Lake City has been considering redeveloping the library block for a number of years. In the mid-1990s a local architectural firm, EDA was hired to develop a block plan and in 1998 a successful bond election was held. The proceeds from that bond are being used to finance the construction of a new library. As a result Moshe Safdie & Associate Architects was hired to design the library and explore different variations of the EDA plan that was developed for the block. Since they have been brought on board, they have attended various public meetings, open houses, and workshops. Since that time there have been several variations for the development of the block.
Mr. Paterson continued by stating that last fall some concepts were developed involving mixed-use development on the eastern portion of the block which included office space and residential uses. However, Mayor Anderson has brought in a new vision for the eastern portion of this block, and Mr. Moshe Safdie and his team have developed an open-space concept to go along with the library.
Mr. Paterson asked that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to hold public hearings and adopt the block plan for this block and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Paterson then turned the time to Mr. Safdie and his team to go through the details with the group. In addition to Mr. Safdie, Mr. Steve Crane of Valentiner Crane Architects was in attendance.
Mr. Safdie displayed a model of the current plan for the library block. He began his presentation by explaining that the project started with the master plan that had been adopted. They then began working on the design combining housing, office space and possibly a hotel. A number of schemes were developed with the objective being that the area would not only house the library but serve as a major public meeting place, both indoor and outdoor.
Some months ago in brainstorming sessions with the Mayor and others, it was decided to go back to first principles. How would one make this block the most effective and have a public gathering place which would become the focal point in terms of the full life of the City? Certain elements needed to be considered. In addition to shops, an auditorium, and library, it would be nice to have a small cinema complex. It’s important to put the existing library to good use to complement the activities. As a result of these sessions, it was concluded that the entire block should be an actively programmed open space plus the facilities which are already programmed and to combine it with the City and County Building with its open space to make a two-block park. The scheme that is currently being proposed shows the entire block as a series of open spaces in addition to the library, the existing library, piazza, cinema, etc. The eastern side is designed as an active part of the picture.
Mr. Safdie pointed out that in building the complex, different grades will be dealt with. The grades build up gently towards a level one floor above the street level so that as you walk up you are looking down through the open part of the wall into a public piazza lined with shops, cinema, theaters, etc.
The other corner gently terraces upward with an area for playgrounds, picnic area, and reading garden. The curved wall is designed as a climbable wall that can be ascended to reach the roof of the library that will also be a public park. Part of it is open to the library where patrons can come out of the library and sit outside. It would also serve as a place for receptions and other functions. This plan provides for a very urban, active piazza with a reflecting pool, a fountain, cafes, shops and, hopefully, a major restaurant a various public groups seeking to utilize the existing library.
Ms. Short asked for an explanation of the shops.
Mr. Safdie explained that the initial program included the accommodation of the kind of retail cafes that would be compatible with the library. He said he thinks this was partially inspired by the library at Vancouver where an urban room was created which housed a book shop, three or four levels of cafes and fast food, has a bank machine, and a post office. This provides services for not only library patrons but people planning on meetings at library square.
Mr. Safdie explained that the shops are quite shallow, being only 15 feet deep. They have brought people in to share ideas concerning the kind of retail shops that would be appropriate for a complex of this kind. He added that the retail and entertainment are important to give the complex the kind of life it should have.
Mr. Daniels asked about ADA issues with the project.
Mr. Safdie responded that all ADA requirements have been addressed in spirit and by letter of the law. There is one element of the plan which is complex as far as ADA is concerned, and that is the climbable wall. Public access has been provided to the roof by elevators. However, the climbable wall itself will be restricted to those who are able to climb the wall. Throughout the remainder of the building and the plaza there are ramps and elevators provided for access.
Ms. McDonald inquired if the amphitheater being where it is will there be reflections off that wall?
Mr. Safdie explained that the angle of the sun in the summer is such that it will not present a problem. Also he explained that the wall is designed so that sound will travel through it. He further explained that there are details which still have to be worked out.
Ms. Funk asked if the wall would obstruct the view of the City and County Building?
Mr. Safdie explained that there is a large 30-foot high opening that would provide visual access to the City and County Building.
Mr. Jonas asked what purpose the building to the north of the existing library, as shown on the model, would serve?
Mr. Safdie said without knowing what will take place as to future users, from the point of view of spatial definition of the public piazza, it would be good to provide space for other entities such as additional shops or perhaps a small museum.
Mr. Crane apologized for not having more drawings available for this meeting, but another meeting was scheduled for this night, and the other drawings were taken there. He did explain there is a scale model on display at the library.
Mr. Smith told the group he is missing the housing that was included in the original plan, but doesn’t see any way to bring it back. However, he feels it is incumbent upon the City to deal with the loss of housing. He pointed out that now people would have to drive their cars to get this beautiful park. He pointed out that in Vancouver hotels and offices were developed in the areas surround the new library. So there is potential for building housing is great. Planning mechanisms need to be put in place to guide the development. Mr. Safdie said rather than losing housing, the opportunity to develop housing around the perimeter is increased.
Mr. Goldsmith added that there have been many conversations, not only with Mr. Safdie and his team, but with the Administration and many of the Planning staff who were dubious about getting rid of this mixed use on the eastern edge of the site. He said the Mayor is clearly committed to the opportunity for development of the surrounding blocks.
Mr. Crane pointed out that rather than losing one street of housing that looks to a piazza, three streets of housing that look to a piazza and park are being gained.
Mr. Smith stated he would really encourage a broader band of trees on 200 East. He said he may even go so far as to suggest there be only one lane of traffic in each direction on 200 East.
Mr. Goldsmith suggested these ideas should be passed on directly to the City Council.
Mr. Daniels inquired as to what the plan is for the existing library building.
Mr. Safdie explained there is a proposal and several submissions have been received.
Mr. Goldsmith said these are being handled by the RDA rather than the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jonas asked how much parking will be available in the area.
Mr. Safdie answered there will be parking beneath the building which will accommodate 700 cars. The parking area does not extend below the area where the trees are planted because the root system of the trees needs the area to expand.
Mr. Daniels asked if there is parking provided for very large vehicles like buses.
Mr. Safdie explained there is a small trucking dock. The parking is basically for cars.
Mr. Daniels suggested this should be considered in order to accommodate the bus loads of children that come to the library. At a very minimum a drop-off place should be provided.
Mr. Crane explained there is a book drop-off that would probably hold two buses which turns in off the back. The passengers could be dropped off there and the buses could exit from there.
Mr. Smith asked that members of the public who would like to speak to please come forward.
Cindy Cromer addressed the group and stated this is an exciting and interesting building. She asked how much of this block is going to be used in showcasing this building? What is the best use of this block to enhance this design? She stated there are some other things that should be looked at. Her concern focuses on spatial requirements of the City that need to be addressed. She pointed out that the City is currently paying rent in various buildings around town to house City Departments. Two that she mentioned are Transportation and Engineering. She pointed out that these two entities are in different buildings with miserable parking, and it deters people who are trying to participate in City government from obtaining information. It also deters the City employees from communicating with each other, and she has abundant examples of employees failing to communicate with each other. She stated that within one week this summer, there were no less than five instances during which she told City employees and City representatives things that she thought they already knew. These people learned them from her. She feels the City is looking itself into leases to pay rent in other buildings indefinitely, and this is being done regardless of what the market conditions are. She continued by stating that in addition to the issues of rent and poor communications, there is the maintenance issue. Since there isn’t money to maintain neighborhood parks, where is the money coming from to maintain this new park? Is this money coming the from the bond money which has been approved? Did she commit to maintain this park in perpetuity? She asked the Commission to think about these things. Yhe last issue Ms. Cromer addressed is the number of open spaces we currently have downtown. She listed the LDS Church properties, Block 57, Washington Square, the Gateway, Pioneer Square, City Creek and Memory Grove. She said there also may be others, but these are the major ones she noted. It is her feeling that the City should look at how much open space we now have and how we are going to pay to maintain this new area. Can we afford this? She asked that the Commission think about these things. She continued by stating that the City really needs to look at the issue of departments being scattered all over the City.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and asked for further comments from the Commission.
Ms. Funk she has thought about some of the same concerns Ms. Cromer mentioned. She stated there is not question that this complex is a magnificent structure, but cost is a real concern for her. She wonders if this is the appropriate time to do this. Are we better served to spend money at Pioneer Park rather than develop this area? The Mayor has been concerned about too much retail space in the City, and now we are adding more retail.
Mr. Jonas asked if the bond is adequate to cover these costs?
Mr. Smith asked Ms. Tessman to come forward and address these issues.
Ms. Tessman stated the costs related to the east side of the block are not included in the bond and never were anticipated to be included. Originally, it was known that once the demolition occurred, a certain investment would have to be put into completing the area to the east. There is about $1.2 million in the actual proposed budget that was intended towards what was originally a very simple plan of doing this. Want to make sure that there is a very thorough discussion as to whether or not that $1.2 million is better invested in moving the project forward rather than spending it to replace the excavation on the east side of the block. She continued by saying that from the beginning the Library and those responsible for the bond money wanted to make sure there was a thoughtful approach as to what the future development would be on the east side of the block. She said that when Mayor Anderson came into office, he felt the idea of a green space should be more fully explored as an alternative to the original mixed-use proposal. However, there was never any intention that the bond money would include that part of the project. She continued by saying they feel very comfortable that the budget they have is going to able to accomplish not only what was originally planned. Won’t know what the actual contract is on the contract until closer to January or February. It is possible that if some of the budget estimates have been conservative, we may actually have some latitude within the bond to invest in what the City Council chooses to do. Hopeful there could be some investment from the bond beyond the $1.2 million, but she wanted to be very careful about that because the first priority is completing what was originally committed to the public to do. She also pointed out that the RDA, in their last budget discussions, agreed that if the revenues associated with the RDA exceeded the anticipated revenues this year, the City Council, acting as the RDA, agreed they would devote at least $2 million of that additional revenue to support this project.
Mr. Crane explained that the shops proposed for this development wouldn’t really be competing with other downtown retail. They are just small shops such a deli, a copy center. This is actually an opportunity for mom and pop shops to come back.
Ms. Tessman added that this space is also being looked at for community purposes. Actually, when these spaces are developed the Library will be asking for proposals from groups like literacy organizations. She reported she has been working with the Center for Peace and Justice. They have thought that some of the space in the wall might be comfortable for Community Councils. The Councils have asked at the Library to provide them with space in the current facility. So the space is not being looked at solely as shops but as what can be done to enhance the idea of community and community services here.
Ms. Tessman pointed out that the building on the west side, as a function of the library project, has office space comprising about 8,000 sf of space that will be available for lease. This space was intended for future growth of the library, but it has already been mentioned to Salt Lake City Corporation that there might be office spaces in that facility that could create some of the proximities and relationships that would prove helpful.
Ms. Short added she felt the amphitheater might lend itself to some donor who would like to put their name on it depending upon what kind of dollars we are talking about.
Ms. Tessman answered that right now for what we are seeing, in very conceptual form, has been costed out at somewhere in the vicinity of $5 million. She stated that $1.2 is potentially there because of the bond budget, if the City Council, acting as the RDA, is realistic about potential revenues, there is potentially another $2 million. It is her feeling the as a construction project, the money is not too far away, but maintenance is a very important factor. This is not property the library would feel a responsibility to maintain.
Mr. Goldsmith reported there have been conversations with the Mayor and Ms. Tessman regarding this being a joint venture opportunity with such groups as Red Butte Arboretum. This could become an ancillary facility for them. In addition there are other opportunities that can be explored.
Ms. McDonald stated this a very attractive block and has the potential for a dynamic number of people to utilize this facility. However, how does this new center relate to Pioneer Park, Gateway, Gallivan Plaza and all of those areas fit into the overall vision of the City. What is the policy?
Mr. Goldsmith replied that that is a very important question, and the Planning Department is going before the City Council on September 12, 2000, to ask that same question. He stated he has been asked about the Pioneer Park problem. The RDA Board has approved the acceptance of proposals for the park, yet the City Council has not approved the development. So the question remains, can we develop something on Pioneer Park and what are the design parameters, how much of the park can be used? Do you get rid of the entire green space? Where is public domain going to be? These are questions that have to be answered by the City Council.
Mr. Jonas moved that in the matter of the Metropolitan Hall of Justice block, aka Library Square, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, based on the findings of fact, a positive recommendation on the Plan that has been presented.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald and Ms. Short voted “Aye.” Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mary Mascaro, Secretary