SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Robert “Bip” Daniels, Babs DeLay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Tim Chambless was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde; Planners Doug Dansie, Janice Lew, and Joel Paterson, Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; City Attorney Ed Rutan and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace; and Community and Economic Development Director Allison Weyher.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:46 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.
Planning Commission Vice-Chair Election
Chair Jonas raised the issue of the Planning Commission election of the Vice Chair. Commissioner Daniels nominated Commissioner Prescott Muir. Commissioner McDonough seconded the nomination.
Chair Jonas asked for any other nominations. None came forth. Chair Jonas called for the question. All voted in favor. The motion passed.
Approval of the Minutes Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Commissioner DeLay referred to page 28, second paragraph, 3rd line and asked that the name Jean Peri be corrected to read Jean Paris Wigs.
Commissioner Daniels requested for the following modifications:
Page 5, the motion be changed to read “the remaining items A, C, D, & E on the Consent Agenda.”
Page 13, 5th paragraph the first sentence shall be changed to read “the property that occupies the right-of-way”.
Page 27, first paragraph, 12th line from the bottom the word tare be changed to are so the corrected sentence would read “streets and sidewalks that are damaged.”
Page 32, 3rd paragraph, first sentence, the word the be changed to that so the corrected sentence will read “Commissioner Galli said that he was”.
Page 42, third paragraph from the bottom, last sentence, insert a space between a and 50.
Commissioner Scott referred to the following modifications:
Page 12, second paragraph the sentence be changed to read “Mr. Zunguze pointed out.”
Page 30, last paragraph, the words piece mail be modified to read, “in a hiccup and piecemeal fashion.”
Page 42, last paragraph, first line the word raps be modified to Wraps.
Page 43, third paragraph, the spelling of alterative, be corrected to read alternative.
Page 43, last paragraph, the word scued be corrected to read skewed. Same paragraph the last full sentence be changed to reflect, “steep slope area and that is an infringement that “.
Chair Jonas referred to the following modifications:
Page 13 first paragraph, the correct spelling for the engineer is McNeil.
Page 42 last paragraph the words road way and driveway be corrected to read, roadway and driveway.
Page 43, last paragraph, last full sentence be separated in to two separate sentences which would read, “He said the utility cuts would be cutting through a lot of significant steep slope area and that is an infringement that we don’t need to have on the hillside. It should be placed along the pipeline. “
Page 11, in the motion numbers 2 & 3 be corrected to numbers 1 & 2.
Chair Jonas asked if the findings of fact could be eliminated from the minutes. He asked if we could rely on the staff report for that information to shorten the minutes.
Page 41, first full paragraph the fifth sentence be changed to read “The Petitioner is now willing to re-align the proposed trail parallel with most of the existing trail line.”
Page 42, first paragraph, the sixth line from the bottom, be changed to read “He said that they have tried to be sensitive”. The same paragraph, the next sentence be changed to read, “Mr. Turville noted that they have designed it so that “.
Page 44, Ms. Hallie Robins comments, insert the words put in place. The corrected sentence would read “She said that a revegetation bond should be put in place.”
Page 45, second to the last paragraph be changed to read “Chair Jonas said that the last suggestion is not an option according to the developer”.
Commissioner DeLay made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Seelig abstained. Jeff Jonas, as Chair did not vote. The motion passed.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
Consideration of the Consent Agenda began at 6:01 p.m.
a. This is a request by Salt Lake City Property Management Division and T-Mobile Telecommunications Corporation. A telecommunications lease is proposed from Salt Lake City to T-Mobile for cellular antennas located on the top of a power-utility pole located within the City owned alley, adjacent to 1475 East Kensington Avenue. The antenna installation was authorized by an administrative hearing held earlier this year. The location is zoned Residential “R-1-5000” on the west side of the alley and Neighborhood Commercial “CN” on the east side of the alley.
Commissioner Muir made a motion to approve the lease agreement between Salt Lake City Property Management Division and T-Mobile Telecommunications Corporation for the erection of a cellular antenna adjacent to 1475 East Kensington Avenue. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was discussed at 6:02 p.m. Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission to initiate a petition to clarify section 21A.36.170 of the zoning ordinance. He added that it has recently come to the attention of the Planning Division that the Residential Mixed Use zoning district was created, to allow for the conversion of existing uses to permitted use are not functioning as intended. At present if a current use is a permitted use and the converted use is a permitted use section 21A.36.170 calls for the conditional use process of approval. Mr. Zunguze felt that it is not the intent of the ordinance to subject a permitted use to a rigorous process. Chair Jonas so moved, Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Mr. Zunguze addressed the Commission’s request for a letter to be written to City Council regarding the North West Quadrant Master Plan. He said that he had a draft prepared for the Chair to review at the end of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-635 by Qwest Corporation, requesting Conditional Use approval to install a ground mounted communications equipment cabinet at 2030 South Foothill Drive. The property is located in a Single Family Residential “R-1-7000” zoning district.
This hearing began at 6:04 p.m.
Planner Janice Lew reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She explained that the proposed equipment cabinet will provide “High Cap” service for commercial and business subscribers. The existing equipment on the site will continue to provide voice grade services; however, Qwest’s capacity to provide this “High Cap” service has been exhausted, thus the need for an additional cabinet at the site. Ms. Lew described the design of the proposal. The request is to install a 42 “wide, by 44” deep, by 71” high cabinet at the rear of the lot. Additional landscaping is proposed to screen the equipment pad along Foothill Drive. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to relocate the existing fence in order to partition the new structure and existing equipment. She said that the proposal has been to the Sugar House Community Council. Staff has also received a phone call from Mary Malayva, at 1930 Wasatch Drive who expressed concerns regarding any health issues that may result from the installation of the cabinet. Based on the comments and analysis and finding of fact as outlined in the staff report, Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use request subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Chair Jonas asked if the Applicant has a proposal designating where on the lot the fence would be located. Mr. Lew replied that it would cover the two cabinets to the rear of the lot.
Commissioner Scott inquired why the proposed size of the cabinet has larger dimensions than the general provisions of section 21A.02.050 of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Lew explained that the size of the cabinet does not meet the requirements to exempt it from this review, being a public utility it bumps this request into a conditional use review because of the residential zoning. Ms. Lew added that for this to be exempt it would need to be underground and there are other provisions for special exceptions which are outlined in the staff report. She suggested that the Applicant may be able to answer as to why the cabinet could not be put under ground.
Commissioner Seelig asked Ms. Lew if additional noise is anticipated with this proposal. Ms. Lew answered that her understanding is that the noise is not expected to increase.
Mr. Ralph Vigil, a right-of-way agent representing Quest Wireless Corporation addressed the Commission. He responded to the question regarding additional noise saying that the noise would be minimal. He understood that the facility is a controlled environment and there is a fan that probably would not be audible to anyone walking by. Mr. Vigil spoke to the issue of the size of the cabinet, saying that the proposed cabinet is the lowest profile available. He added that to get a smaller size in diameter they would have to compensate by raising the height of the cabinet to 65 to 70 inches.
Commissioner Noda asked Mr. Vigil if it is a possibility to bury the cabinet under ground. Mr. Vigil answered that the electronic equipment used can not be exposed to moisture, and they do not have a cabinet that can be placed in a below ground structure at this point.
Commissioner Noda asked Mr. Vigil how often they expect the site to be visited. Mr. Vigil reported that initially the installation would be the time when they have the most equipment there. After installation it would be the typical connect and disconnection as based on customers needs or requests. He added that they expect to visit three or four times a month for this one cabinet. The site itself is a hub for all of the local service in the area so those three or four times a month would be in addition to the visits that are already being made. Commissioner Noda asked if trucks or a van would be making the visits to the site. Mr. Vigil answered that the vans would pull up as close as they can to the curb and set out traffic cones. He noted that Quest tries to be very safety conscious.
Commissioner DeLay indicated that there are a lot of new businesses in that area and there is a great need for this cabinet to accommodate the changes there. She also said that she felt that the impact on the neighborhood would be minimal and is in support of this proposal.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
No public comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Pace if is common procedure for the Planning Commission to require a “hold harness” agreement. He added that it seems out of the ordinary for the Commission to get involved in to the kind of potential for litigation between two respective property owners. Mr. Pace replied that he would agree with Commissioner Muir that it is not often that a condition is placed to include a hold harness agreement; however, in the context of telecommunications facilities the City has often used them as a vehicle to facilitate what is needed to insure that both the City and property owners are not harmed by any potential impact. Mr. Pace added that in this case he felt the concept was to insure that if there were unintended consequences of this approval, than that risk was born by the Applicant rather than the City or property owners.
Mr. Wilde added that to his knowledge it has been standard language that had been negotiated at the time that the City was introduced to a large number of cell towers. He said that we have retained that language to give the property owners protection.
Motion
Commissioner Seelig moved that the Planning Commission approve petition 410-635, requesting conditional use approval to install a ground mounted cabinet for a private utility structure based on the discussion this evening as well as the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the conditions 1-6 also listed in the staff report. Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Muir proposed an amendment to add to conditions 1 & 2 “and restore landscaping”.
Commissioner Seelig accepted the amendment as part of her motion. Commissioner Daniels also accepted the amendment.
Amended Motion
Commissioner Seelig moved that the Planning Commission approve petition 410-635, requesting conditional use approval to install a ground mounted cabinet for a private utility structure based on the discussion this evening as well as the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the conditions 1-6 also listed in the staff report; with the modifications to conditions 1& 2 adding the words “and restore landscaping”. Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Conditions of approval:
1. The cabinets, including the cement pads, are removed within 90 days, if they are no longer needed or used and, any lease with the property owner is terminated.
2. A surety bond or cash bond is posted with the City assuring removal of the equipment and pad.
3. All utilities and cables are placed underground.
4. All lease agreements with property owners shall contain a “hold harmless” language to adequately protect the property owners from liability.
5. The proposed development shall meet all other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Seelig abstained. Jeff Jonas, as Chair did not vote. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-557, a request by Bruce Holt, represented by Chris McCandless, for a conditional use permit to provide a drive-through window for a coffee shop/deli at 1855 South 700 East, in a Neighborhood Commercial “CN” zoning district.
This hearing began at 6:18 p.m.
Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. Mr. Dansie clarified that the Jitterbug Coffee Hop Drive-Thru is located in a “CN” Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. He said that a drive-thru is a conditional use in the “CN” zoning district. This district is largely mapped within single-family neighborhoods. He described the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent property owners. He explained that the proposed site location is fairly unique because it is located on the east side of 700 East; which is a fairly major thoroughfare. This proposal has been to several different departments within the City as well as UDOT. All seemed in favor but would like an easement. He stated that this proposal has been presented to the Community Councils. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed drive-thru window; pending submittal of a final landscape plan and review of the final easement by the Transportation, Engineering, and surveying Divisions within the City.
Commissioner DeLay inquired about the three year versus the five year lease. Mr. Dansie explained that in similar cases the City has required a minimum lease of five years. It is required to be recorded against the deed of the other properties to assure that there is a permanence of the project.
Mr. Chris McCandless with CW Management Corporation at 9071 South 1300 West, representing the Applicant addressed the Commission. He said he is a relative of the applicant. He was asked to participate in this project primarily because he is a real-estate developer in Salt Lake County. He said that the Applicant works seven days a week about 14 hours a day and does not have the time, because of the nature of his business, to take the petition through the process. He submitted a packet of information to the Commission. The packet included a petition signed by 300 area residents and customers who want to endorse this project. The packet also includes a copy of the lease agreement; which includes an irrevocable three year extension. The extension would allow the Applicant to extend his lease for an additional three years. He said that their hope is that that extension would satisfy the ordinance; if not they would be happy the go back to renegotiate a five year lease that would be signed by the property owner. The third portion of the packet is the easement that has now been recorded per the Staff’s request. He added that they included a site plan, as well as a miscellaneous section that includes other letters and data to support the proposal. He said that the Jitterbug Coffee Shop has improved the neighborhood and the community. Mr. McCandless added that the fate this small business hinges on the drive-thru approval so the Applicant may continue to be competitive. He advised the Commission to vote in favor of this proposal.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing
Mr. Michael G Cavanaugh spoke to the Commission representing the Sugar House Community Council. He said that in addition to being on the community council he lives one block from the proposed drive-thru site. He spoke to support this petition saying that the concerns listed in the staff report such as: noise, pollution, and additional pedestrian traffic are not relevant if you are familiar with the area. He claimed that traffic from the drive-thru is not going to make an impact on 700 East. Pollution from cars idling is going to be immeasurable and should not even be considered. Pedestrian traffic will not be endangered by someone stopping to get a cup of coffee. He urged the Commission to go for the drive-thru window.
Ms. Mary Corporon spoke to the Commission representing the Vest Pocket Business Coalition, asking for the Commission to support the family run coffee shop. She stated that the applicant never contacted them asking for assistance; the Vest Pocket Business Coalition read about the public hearing and came on their own accord. The Vest Pocket Business Coalition was formed to support the small locally owned independent businesses of Salt Lake. She said that to throw up road blocks for this business or development may destroy it. They don’t have the same resources that the bigger corporations have to continue a business. Ms. Corporon stated that the Vest Pocket strongly supports this petition to continue it this location with what it needs to operate. She stated that the Community Councils have the power to impact locally owned and independent business. There is no set opportunity for those businesses to be represented on community councils, to the same extent that residential interests in the community are represented. She said that this business should go forward and asked for the Commission to approve the drive-thru.
Mr. Rawlins Young, a resident at 2135 South 1900 East spoke representing the Coalition for Livable Streets. He claimed that there is a more recent Master Plan than the one reference in the staff report, which was adopted in 1985. He said that there are differences in the two Master Plans, which specifically address impacts of automobiles and drive-thru windows. Mr. Young claimed that this petition has not gone before the Sugar House Community Council. He said that because that community council has not seen this petition; as well as the need for staff to include the more recent Master Plan in the staff report should be sufficient reason for the Planning Commission to not make a decision at this point.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Young to clarify his remark about the Sugar House Community Council not reviewing this project. Mr. Young corrected his remark saying that the community council had reviewed the project in 2001. He said that it was given a negative recommendation.
Chair Jonas clarified for the record the Westminster Master Plan had not been adopted at this point. The Planning Commission tabled that item.
Mr. Peter Corroon addressed the Commission as President of the Vest Pocket Business Coalition. He rebutted the last public comment that the project had not gone thoroughly through the Sugar House Community Council. He said that with all due respect, small business owners such as the Applicants do not have time to attend night meetings endlessly. He stated that this property was vacant for years and the coffee shop has been a grand improvement to the area. He added that the neighbor is a dry cleaner which has a drive-thru.
Mr. Don Iarussi addressed the Commission stating that it is unfortunate that there are so many people in attendance to decide the fate of Nordstrom; however, most people are not aware of the trials of the Jitterbug Café and other small businesses in Utah. He stated the community is very pleased with the Jitterbug Café as a part of their neighborhood and the service it provides. He stated that the Community Council should direct pollution concerns to the busses that idle at Hawthorn Elementary. He presumed that the pollution released from the busses would probably release more carbon monoxide in one morning than all of the cars would put out in a month from the Jitterbug Cafe.
Ms. Jennifer Garcia, local resident addressed the Commission to support the petition. She said that this a great place for a drive-thru because it is on the opposite side of the building than the entrance. She pointed out that there are several other drive-thru coffee shops in the neighborhood.
Mr. John Flores spoke to the Commission regarding the issue of public policy. He said that it is the Commission’s responsibility to determine public policy. He feels that this is a great addition to the neighborhood, with an owner who struggled to make a business work. He said that we have killed the free enterprise system simply because of bureaucracy of insensitive people that are not willing to make the decisions. He added that this is a great proposal and asked the Commission to support small businesses.
Mr. Jason Clinger addressed the Commission asking for them to support this petition. He spoke praises of the owner and the product that he produces.
Ms. Anita Albright spoke to the Commission in support of this petition. She supported the arguments that have already been made to support the Applicant. She said that it provides a service to the workers of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Richard Bettinson addressed the Commission to support of the Applicant and the conditional use. The applicant has made the neighborhood a better place and improved the property.
Ms. Christal LoPiccolo spoke to the Commission saying that a drive-thru window would make the coffee shop more convenient. She asked the Commission to approve the proposal.
Mr. Bret Roberts addressed the Commission saying that he has been going to the Jitterbug Café for a year. He drives from Kearns to support the Applicant.
Mr. Mark Ellison said that this seems to be more of an issue with a few people that don’t drink coffee. He said that this argument is a joke. He spoke to support the Applicant.
Chair Jonas read the following comments for the record:
Ms. Stacey Larson is a resident at 1468 Brooklane Circle. She sees no reason for the Jitterbug Café to not be allowed a drive-thru window. The business next door has one window and a drive-thru would be very beneficial to the business.
Ms. Grace Sperry is a resident at 2662 South Highland. She is attending the meeting for personal support of the Applicant.
Mr. Jessie Morris is a resident of 985 East 2700 South. The concerns about traffic pollution are unjustified due to this business being located on heavily trafficked 700 East. If a decision is delayed Jitterbug may close due to financial troubles. This would result in the building becoming vacant and prone to vandalism. Our community needs a variety of businesses and should do everything to support our local businesses.
Ms. Kathy Lilly is a resident of 824 South 800 East, concurred with what has been said and had nothing to add.
Ms. Nancy Lilly is a resident of 2591 Easy Creek Road. She feels that the Jitterbug should be allowed to have a window.
Chair Jonas closed Public Hearing.
Motion
Commissioner DeLay made a motion to grant approval of petition 410-557, a request for a conditional use, pending the submittal and construction of a landscape plan that meets the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, and final review of the cross-easement by Salt Lake City Transportation, Engineering, and Surveying Divisions, based upon the findings of fact as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair did not vote. The motion carries.
Mr. Zunguze spoke to address the concern raised by a public speaker; with respect to the staff report not being accurate. He noted that he conferred with Staff and found that the staff report is accurate and the information in the report has no conflict.
Petition No. 400-03-20, by Gateway Associates, Ltd., requesting to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by allowing department stores in the Gateway Mixed Use “G-MU” zoning district. As a part of this petition, the Planning Commission may consider amendments to the Gateway Development and other relevant Master Plans.
This hearing began at 7:04 p.m.
Commissioner Muir stated that he would like to bring to the attention of the Planning Commission a potential conflict of interest. He said that he is designing a house for Mr. David Gee, who is the Chief of Council for the Boyer Company. Commissioner Muir added that he feels that he can maintain objectivity but he would like to defer to the judgment of the Planning Commission on the matter. Commissioner Daniels said that he supported Mr. Muir’s judgment in maintaining an unbiased position. The other Commissioners concurred.
Planner Joel Paterson presented the zoning text amendment petition as written in the staff report. Mr. Paterson explained that the request is to allow department stores as permitted uses in the Gateway Mixed Use zoning district. If the proposed text amendment is approved, it would allow stores such as Nordstrom, Target, or other department stores to locate in the Gateway Mixed Use zoning district. The Gateway Mixed Use zoning district perimeters are generally located south of North Temple Street to 200 South and from 400 West to “I-15”. Mr. Paterson explained that the purpose of the Gateway Mixed Use district is to encourage the mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses within a neighborhood atmosphere. The proposal goes on to further state that the 500 West corridor was constructed with the intention to be primarily residential from North Temple Street to 400 South. He offered the definition of department stores as written in the zoning ordinance which is defined as, “a store offering a range of goods displayed within separate sections of the store, which are known as departments. The range of goods sold usually includes apparel, appliance, automotive goods, housewares, and home furnishings. Department stores also contain not less than one hundred thousand square feet of floor area”. He added that prior to this petition being submitted to the City the Gateway Associates requested an Administrative Determination for Target and Nordstrom; to determine, under the zoning ordinance, whether or not the two stores would be determined to be department stores. The Zoning Administrator determined that both Target and Nordstrom would be department stores under the City definition. The Gateway Associates appealed that determination of Nordstrom to the Board of Adjustment, which makes interpretations of the zoning ordinance. The Board of Adjustment concurred with the Zoning Administrator’s determination. Mr. Paterson stated that the proposed text amendment would be necessary for Nordstrom to relocate in the Gateway zoning district.
Mr. Paterson explained that as part of the public process, the Petitioner was required to go to five different Community Councils which were: State Fairpark, Capitol Hill, Rio Grande, Peoples Freeway, and Poplar Grove. He mentioned that the State Fairpark submitted a list of their comments which generally supported the Text amendment. The Capitol Hill Community Council did not take a vote on the amendment. They indicated that there was considerable interest in locating Target in this area; but they had concerns with the design of the building and parking arrangements. The Rio Grande Community Council took a vote and supported the proposed text amendment. They are very supportive of additional housing in this community. They had concerns with the City amending the Master Plan without further public comment. The Peoples Freeway voted in favor of the proposal. They mentioned that they had concerns but did not specifically list what their concerns were. The Poplar Grove submitted a letter saying that they voted unanimously against this proposal which is contrary to a local news paper article which claimed that the planning division staff report said that all five Community Councils voted in favor.
Mr. Paterson said that as this type of proposal is reviewed, the existing City policies and Master Plans that are relevant to the proposed change must be reviewed as well. He said that the area that the text amendment will be affecting is just the Gateway Mixed Use zone, which is only mapped in the Gateway Master Planning Area. He said that the Gateway Master Plan includes specific language that discusses the need to encourage new development which strengthens and compliments the Central Business District; and also that new development should strengthen Main Street as a primary retail core with the Gateway district as the secondary retail area having a different character and appeal. He said that the Downtown Master Plan is relevant to this area and has statements that include that we should develop a critical mass of retail along Main Street that can successfully draw and compete with other commercial retail areas in the region and reinforce the existing business along Main Street. The Downtown Master plan refers to a large area of “Downtown” which is the area from I-15 to 700 East and from North temple to 900 South. The retail Core is smaller, encompassing the area from South Temple to 400 South and from 200 West to 200 East. The City Council has reviewed its policy of the Downtown area and the development and preservation of the retail core along Main Street. In March of 2002, the Council sent a letter to Nordstrom reiterating what the Council’s policy is. City Council voted unanimously to conclude that they remain committed to these policies in the long term good of Downtown Salt Lake City, of which, Main Street is the heart. To do otherwise would undermine over 20 years of planning and effort as well as 100 million dollars in public investment in just the past ten years. Therefore the Council is not in favor of changing the zoning or previous agreements with Salt Lake City’s Redevelopment Agency and the Gateway Associates. In January 2003 the City Council released a policy statement that was titled Salt Lake City Council’s policies for the future development of Downtown. The overarching policy in that document states that the City Council recognizes that Main Street is the core of our Downtown Commercial tourist and convention activity. To encourage the relocation of retail or other commercial businesses or other key anchors away from Main Street would undermine these activities to the long-term detriment to Downtown including the Gateway and other developments. Continued Vitality of Main Street is essential to the economic and cultural health of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Paterson stated that based upon the Master Plan policies mentioned and the City Council policies just mentioned staff can not make a finding that the proposal is consistent with the existing Master Plans and City policies. Mr. Paterson referred to a map of the City showing the four different zones where department stores are allowed. The “D-1” which is located in the Downtown area and the “D-2” zone which extends to 900 South. The “CS” Community Shopping Center District which is scattered throughout the City and the Sugar House Business District located in the heart of the Sugar House along 2100 South. He said that all four of these zones allow department stores as permitted uses which means that it does not require public process before the Planning Commission to build a new department store. The Applicant would just have to meet the requirements for those zones and then obtain an over the counter permit. He reiterated that the petition before the Commission is to allow department stores in the Gateway Mixed Use zone. He added that when the Gateway Mixed Use zoning district was created in 1998 the City purposely precluded department stores as a use to be allowed in this zone. He stated that if the Commission chose to make a positive recommendation, then Staff would recommend that they amend the text to allow department stores as a conditional use in the Gateway Mixed Use zone. He said that this would give the City additional discretion review process which would require conditional use review before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Paterson spoke of a study conducted by the City Council which explored the economic impact if Nordstrom was to leave Downtown. The study looked at three different scenarios; and the highs and lows of those scenarios. One scenario was if Nordstrom stayed at the Crossroads mall with improvements to the mall. The second scenario would be if Nordstrom was to move to the Gateway Mall. The third scenario was if Nordstrom actually left the City. Based on the finding of 2002 the Crossroads Mall generated about one and a half million dollars worth of sales tax revenue for Salt Lake City, which is the best alternative for the City in terms of tax revenue. The low revenue of this scenario would generate by, 2009 up to 1.8 million and 2.2 million dollars. The worst alternative in the study would be If Nordstrom left the City; sales tax revenue would drop between 1.1 million and 2.2 million dollars. There would certainly be an impact if Nordstrom was to leave the City and relocate to the Gateway. However, it would be a more dire situation if Nordstrom was to leave the City all together.
In 2002 the Redevelopment Agency renegotiated a portion of their participation agreement with the Gateway Associates and in the revised agreement; the Redevelopment Agency placed a limit on the maximum size of 45,000 square feet on all retail facilities in the Gateway development. This agreement exempts Galyans which had already signed a lease with the Gateway Associates. If this text amendment is adopted then this agreement would also have to be amended.
Mr. Paterson said that the proposed text amendment is not consistent with applicable current Master Plan and City Council policies as discussed above. Therefore, Staff cannot support the proposed text amendment to allow department stores in the G-MU district without a change in applicable Master Plan language and City Council policy.
Having made the above recommendation, Staff is mindful of the need, and recommends that, the Planning Commission initiate a petition to:
1. Clarify the intent and application of the term “large scale uses, such as retail uses that are a part of a center or complex” found in the Gateway Development Master Plan on page 6 of the document Creating an Urban Neighborhood; and
2. Refine or revise the current definition of “department store” found in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
However, if the Planning Commission is of the considered opinion that current economic conditions have changed significantly enough to warrant a recommendation to change the City’s Master Plan and City Council’s policies regarding the future development of downtown, then the Staff recommends that the Commission:
1. Make specific findings to support such a recommendation;
2. Recommend that the City Council approve Petition 400-03-20 to amend section 21A.31.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Gateway Districts to allow department stores in the G-MU as a conditional use.
3. Recommend a review of the Gateway Development Master Plan to determine appropriate specific amendments to ensure consistency between the plan and the proposed text amendment;
4. Recommend that the City Council review the Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown to reflect the proposed amendments to the Gateway Development Master Plan.
5. Recommend a review of the Redevelopment Agency agreement with Gateway Associates that imposes a limit on the maximum size of retail spaces at the Gateway to eliminate a potential conflict with the proposed text amendment to allow department stores in the G-MU district.
Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Paterson if he knew the corresponding scale of the retail in Gateway in terms of square footage to the Crossroads and ZCMI Center malls so the Commission can get a sense of the relevant size of the Gateway project to the two malls on Main Street. Mr. Paterson answered that his understanding is that the retail component of the Gateway complex is somewhere around 650 thousand square feet, the over all project its self is over two and a half million square feet. Mr. Paterson apologized for not having the square footage of the other two malls.
Commissioner Muir said that as he read the pertinent Master Plans for this project; they all seem rather consistent. He read a reference from the Gateway Specific Plan saying that retail is defined as small commercial uses such as: grocery stores, daycare, dry cleaners, hardware stores or secondary support commercial which is defined as small to moderate scale uses that provide support services to the central business district. Commissioner Muir stated that it seems that the City has a rather cohesive plan but the product of that plan is something totally different. Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Paterson to explain how we got to this point. Mr. Paterson answered that we need to keep in mind that the Gateway Master Planning area covers much more than the Gateway development itself. He added that the Gateway Master Plan area covers 650 acres. Mr. Paterson said that he did not feel that there is an inherent conflict between what the Master Plan envisioned and what the end result is. He added that the Planning Commission reviewed the Gateway development as a Planned Development and Conditional Use and found that it was consistent with Master Plan.
Chair Jonas interjected that he tends to focus on the retail aspect; there is another commercial component. He said that he finds it interesting that the concept of 45,000 square foot limit came about two years after the adoption of these Master Plans. Clearly at some point in time someone anticipated that there could be large uses at the Gateway.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Paterson about the Community Councils comments in the staff report and how many support this proposal. Mr. Paterson answered that there were 3 Community Councils who voted in favor: Peoples Freeway, Rio Grande, and State Fair Park; 1 Community Council, Capitol Hill did not take a vote; and 1 Community Council, Poplar Grove voted to oppose the text amendment.
Commissioner Delay clarified that Target and Nordstrom may locate in any of the “D-1” and “D-2” zones within the City.
Commissioner Scott asked for clarity as to how many housing units are currently at the Gateway development. Mr. Paterson said that when the development is complete the Gateway will have 500 housing units total. He explained that the different housing is provided in the Gateway area and where the future proposed housing will be.
Commissioner Muir followed up on Commissioner DeLay’s comment. He stated that the correspondence that has come out of the City Council Office has been consistent about trying to preserve the status on Main Street and he asked Mr. Paterson why a petition has not been initiated to clean up the “D-1” and “D-2 zones that allow for department stores. Commissioner Muir added that it is inconsistent to impose restrictions on one small sector and allow for the opportunity for bifurcation or dispersal of focus in regard to retail in all of these other areas. Mr. Paterson replied that as a part of the Staff recommendation, the Planning Commission initiate a review of the definition of department store, and define what large-scale retail uses in the Gateway are. He added that it would also be appropriate to review where department stores are allowed. He said that when the zoning rewrite took place in 1995 the entire City was remapped and it was during that process that the zones were created to allow department stores in some zones and not others. Mr. Paterson said that Downtown Master Plan and City Council policy support large-scale retail development in the Downtown area so it may be appropriate for those zoning areas.
Commissioner Muir complimented Mr. Paterson saying that this is a very difficult issue and Mr. Paterson has done an admirable job in helping the Commission understand it.
Commissioner Seelig inquired why this petition came before the Commission as a text amendment rather than a potential Master Plan amendment. Mr. Paterson answered that when the applications came to the Planning Division they were for the proposed text change. Staff was aware that there was certainly potential that there may be a need of a Master Plan amendment, but due to City Council policies and the fact the Planning Staff’s function is to implement the policy and not make it, Staff felt that they could not recommend the text amendment to the Planning Commission. If the City Council decided that there were significant changes that would support changing the text that that would be an appropriate time to do a full scale review of the Master Plan. He added that when the Gateway Master Plan was first written the department stores were purposely left out. If the City were to allow them we would have to look at both the Gateway Mixed Use zone and the Gateway Master Plan to insure that all of the policies are still appropriate if department stores were allowed at the Gateway.
Mr. Zunguze addressed the Commission to say that sometimes it is not necessarily the case that Master Plans have to be recommended when the Planning Division suggests changes or initiation of petitions. He said that Staff is not saying that the Commission needs to change the Master Plans. He said that staff is trying to convey the notion that the tools that we have to implement the current Master Plans with, are not giving the leverage or flexibility to delineate between these uses and so a better definition of what is meant by department store would help clarify the intent of the Master Plans. He added that if it does cause the need to change the Master Plans then Staff would advise the Commission accordingly.
Mr. Roger Boyer addressed the Commission representing the Boyer Company. He said that the City approached the Boyer Company with the idea of assisting in the redevelopment of a large brown field rail yard, the Union Pacific Depot area. He said that at that time in 1980, 43 percent of the County retail sales were in the Central Business District. In 1997 when the Boyer Company was looking at the development it had shrunk to 28 percent. He said that the City invited the Boyer Company to submit a proposal for the Gateway project to help reverse the leakage of retail outside of the Salt lake area. He referred to the original Master Plan of 1998, and mentioned that if the Boyer Company thought that they would be doing a project that focused on daycare, drycleaners, veterinarian, and other specialty shops then they were in the wrong place with the wrong project. He did not believe that that was what the total Master Plan was implied to say. He referred to the Gateway Master Plan and the interpretation he saw saying that the Gateway development is a cohesive retail shopping center. Mr. Boyer went on to describe the Gateway layout and the facilities available there. He said that their understanding at the time of the first negotiations was that they knew that it was not zoned for department stores but what they conceived at that time was that there was no square footage limitation and they had no limitation on seeking anchors for the project. He said that the purpose of the rezoning request is the result of the determination that Target and Nordstrom are by the zoning ordinance department stores. This interpretation is much broader than Boyer expected. He said that by that interpretation any store over the allowed square footage would be considered a department store. He stated that for the good of Downtown the Gateway Mixed Use district should be amended to allow department stores. He addressed the standard that discusses whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of the existing community saying that the surrounding communities need and want the kind of tenants that the text amendment would allow. Mr. Boyer said that they did a study last year that concluded that one; the Gateway was determined to be the most pleasurable shopping experience of all of the opportunities available in our market and two; that people would drive farther to come to the Gateway and he felt that that proved that people would come to Downtown with additional contributions. He believed that we are at a critical point in Downtown revitalization. He added that when people outside of the City look at this scenario they ask why we would let Nordstrom leave Downtown if they want to stay. Why wouldn’t we want Target to locate Downtown when people are driving to Centerville and Union Park to shop there. He asked the Commission if they want to imply that there is no place Downtown for another large retailer. Mr. Boyer said that if we make it difficult for someone like Target, or send Nordstrom away than it will have a chilling effect on other retailers. He added that he knows of several desirable retailers that would like to locate in Salt Lake but are watching to see what this outcome is. We should be more inclusive and open all of Downtown to department stores. He asked the Commission to exercise leadership and approve the request.
Chair Jonas inquired why the Boyer Company originally agreed to the 45,000 square footage maximum. Mr. Boyer suggested that the Commission read the agreement. He said that they had no choice at that time if they were going to deliver on their commitment to the Olympics. He said that they had faith in the City Council to lift that requirement when it was appropriate. He stated that Boyer believes that it is now appropriate.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Boyer if he thought there was anything in the Master Plan that was drafted prior to that agreement that precluded the Gateway on size. Mr. Boyer answered absolutely not.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Boyer regarding the importance of the residential component with an urban feel to it. Did he seriously entertain trying to bring those components in; and she asked if the original projections were higher than 300 by the year 2003. Mr. Boyer answered that if you have been over to the Gateway the housing component is a very dense addition. In fact, the condominium project is twelve stories high. He did not see how they could add more housing to that. They would like to get a small convenience store but the market is still small for that type of a thing. Commissioner Scott asked if they have spoken to grocery stores. Mr. Boyer responded saying that they have, and they have some interested parties but hopefully they would not be over 100,000 square foot or it would be a department store.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Boyer what his definition of a department store was before he realized that the 100,000 square footage was an aspect. Mr. Boyer said that he interpreted a department store to be ZCMI and Sears type stores.
Commissioner Galli commended Mr. Boyer on the Gateway development and felt it an asset for the community. He asked Mr. Boyer to speak to the issue for what the configuration would be to include Target and Nordstrom and how the Planned Development would be consistent with what is now a fairly walkable pedestrian friendly environment. Mr. Boyer answered that the experience now is what will remain. He said that they anticipate that Target would be on the City level or the second level. The Nordstrom would be at the North end of the development and would create a “T” at the end which would be their entrance. He said that it would be consistent to what is there now.
Commissioner Scott inquired as to where to additional parking would be. Mr. Boyer answered that there would be a multi level parking structure.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Boyer what he would anticipate would happen to the Main Street corridor if Nordstrom was able to move to the Gateway. Mr. Boyer said that he has total confidence in Property Reserve and the LDS Church in developing an excellent project. He said that he is unaware of their plans with the exception that they are contemplating excellent housing and other institutional uses.
Commissioner Muir stated what he sees as somewhat of a conundrum is that we would think a project of this scale would not compete or challenge retail on Main Street. He said that anything of this scale comes in to the market place it is going to challenge the existing market. Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Boyer what his reaction is now coming back and trying to enforce that aspect of the Master Plan that at some point everyone was a party to leaving behind. Mr. Boyer answered that he did not feel that a number of the tenants that they are seeking, including Nordstrom were necessarily department stores and therefore they would not be inconsistent with what was approved in the zoning and the Master Plan. Commissioner Muir presumed that at that, when the Gateway development began we were in a robust economy and maybe the Boyer Company thought that the retail sector could have adsorbed that growth without challenging the existing market.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Boyer of the 330 housing units, what is the occupancy rate. Mr. Boyer replied that they are now at 85-90 percent occupied. Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Boyer about 500 West which was originally described in the plan as being the residential corridor running from North Temple to 500 South. She asked if that area is planned to remain the Residential Corridor. Mr. Boyer replied that they are now aware that that area is not buildable according to HUD guidelines as far as noise levels. He said that they need to work out what ever housing obligations that they have but it is difficult to have homes facing west along 500 West because of the railroad tracks location.
Commissioner DeLay clarified that if the Applicant chose, he would be allowed to build a structure that is 99,999 square feet under current zoning and not be classified as a department store. Mr. Zunguze answered that that is correct.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing
Ms. Jilene Whitby, spoke to the Commission representing the State Fair Park Community Council. She said that at the Community Council meeting that Mr. Boyer attended to present his proposal they had the best turn out without any negative feedback. She added that their concern is getting something in the Gateway that they can shop and Target is something that is very appealing to them. The only concern that they have is the cost of the parking.
Mr. Michael Clara Representing the Poplar Grove Community Council addressed the Commission. He said that the Poplar Grove voted to oppose the current zoning amendment. In an effort to echo the sentiments of the City Council he evoked the protection of the Gateway Master Plan. He said that it is hurtful to hear that Mr. Boyer may not build additional housing in the Gateway due to the noise. He said that it is well documented that the Poplar Grove Community; in spite of the protections afforded them through the Gateway Master Plan, freight trains were diverted into the heart of his community thinking nothing of what the noise impact would be. He stated that what his community is hearing is that we value the people that could be living in Gateway more than we value the people that live along the 900 South Corridor. He quoted Mayor Anderson saying,“ When Government goes back on it’s promises, when agreements are broken to appease special interest, when integrity is tossed to the wind; citizens, tax payers, and the business community are always the victims in the end. They develop a fundamental mistrust of their government not knowing if the words of their elected leaders hold any value. Existing businesses are reluctant to make investment for fear they will be undermined by changing rules and special preferences. When a municipal government reneges on its precious assurance, a message is sent to all businesses that agreements with Salt Lake City can not be relied upon in the future. When the City Council at the behest of the Deedee Corradini Administration approved an unprecedented 54 million dollars in public funds to aide the Gateway project, it did so with the expressed understanding that public money would not be used to create a project that would compete with Main Street. The Boyer Company Assured the Main Street businesses and City Council Members that Gateway would have a different concept from Main Street, one. In the words of Boyer Representative Ken Gardner “that works without department store anchors.” The understandable desire for Nordstrom to maximize its profits and the preference of many residents in Salt Lake City can not justify abandoning Main Street merchants and breaking our promises.” He asked if the Commission would deny this proposal.
Mr. Alan Sullivan a lawyer representing the Property Reserve, explained that the Property Reserve is the real-estate affiliate of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints and the owner of the ZCMI Center. He said that they have agreed to purchase the Crossroads Plaza. He said that they have a profound commitment to the revitalization of Main Street as a retail center and as the professional heart of Downtown Salt Lake. Mr. Sullivan said that they believe the City’s existing policy, which supports Main Street as the core retail center Downtown, is a good policy and should not be changed. He added that Salt Lake is not big enough for two competing locations for large retail stores. If large department stores are allowed to locate in geographically different locations throughout the Downtown area, all will fail. He said that the question before the City is shall we comprise to achieve a short term solution of a very significant problem. He added that many businesses have invested large sums of money into Main Street and have done so relying on the City policies as that have been announced over and over again. It would be unfair to those investors to change the policies now, and may discourage others from investing in the future. He said that now is not the time for the City to change the text to refer business anywhere other than the core of the City which is Main Street. Mr. Sullivan asked that the City’s zoning laws remain unchanged with the respect to the primacy of Main Street as the location for large retail stores.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Sullivan to address the question of the amount of square footage there is in the ZCMI Center and the Crossroads Mall. Mr. Sullivan replied that his understanding is that there is 600,000 square feet in each of the malls, for a total of 1.2 million square feet including the anchors.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Sullivan to further comment on the City policy about the primacy of Main Street, with the disconnect between that policy and the zoning that currently allows department stores as a permitted use throughout the City in the “D-1” and “D-2” zones. Mr. Sullivan replied that he is not a planner and neither he nor Property Reserve were involved in creating those zones. He said that where they see the policy in its most important manifestation is the question before the Commission, which is, whether businesses should be allowed to relocate from Main Street to a distant Downtown location.
Commissioner McDonough asked Mr. Sullivan to describe the vision of the blocks on Main Street in terms of how they are seen to be redeveloped. He answered that this is a project of unusual scale and scope in Downtown which will involve retail, residential, and institutional uses. He said that Property Reserve is now in negotiations with tenants but to disclose their plan would be premature.
Commissioner DeLay asked Mr. Sullivan how Property Reserve intends to deal with traffic issues along Main Street during the redevelopment of the two malls. She followed up saying that small businesses barely survived on Main Street when Trax was constructed. Mr. Sullivan answered that that is a principal concern of the developers and the consultants. The intent is to minimize the impact on the businesses that are current tenants and the adjacent streets.
Commissioner Galli said that this petition addresses Nordstrom and Target. He asked Mr. Sullivan to inform the Commission of what Property Reserves position is regarding Target. Mr. Sullivan said that the current definition in the zoning ordinance covers Target and Nordstrom. He said that nothing has been presented to the City that would permit one and not the other. Commissioner Galli reiterated that the Commission has heard testimony from the public saying that they are particularly excited about Target. There are arguments that Target does advance some of the Master Planning concepts of encouraging residential use. Mr. Sullivan answered that if Property Reserve was presented with something concrete to support such an argument then they would react subjectively. Mr. Sullivan said that at this time the petition before the Commission if approved would make department stores a permitted use at the Gateway. Commissioner Galli offered a hypothetical situation to Mr. Sullivan, asking if the petition before the Commission only affected Target, would Property Reserve still be opposed. Mr. Sullivan retorted that the petition does not refer to a particular store, it refers to a definition and it is aimed to change department stores as they are currently defined to a permitted use. He said that Property Reserve is opposed to the zoning text change. Commissioner Galli clarified that the petition references both Nordstrom and Target. He added that it is his understanding that the Commission has the discretion to look at the petition separately than the way it has been presented. Mr. Sullivan said that he is only aware of a petition that would include all department stores as they are defined.
Commissioner Muir stated the dilemma the Commission is faced with is that Gateway is a project that has been constructed that he did not feel was prescribed by the original Master Plan. There is a disjuncture from the policy in the Master Plan about restraining department stores to a specific area when we have zoning ordinance that allows for considerable proliferation and dispersal, as well as a department store definition that may not really have relevance in the current state of retail. Commissioner Muir asked what Mr. Sullivan thought the Planning Commissions course of action should be given the quandary. Mr. Sullivan responded that clearly there are inconsistencies. He said that the important point from Property Reserves perspective is that the zoning of Gateway reflects a policy that was well known from 1995 to this point. He said that the Main Street Corridor is the preferred location for department stores in this community. Mr. Sullivan went on to say that there may be inconsistencies with respect to the zoning laws but there is no inconsistency with the City policy and the Gateway Master Plan. He said that the petition should be rejected for that reason.
Mr. Vincent Corno, the Vice-President of May Realty addressed the Commission. He said that his job duties include all real-estate matters for Meier and Frank department stores. Mr. Corno informed the Planning Commission that the May Company has invested 20 million dollars in their store on Main Street, in an effort to put their best foot forward for the Salt Lake customer. He stated that he was here in opposition of the zoning text amendment petition. He added that the approval of this petition would forever harm Main Street. This petition is in complete disregard of the City’s long standing policy of concentrating the retail core on Main Street. Permitting department stores at the Gateway would cause the ZCMI Center and Crossroads Plaza to fail. Permitting department store at Gateway is changing the rules in the middle of the game. He urged the Commission to stand by the original vision for Main Street. Mr. Corno stated that those in the department store industry recognize the benefits of planting their flags together. Regional shopping centers thrive on synergies of having a Meier and Frank, Nordstrom, or Dillard’s all together and collectively it is a better draw. He informed the Commission that the May Company and Nordstrom are in over 40 centers together throughout the Country. They are a proven combination. The May Company would like Nordstrom to remain with them on Main Street and would like Target to join them. He said that there is now a world of opportunity with Property Reserve’s acquisition of Crossroads Plaza, and they have a steadfast commitment to redevelop both centers. Mr. Corno said that they believe that this can happen. He added if Nordstrom leaves Main Street, it is not the end of the world; there are other fish in the sea. He referred to other department stores that may be interested in replacing Nordstrom. He said that if Nordstrom relocates to the Gateway, all bets are off. There is no chance that another fashion department store would come to Main Street. The competitive balance of the fashion retail business would tip in favor of Gateway. He referred to Portland, who recently faced a similar issue. Portland concluded that maintaining the department stores immediately adjacent to the core of retail business is critical to maintain the vitality of the community. He said the Gateway was never intended to compete with Main Street retail stores. He ended by saying the citizens of Salt Lake are better served by a single focus Main Street department store presence. Changing the zoning text now is unfair to those that have believed in the City’s vision based on that vision have invested millions into Main Street.
Commissioner Galli expressed appreciation for the information that was submitted to the Planning Commission from the May Company. He asked Mr. Corno if the proposal before the Commission was just for Target would the May Company have made such an effort. Mr. Corno replied that Target is a co-tenant with the May Company in centers across the country. They would prefer Target to join them on Main Street, because he believed that Meier and Frank and Target are better together than they are individually. He said that as far as Target going into the Gateway, the May Company would have to study the factors that would go into that proposal. Commissioner Galli changed his question to ask if the proposal was for a large grocery store would the May Company object. Mr. Corno replied that that would be acceptable.
Chair Jonas responded to Mr. Corno’s reference to the Portland Mall situation. He said that the Gateway is a different environment from Portland. Mr. Corno offered the idea that the success of the Downtown retail in Portland is not dependant upon whether or not the department stores and small shops have enclosed connections. The success of the Downtown retail in Portland is dependant upon the proximity of the major two department stores they are all within close walking distance.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Corno asked what if anything has the May Company done to entice Nordstrom to stay on Main Street. Mr. Corno responded that they have had discussions with Nordstrom to encourage them to stay, most of which are friendly. He said that they and Nordstrom are on different sides of the table at this point. He said he felt Nordstrom would be better served staying on Main Street with Meier and Frank as part of an integrated development. He added that he could not speculate as to why Nordstrom is pursuing the Gateway development.
Mr. Tony Weller, with Sam Weller’s Books addressed the Commission saying that he is a third generation book seller. His Main Street book store has been there for 42 years. He spoke in opposition of the petition saying that 16 million dollars provided to Gateway would not have been given without the size restriction accepted by Boyer. He said that later to get 20 million dollars for other improvements Boyer agreed to an even smaller size limitation. Mr. Weller presumed that 36 million dollars of tax payer’s money was awarded to the developer in exchange for agreements designed to preserve the traditional and historic center of Salt Lake City. Meier and Frank have made recent and substantial investments on Main Street without City subsidies. Those investments would not have been made without the assurances provided by this ordinance. The approval of this petition would be a governmental hypocrisy. He described the businesses in the Downtown area said that the area is symbolic of the health or poverty of Utah. He urged the Commission to stand by the conditions as struck.
Mr. Rick Howa addressed the Commission saying that he is a property owner on Main Street and in the Gateway area. As he wrestles with this issue he said that if someone does not like the way the game is being played, that is no reason to change the rule book. He said that the zoning ordinance is a serious thing and should not be taken lightly. Mr. Howa said that he is happy with Nordstrom as a neighbor on Main Street or at Gateway. He felt that Nordstrom has been mistreated and is the scapegoat for the bigger issue. He believes that what the LDS Church is going to do on Main Street is going to make Main Street a success within the next 50 years. He said that it is the Commissions responsibility to represent the public. The public good is not served by changing the rule book. When a property is put into the public arena it is held by zoning ordinances. He said that the issue for the Planning Commission is how to keep Nordstrom on Main Street. Mr. Howa ended by saying that he is opposed to changing the text of the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Daniels stated that Nordstrom has the right to be where they can serve the public and have economic security. He added that if Nordstrom is happy, anywhere in the Salt Lake Community, the City would be better off. He asked Mr. Howa what he supposed is within the best interest for Nordstrom, and what can the City do to make them happy. Mr. Howa said that they deserve an apology; Nordstrom is an outstanding corporate citizen. He stated that he is not a Nordstrom affiliate. However, within every city he works in, Nordstrom is outstanding. He said that he is surprised that Nordstrom is taking the stance they are, with the LDS Church plans for Main Street.
Chair Jonas addressed the idea that the zoning ordinance is the rule book, saying that there is nothing in the ordinance that includes the restriction of size. It does have a nebulous definition that is confusing to define. He added that he is aware that the City Attorney and the Zoning Administrator have interpreted Nordstrom and Target to be department stores. He said that the face of retail has changed and we have definitions that have not changed accordingly.
Mr. Howa disputed the idea that the zoning ordinance is antiquated. He said that the rules are always open to interpretation. If we want a strong Main Street you may have to make decisions that are not always popular. Chair Jonas inquired as to how many blocks of Main Street are needed for it to be considered strong. He felt that the day two malls opened on Main Street, everything south of 100 South began to die. Mr. Howa said that he thinks both the owners of Crossroads and the ZCMI Center realized what was done when they captured 125 businesses on two square blocks. He said that he did not think that would happen again. Mr. Howa said that the ordinances in place are there to make Main Street strong. He also stated that if the Gateway does not get a good anchor then they will not survive.
Mr. Vasilios Priskos a real-estate broker and owner of two businesses on Main Street addressed the Commission. He said that the Gateway has failed in large part due to the uncertainty of Nordstrom. This issue of them staying or going has been going on for years. He agreed with the May Company that if Nordstrom moves to Gateway it would be impossible to get another large retailer on Main Street.
Ms. Lynna Taylor spoke to the Commission as a shopper who is interested in what is happening to Downtown. She said that she did not feel that one mall should not take away from the other. She said that Nordstrom is an integral part of the City. If they go to Gateway or stay at Crossroads they need to stay in Salt Lake City. She said that when she moved to Utah she first thought that Utahans had bad taste. She added that we do not have bad taste; we do not have very many options. She spoke to support the zoning text amendment.
Ms. Stephanie Harnicher addressed the Commission saying that she has 20 years of experience in retail and Master Planned Development and she also managed all anchor leasing for Exxon. She stated that Nordstrom is the wrong anchor tenant for the Crossroads mall. She said that Nordstrom does damage to the business of the “spec tenants” on Main Street because they do not compliment each other. She said that Nordstrom draws a higher income clientele and Main Street requires an anchor that appeals to the middle income client. She said that Nordstrom would provide a draw for Gateway. The Gateway will not compete with Main Street because they do not appeal to the same clientele. She asked the Commission to support the text amendment.
Chair Jonas asked Ms. Harnicher if she frequents any other shops Downtown. Ms. Harnicher answered that she use to go to Crossroads but it has gone downhill. Chair Jonas said that there was a portion of the staff report that made reference to the fact that the success of the Gateway would be helpful to the whole of Downtown. He asked Ms. Harnicher if her experience has been that because she shops at Gateway she has been a consumer of other businesses Downtown. Ms. Harnicher answered that she goes to Gateway because she likes the atmosphere and then she ends up shopping. The Gateway is a draw for Salt Lake residents to Downtown.
Commissioner Seelig asked if a “spec tenant” is one that is not the anchor. Ms. Harnicher replied that the spec tenants support the development. Anchor tenants usually get their land for free and are the draw to the center. She said that spec and anchor tenants must compliment each other for a successful development.
Commissioner Galli asked Ms. Harnicher if she felt it would be a mistake to incorporate Target into the Gateway. Ms. Harnicher replied that Target attracts a high income client; it would be a good addition to the Gateway.
Commissioner Scott reiterated Ms. Harnicher’s statements saying that the Gateway atmosphere is an attraction alone. Ms. Harnicher agreed but said that a development that small without a good anchor will not survive.
Ms. Diana Cook, new resident of the Salt Lake area, claimed that there have been a number of near accidents as people are walking out of Gateway. She said that the Gateway may not succeed without an anchor, However, she did not have a problem with the Gateway failing. She stated that the Gateway development is not cohesive with the Utah climate.
Mr. Nelson Fortier, President and founder of Fortier Jewelers addressed the Commission. He said that he is very pleased to have moved to the Gateway which he considers to be another portion of Downtown. He said that his customers feel that the Gateway is a part of Downtown. He is attending the meeting because he believes that Nordstrom will leave Salt Lake. He said that if Nordstrom leaves the City, all retailers will be hurt. If Nordstrom stays at Gateway, Salt Lake City retailers will be hurt less.
Mr. Robert Meyers, a neighboring resident of the Gateway development spoke to the Commission saying that he was almost hit by a car due to the traffic at Gateway. He feels that Gateway is not taking the appropriate measures for pedestrian safety. He also takes offence to the fact that Mr. Boyer did not attend the Poplar Grove meeting personally.
Ms. Holly Braithwaite spoke to the Commission saying that she is a resident of the Gateway and it is a wonderful place to live. Gateway needs to be allowed to give the people in the community a reason to stay and keeping visiting it. She said that the residents need to have access to a place that is close and safe like Target. She spoke in support of the text amendment and said that she would shop Nordstrom where ever it is located Downtown.
Mr. Randy Horiuchi a resident of 1878 Harvard Avenue addressed the Commission speaking as a County Council Person; but not in behalf of the County Council. He spoke to clear up a rumor that he has been retained by the Boyer Company to help on this issue which he has unequivocally has not. He said that the Salt Lake County Council worked to get the Clark Planetarium in the Gateway because they felt that the result would create an incredible synergy, by retail, housing, and entertainment complex.
Chair Jonas read for the record the following comments:
Ms. Robin Powers, a resident at 839 East South Temple, #99, she works for a retailer in the Gateway and she and her colleagues support Nordstrom or any other large retailer to be allowed in the development. As a newer member of this community, originally from New York City, she would like to express that every City has several “hearts” and while Main Street is the oldest “heart” in this community there is certainly room for more. Hindering more development in this community by enforcing stringent zoning laws will certainly affect this community tantamount to the death of the whole.
Rawlins Young, a resident of 2135 South 1900 East, he supports the recommendation of the staff report not to allow a change in the zoning ordinance. Also he felt that Commissioner Muir’s remark to examine the zoning sprawl for department stores in the Salt Lake City zoning should be examined by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Boyer spoke to rebut the public remarks. He said that some of the numbers presented were not accurate as far as the contributions from the City of 54 Million. He said that the Boyer Company actually received 16 and a half million. He said that he also is interested in the success of Property Reserve as a semi stakeholder. He responded to Mr. Corno’s comments that if Nordstrom were to move to the Gateway the Main Street would fail. He said that he hopes that that will not be the case. He responded to the Portland example saying that they have two of each of the Meier and Frank department stores and the Nordstrom department stores located in Downtown Portland. He said that the Boyer Company has absolutely no involvement in deciding where the trains run in Salt Lake City. Mr. Boyer responded to the Poplar Grove community residents taking offense to him missing their Community Council meeting. He said that his son was planning to attend the original meeting, which was rescheduled for a time when his son would be on a family vacation. He said that they sent a representative in his son’s place. Mr. Boyer stated that the impact of Nordstrom leaving Downtown would be substantially negative. He also said that if it is made to be difficult for other anchors to come into Downtown Salt Lake City, it would be problematic with negative lasting impacts.
Chair Jonas closed the public Hearing.
Commissioner Galli offered an approach to bifurcate this petition. He said that Target makes sense at Gateway. He suggested that the Commission redefine the determination of a department store. He said that he would hate to see Nordstrom leave Downtown.
Commissioner Noda concurred with Commissioner Galli. She said that there is a certain viability of Nordstrom and downtown Salt Lake City. She felt that it is important to keep the synergy of department stores on Main Street. She said that there were some good points brought about. This petition may set a tone for other shops that come to Salt Lake City.
Mr. Rutan said that he felt there was a way to get to where the Commission wants to go but he did not feel to bifurcate this petition is the way to go about this.
Mr. Zunguze added that the Commission has the responsibility to express a judgment about the petition before them.
Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion to deny the current petition based on the recommendations in the staff report, and to initiate a petition to one; clarify the intent in the application of the term large Scale Uses such as retail uses that are a part of a complex (Gateway Master Plan), and two to refine or revise the current definition of department store of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Prescott amended the motion to ask Planning Staff to look at, as opposed to the redefinition of Department stores, that would be looking at the opportunity of creating a conditional use for department stores in the Gateway with the proviso that we get a rewrite of the Master Plan that gives the Commission guidance in entertaining and making judgments based upon a conditional use and have Planning Staff look at those two options and come back to the Commission with the recommendation as to which is the better course of action.
Mr. Zunguze asked where that leaves the current petition. Commissioner Muir replied that the current motion is to deny it.
Chair Jonas said that this definition has a bigger impact than the few blocks for the current petition.
Commissioner Daniels spoke to support the motion on the table, The Commission needs to keep in mind what is best for the City, and the current petition lacks the clarity needed to decide that.
Commissioner Noda repeated her original motion and accepted Commissioner Muir’s amendment. Commissioner Seelig also accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Diamond specified that the appropriate guidelines would be square footage. What is appropriate for the overall Master Plan development. Commissioner Muir added what is the appropriate mix between the Main Street and Gateway developments.
Ms. Weyher addressed the Commission saying that the Gateway Development is a Planned Unit Development. Therefore, all of the different components of Gateway go through the conditional use process. She sated that the Commission will see this again as a conditional use application.
Commissioner Muir said that Ms. Weyher’s clarification may render his amendment ineffective. He added that he felt the amendment was to say that the redefinition of a department store or reconstruction of the Master Plan would give the Commission tools for making judgments on a conditional use.
Mr. Zunguze asked how the Commission would like to arrange the petition and what should it carry. Chair Jonas responded that it clearly has to deal with two issues. One is the Master Plan. There is language in the Master Plan that seems somewhat inconsistent. Mr. Zunguze made reference to the 47 blocks and asked if the Commission wanted that to be a part of the petition. Chair Jonas replied yes, and if it does not include the provision that department stores become a conditional use then he thinks we have made a mistake.
Ms. Weyher stated that the Planning Commission is initiating a petition to revisit the definition of department stores; land uses as defined in the Master Plan in the Gateway area, and to look at the applicability of department stores, in other zones. She asked when the Commission would expect to have these petitions back before the Commission. Chair Jonas responded that they would like to have them back on the agenda for the second meeting in September.
Commissioner Muir stated that another petition that the Planning Commission should initiate is one requesting that the Planning Staff look at the different zones that allow department stores such as: “D-1”, “D-2”, and “CS”. Commissioner DeLay said that that may not be possible to accomplish within the next month or two.
Chair Jonas felt that the thing that can be done immediately is to initiate a zoning ordinance change that allows department store conditional uses no matter what the zone.
Amended Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion to deny the current petition based upon the Staff recommendation, as listed in the staff report, that the proposed text amendment is not consistent with the applicable current Master Plan and City Council policies and therefore recommended that the City Council not approve this petition to allow department stores in the G-MU district.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission:
1. Initiated a petition to:
a. Refine or revise the current definition of “department store” found in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; and
b. Clarify the intent and application of the term “large scale uses, such as retail uses that are a part of a center or complex” found in the Gateway Development Master Plan.
2. Initiated a petition to review the extent to which current zoning regulations relating to the location of department stores are consistent with current policy of making Main Street the primary location of department stores.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair did not vote. The motion carries.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:46 p.m.