SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 S State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
The regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission was called to order at 5 p.m. on December 14, 2000, in room 126 by Max Smith.
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Judi Short, Kay (berger) Arnold, Aria Funk, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, and Mary McDonald. Craig Mariger was excused, and Andrea Barrows had to leave the meeting early.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen J. Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Robert Glessner, and Joel Paterson.
A roll was kept of all that attended the Public Hearings. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases are 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.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the previous meeting on November 16, 2000, were unanimously approved subject to corrections.
II. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Mr. Goldsmith informed the Commissioners of a discussion involving Keith Bartholomew, which covers Land Use & Transportation Issues. The two-hour training class is scheduled Saturday, January 20, 2001, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon. The Commission agreed to attend the discussion, and more information will be
provided regarding location. The document, 'Towards A Walkable Downtown" was distributed to members of the Commission for review. Mr. Goldsmith designed the brochure with Ms. Ann Forsyth from Boston, Mass., and it is to be distributed to all Agency Boards. Mr. Goldsmith asked the Commission to let him know what their thoughts were regarding the report.
Mr. Smith, at Mr. Daniels’ request, reminded those in attendance that a security guard was available after the meeting to escort anyone to their car. The meeting was then turned over to Public Hearings.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-510, by Qwest Wireless (QW) requesting a conditional use to install roof mounted cellular telecommunication antennas and associated electrical equipment on the Eastmoor Condominiums at 207 South 600 East in a Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential "RM F-45" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Staff recommended conditional use approval of the proposed facility subject to:
1. Painting the roof antennas and mounting equipment a flat medium gray color.
2. No accessory building be constructed.
3. Minimal antenna bracing be used.
The Commission asked the following questions of Mr. McCandless:
Mary McDonald: Is the setback 10 feet?
Ray McCandless: An antenna cannot be closer than 5 feet from the edge of the roof. Once the antenna is at 5 feet, the maximum allowed height is 5 feet. When you're at 6 feet back away from the edge, the maximum is 6 feet, so the height allowance "steps" proportionally to 10 feet. The antennas will be set back 9 feet from the edge of the roof on the south side. Therefore, the antennas can be 9 feet high. The skids, or the supporting structure, can be less than the required distance for the antennas.
Jeff Jonas: Is there a reason these are on skids instead of attached to the wall as antennas?
Ray McCandless: The roof interferes with the antenna signal; therefore, the applicants want to put the antenna as close to the edge of the roof as possible. Wall mounted antennas would be a "permitted use" on the existing equipment room present on the roof.
Andrea Barrows: How tall is the (parapet) wall?
Ray McCandless: It's only a foot.
Jeff Jonas: It's 16 inches.
Mary McDonald: In the future, if higher buildings are built high on that block, is there a good chance they would interfere with the antenna signal?
Ray McCandless: If there's any signal interference we'd probably be looking at moving the antennas to another location. Most of these buildings aren't tall. Typically the industry likes the antennas to be between 40 and 60 feet.
Mr. Smith asked the petitioner, Mr. Glen Nelson of Qwest Wireless, 70 S State St., Salt Lake City, UT, to speak.
Mr. Nelson, answered the question about the penthouse wall (Mr. Jonas'), by stating that the ordinance of Salt Lake City allows them to use the rooftop. He mentioned that the mechanical room is considerably more than 10 feet from the edge of the roof, so Qwest Wireless wouldn't gain any advantage by putting the antennas there. In fact, it would probably be very detrimental to their signal, so they've stayed within the ordinance, and tried to do what it has directed.
The Commission then asked questions of Mr. Nelson:
Andrea Barrows: Did you approach the owners of the commercial buildings, and what happened there?
Glen Nelson: Rite Aid is too far to the east, and it's the same height, which gives us no advantage to locate there, because our RF engineers want to get that intersection and south of the intersection. Rite Aid is more difficult to work with as far as a lease goes, than the local property owners.
Jeff Jonas: I'm in lots of places where I'm not in direct line of sight on an antenna. I don't understand why the antennas have to point right down the street.
Glen Nelson: There's clutter. Anything that is right in front of the antenna will cause the signal to deflect and you'll lose decibels in the signal strength. Typically, we like to get as straight a shot as we can for the goal that we're trying to achieve. It's like squirting a hose, if that water hits something, it's going to divert one way or another and you lose a lot of the power, or force, or the strength of the signal.
Mr. Smith then opened the meeting to the Public, and no one wished to speak. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Smith did note the letter sent by Matt Wolverton of the Central City Neighborhood Council, approving the petition .
•
Motion for Case No. 410-510
Mr. Jonas made the motion to approve Petition No. 410-510, by a West Wireless requesting a conditional use to install roof mounted cellular telecommunication antennas and associated electrical equipment on the Eastmoor Condominiums at 207 South 600 East in a Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential "RMF-45" zoning district based upon the findings and facts, and the staff recommendations 1 through 3.
Ms. Judi Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger was absent. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
The Commission then moved on to Petition No. 410-472.
B. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-472. by Nextel communications Inc. requesting a conditional use to install roof and wall mounted wireless telecommunication antennas on the Romney Plaza building located at 475 East 900 South in a Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential "RMF-45" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the history of the case, the findings of fact and staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Based on the findings, staff recommends conditional use approval of the proposed facility subject to:
1. Painting the antennas, mounting equipment and screening material to match the building.
2. Minimal antenna bracing be used.
3. Meeting all applicable departmental requirements.
The Commission asked the following questions of Mr. McCandless:
Judi Short: This roof is structurally sound enough to support that?
Mr. McCandless deferred to the petitioner. (This question was not brought up again.)
Jeff Jonas: Staff's recommendation is that the antennas be screened?
Ray McCandless: I think so in this case. It's quite a decision when looking at big stealth structures as to whether or not an enclosure will be more obtrusive to the surrounding structures than the antennas. We approved a screening structure on the Xerox building, on the corner of 5th East and 5th South. If you didn't know what was under the enclosure, you would just think that it was another mechanical room on top of the building.
Mr. Smith felt that the photo simulation in the staff report was an accurate representation of the proposed screening structure, and that the screening device was effective.
Mr. Smith then turned the time over to the petitioner, Mr. Trevor Fink of Nextel, Communications Inc., with its office located at 860 W Leroy Dr. Ste. 102, Murray, Utah.
Mr. Fink felt that the screening was architecturally compatible with the building and was designed to look as if it had always been present.
Mr. Smith asked for any comments from the Public. He referred again to the letter from Central City Community Council indicating their approval. No one from the Public spoke and Mr. Smith closed the Public Hearing bringing the matter back to the Commission.
Motion for Case No. 410-472:
Ms. Short made the motion to approve Petition No. 410-472, by Nextel communications Inc. requesting a conditional use to install roof and wall mounted wireless telecommunication antennas on the Romney Plaza building located at 475 East 900 South in a Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential "RMF- 45" zoning district.
Ms. McDonald seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger was absent. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
C. Petition No. 410-506 from Kim Hyatt of MHTN Architects representing Hamilton Partners. requesting
a conditional use to construct a commercial/accessory parking lot in a D-1 zoning district at 214-234 South Main Street. was postponed.
D. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-504 a request for a conditional use by Utah Transit Authority (UTA) for a public utility building/structure (light rail substation power house) located in the rear yard of 928 East 400 South in a RMF-35 Zone. (Staff: Robert Glessner at 535-7625)
Mr. Robert Glessner presented the staff report outlining the history of the case, the findings of fact and staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Based on the findings, staff recommends conditional use approval of the proposed facility subject to:
1. The substation shall be constructed with a brick facade and a pitched roof similar to the attached photograph the Sandy City Civic Station.
2. The substation shall have significant landscaping along the side yards and in front of the substation between the driveway / parking spaces and the substation itself.
3. A 4-foot fence made of vinyl or wood shall be constructed along the front of the substation in an East/West direction providing a landscaped area between the parking spaces and the substation. The vegetation planted in front of the substation shall screen a majority of the substation when fully developed.
4. A minimum 4-feet of screening shall be constructed along the West and East property lines.
5. A 6-foot wall shall be constructed along the South property line.
6. Two paved parking spaces shall be provided for the residence. The site shall not have more than three dedicated parking spaces.
7. CC&R's shall be recorded with the property that require a residential dwelling to always remain on the property.
8. CC&R's shall provide Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division the first right of refusal on any future sales of the property.
9. UTA shall coordinate residential occupancy with Salt Lake City's Housing and Neighborhood Development Division whenever a vacancy occurs.
10. Lighting around the substation shall not be brighter than a typical single-family residence porch light, 60 watt to 100-watt light bulbs.
11. UTA shall regularly maintain the landscaping on the property.
12. UTA shall ensure that all repairs and maintenance to the single-family residence are performed within a reasonable time and shall ensure that the property does not deteriorate beyond its existing condition.
13. This conditional use is subject to approval of final plans by the Planning
Director.
Mr. Goldsmith took a minute to describe his thoughts on the letter sent by Cindy Cromer, stating that throughout this difficult situation, many options have been reviewed and considered. In terms of "advancing the public good," this was the best location for the project.
The Commission asked Mr. Glessner the following questions:
Judi Short: I understand that there is some application to make this part of a historical district. Has "Landmarks" looked at this from a Historical view? Can we somehow move that into the process, and come up with a building that's a little more attractive?
Robert Glessner: SHPO has issued UTA the go ahead with the project, as long as the house remains.
Andrea Barrows: Is the existing dwelling on the site of a historical nature?
Robert Glessner: It would be a contributing structure to the district.
Andrea Barrows: The limitations were that if we touch that dwelling, i.e. modify it, it would no longer be contributing potentially to this district, from a historic perspective?
Robert Glessner: It wouldn't jeopardize the district, but it would be a loss to the district.
Mary McDonald: Couple of questions on your recommendations, on number three, "a 4-foot fence made of vinyl or wood shall be constructed", it seems that wood be more appropriate if you want to stay more historic. Why was vinyl even thrown in there? Also on number four, "minimum 4-feet of screening shall be constructed" what do you mean by screening?
Robert Glessner: Fencing or wall.
Jeff Jonas: Why four feet, and instead of six?
Robert Glessner: The reason we're going 4 feet at first was to allow some openness within the rear yard, because once you start putting in a higher wall, you start enclosing the Village Inn, and you may become a nuisance. A six-foot fence has been proposed by UTA, but the lower we went, the more open it felt within the neighborhood.
Mr. Smith asked the petitioner's to come forward. Mr. Steve Green, manager of Engineering for UTA, located at 221 W 2100 S, Salt Lake City, UT, 84115, and Hal Johnson, Utah Transit Authority, located at the same address approached the Commission.
Andrea Barrows: I thought we were making this structure attractive, and making it look like part of the house, so why are we fencing this gorgeous thing in now?
Max Smith: Why go to all the trouble of landscaping, and then put a wood fence up which will deteriorate, and require maintenance, as opposed to something more transparent?
Hal Johnson: We're open on the fencing type, and this was a recommendation to us. If a different fence is desired.
Robert Glessner: I have to add that the Community Council suggested trying to conceal the structure as much as possible, after reviewing the plans and the site with UTA, we trimmed it down from six feet to four feet.
Jeff Jonas: You're not suggesting "No fencing," are you?
Max Smith: No, I think you probably need the protection of the fence.
Hal Johnson: We've used in other locations a black, vinyl-coated, chain link fence, which is a softer look.
Steve Green: UTA doesn't require a fence between the house and the substation. We have a number of spots along the alignment where we have no fence, between the right of way, and the substation. We're comfortable with landscaping and no fence. The fence was on recommendation from the community council. We're very okay with not having the fence.
Andrea Barrows: What modifications to the existing house would have had to be made to incorporate the substation plan?
Hal Johnson: Technically, it doesn't really work to have it in a building, partly because you must continue to have crane, or truck access inside the structure. This plan allows a vehicle to get in there should we need to replace a transformer.
Steve Green: Another issue is a grounding mat underneath the substation to ground the unit, which would be difficult. We thought it better to leave the residence in place.
Mary McDonald: How many parking spaces are you recommending?
Robert Glessner: Two. The third one was there in case UTA needed a service vehicle there, and we figured two places would be adequate. If UTA did need to get in there, they would probably be doing the work during the day when the resident was away at work.
Jeff Jonas: My greatest concern is the size of those air conditioning units, (on the top page of 11.) Can those be moved to a different spot other than on the south side, so close to that home?
Hal Johnson: We looked at that issue. What we've got on the south side of the property is a proposed concrete wall to buffer the air conditioners. They're not terribly noisy.
Jeff Jonas: What is the decibel level? You say they're like a regular air conditioner, but the size is different, and there are two of them. The building can't be flipped so that they can be on the other side?
Hal Johnson: They make the same noise as two regular air conditioners. We could flip the design, but then they air conditioners would just be close to the other house. We weighed distance between the two houses, and found that this plan was the best location.
Jeff Jonas: What about the light issue? Are those lights on all the time?
Hal Johnson: Yes. They're typically on all the time, but that's something we can work on. Maybe with a sensor light.
Andrea Barrows: You have to have light on all four sides?
Hal Johnson: It is security lighting.
Andrea Barrows: You're going to have a 24-hour presence with the resident. Why do you need any of these security measures? The neighbors may not like it, and we want to get away from the industrial nature of this structure, and make it look more like something in that area.
Hal Johnson: That's something that we can evaluate. Maybe we can switch it to a sensor light. The lights themselves are the equivalent of a 100-watt bulb.
Mary McDonald: UTA plans on becoming the landlord?
Hal Johnson: Yes. We have other residential properties in the city, and a property management department to handle renters and tenants.
Steve Green: In fact, we've already replaced the furnace in this house, and done some other improvements.
Robert Glessner noted that on condition #3, the Commission took out the word, "vinyl", and on #6 they took out the second sentence completely. The Commission also added condition number 14; lighting subject to the planning director's approval.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the Public.
Mr. Ron Love of 333 West Ouray Ave, and member of the East Central Community Council: I've met twice with individuals from Village Inn, to talk specifically about this residence. The last time the regional manager from Denver came to Salt Lake City, and after I explained how the community felt about this house, she promised me that they would abide by the wishes of the community, and not tear down the house in order to make more parking. Unfortunately, our own UTA is not in such a position. When this was presented to the East Central Community Council, it was unanimously rejected. We asked them if they'd looked at any other areas besides this one. They replied that they'd looked at three sites, and they were all residential sites. Directly across the street, well within distance compliance is the Salt Lake Clinic, from IHC. We understood that we would have another master planning issue as they built a new cross road at the south of this one. We made the recommendation that they put in a taller fence so that it would be shielded from the street, on that particular property or any of the other commercial properties in that area. I'm very encouraged to hear members of the Commission talking in favor of saving our housing, and I hope that we would go a little further. I'm at odds with my friends and colleagues when I ask that this not be placed in that area, but that it be placed on commercial property. Unfortunately it hasn't been an occupied house, and I really don't think that that's ever going to happen. But it plays a very
important role in the fabric of our community, by protecting from encroachment, the housing that exists. If this must be placed on this residential property, I would hope that the Planning Commission would add the conditions that would insure that the house were maintained. I would really be happy to see the Planning Commission send the word to UTA to stay out of our residential structures. We should have them stop buying up residential properties, as they have in other cities, To use the house with the lights, and the sirens and the maintenance and the fences is a degradation of our residential structure, and we would hope that you would send that message to them.
Judi Short: It's not enough to have people living in the residence as it is, and maintain the facade on the street?
Ron Love: I'm afraid we don't have any choice. I'm not as skeptical as some in the community council, but this is really a "done deal." UTA has bought the property, and I feel confident that they're going to have their way. Yes, having a landlord that's going to maintain and upkeep that property forever, and insure that it is residential, is a plus. At this point, the best we can hope for is some sort of a compromise that this is a requirement.
Aria Funk: I want to ask you, Ron, some specific questions, but wonder if UTA would respond to Ron's comments about putting this on the Salt Lake Clinic property first. Have you looked at that?
Steve Green: We have looked at that option. We looked at a number of different sites; we looked at IHC, we looked at the Office Max, and we looked at the property directly south of Office Max. We first decided to use the Office Max, but investigated and found that the site was not the best interest of the overall plan for that area.
Aria Funk: Who made that determination, and what basis was it decided that it wasn't a good area?
Stephen Goldsmith: We're trying to address issues, of the street, and create a pedestrian environment. We know that we have a parking lot right up to 9th East and 4th South there, and what we want to do is avoid that kind of development pattern. To bring this up to that edge, and perhaps thwart a future development on that corner, gets rid of these parking lots on the street. The trade off was to see if we can get this barrier in place, which will have the least impact on the future pedestrian traffic. And that was a decision we made in the office and it seemed like that was a good hierarchy to employ.
Aria Funk: Ron, I'm well aware of the impact of loss of residential housing in this neighborhood. I have a couple of thoughts on different ways to handle this, and would like your response to them. First, I think there is merit to this being an owner occupied dwelling, rather than for UTA to own it, and rent it. There is a different mental outlook from people that own their house, than people who rent. My proposal wouldbe for UTA to sell the property, and retain the easement. The other possibility would be that they maintain the property and sell just the house, because this is often done. Ninety-eight percent of the time unoccupied has a different investment than the community.
Ron Love: I've been involved in the Community Development Corporation of Utah, and the goal there is to provide low-income folks with housing. That Corporation does a very good job of that. This is the kind of property that would make excellent starter homes for those folks who are fifty percent or less of median
income. Now that it's owned by UTA, I would hope that they were selective in how they do that.. I think it would be wonderful if the house were owner occupied.
Aria Funk: Do you think that's better then for UTA to own it, and rent it?
Ron Love: I personally believe that its better, and I believe that UTA can get the assistance of organizations like the Community Development Corporation, to get folks into those kinds of properties.
Jeff Jonas: Our packets had a meeting summary from the East Central Community Council that says they're against it. Yet the letter that we have that comes from Mark Bunce, who is the Chair of Central Community Council, addresses some ways that they've come up with to mitigate.
Hal Johnson: I can give you some background on that. When we initially met with the Community Council, the proposal was either to put up a six-foot masonry barrier wall, around the entire property, to isolate the substation. The second proposal we had was to build a larger structure that looked similar to the garage that was present. It ends up that with the size of the substation, we would have a building that's bigger than the house. So we worked with staff to evaluate this brick facade on the substation, in order to reduce the scale of it. After we met with the Community Council, and showed them those two options, we met with the board of the East Central Community Council, and showed them what we could do to buffer the substation. We've tried to work with the community and be responsive to their concerns, and that's how we got the new proposal.
Jeff Jonas: I guess I assume that no matter what proposal you had gone to them with, their preference to have it on commercial property would still have been the same. Is that right, Ron?
Ron Love: Our preference is to have it on commercial property.
Kathy Scott, a neighbor of the proposed substation and also a board member of the East Central Community Council, from 941 E 500 S. then expressed her concerns:
Kathy Scott: I was at the meeting when Hal presented the proposal for the substation and I need to clarify that Mr. Bunce was responding with these recommendations because we understood that it was a "done deal." In other words, the substation would be built regardless of what the East Central Community Council felt about the building of it there. We were making suggestions to minimize the adverse impact that the Council believes the substation will have on the property. The other observation I concur with the rest of that said, is that this also is a personal opinion that I have, and I do speak for some board
members, although I can’t say for all of them. When I suggest that the covenant is proposed, right now it's a covenant that is proposed between the city and UTA. If would also benefit the neighborhood to have a covenant with the Utah Heritage Foundation. This is an area that will be getting historical verification.
Andrea Barrows: In reference to Mark's letter. He speaks of a structure UTA recently build in Sandy to hide a similar type of substation. The concept on this building was that it was more effective to use an "over the garage style."
Kathy Scott: Actually that option wasn't available at the meeting as the proposed one.
Robert Glessner: I gave Mark Bunce those photos after the executive board meeting, so the board members never saw this plan.
Kathy Scott: This picture may not be accurate because I understand that this will be fifteen feet tall, and this fence is about six feet tall, so if you have six feet, plus.
Hal Johnson: The photo is out of perspective, because the person taking the picture was in the Village Inn parking lot, which is about 3 or 4 feet lower that the substation property.
Kathy Scott: Another concern we have is the process by which this even came about. For a long period of time, we were under the impression that substations would be on commercial property, and suddenly this happened, before it even got to the members of the East Central Community Council, and that's why we felt it was a "done deal."
Bip Daniels: What put you under the impression that this was a "done deal" by the time it got to the Council?
Kathy Scott: By the time it got to the Council, the property had been purchased. The plans were in place. We asked about putting it underground, because it was our understanding that some of the substations would be located subterranean. We were told this was absolutely impossible because of the expense. Was that an accurate observation?
Hal Johnson: We've got one other substation in which the system is an underground installation, just off of Main Street on 3rd South. At Michael Martins. It was a very expensive area, but we couldn't acquire any other property. This was a big cost increase to put it underground.
Kathy Scott: This was a minor expensive piece of property, that you purchased for 128, 000 dollars, much less than what it cost in a commercial location?
Hal Johnson: Yes, we bought it at market value. As was stated earlier, the master agreement which Salt Lake City and UTA ordered the whole project at the Office Max. It was a trade off to find another parcel within the area, and this one was for sale. We understand the concerns of the Community Council, and the one positive thing about the substation is that it helps stabilize the property there in that it's not going to be a parking lot for Village Inn. We're committed to residential use, whether it's sold or not.
Mary McDonald: Salt Lake City housing is mentioned here, does Karen (Denton)have anything to say? Or have anything to do with the property?
Karen Denton, with the Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Department, stated that; We were asked if this should be entrusted to the First Time Home Buyers Program and we answered 'Yes' For us we have two criteria: One is the cost of it, the second is when we go in to do rehabilitation, and relocation costs can become very expensive. So we haven't looked at the details, but our first thought was 'absolutely' because we're always looking for sites for this Program, and we want to get home ownership in there.
Aria Funk: I take it from your comments then that UTA would be open to selling the property, or in some way.
Steve Green: We talked about this with our property managers, and there is some concern that if there are tenants, we have confidence that the people living in the house have no interest in doing anything to the substation. It's a significant investment so while UTA is not overly opposed to selling the property, if it's left as an option we'd rather maintain ownership. We're one hundred percent committed to the maintenance of this. We like the idea of having somebody on site to enforce it. If it's deemed that that's what needs to be done to allow this to proceed, we'd have no problem selling it to the city don't think that confirms that it will always be for a homeowner, and not another rental in the future. Somebody could buy it, and then rent it.
Karen Denton: If I can add, we carry our own mortgage for thirty years, and the expectation is that 15 years. We monitor pretty closely, that the people who buy it, live in it, and not rent it, but that they maintain that property.
Mr. Smith closed the Public Hearing.
Kay (berger) Arnold: My experience is that when you are dealing with busy streets, it is not conducive to home ownership. The people that generally live on those streets are tenants, and my personal feeling is that while I understand the difficulty of getting into a commercial property is kind of a double whammy.
We force a great deal of parking on commercial property, so in fact if you go in and try to put something on a commercial property you're taking away the parking. You're also coming into the problem that the people on that property are generally not the owners. Office Max may not own that property. The owner
can't take away from that lease to install a building. I would prefer that UTA be the owner of that and take care of the property, because I think that the building would end up with a tenant, and end up with a landlord who will let it go to waste. You can almost drive down that street and pick out the houses that are rented and they are going to sell it to somebody who is just going to turn around and rent it again.
Jeff Jonas: I guess I echo Birs concern about the process, and how it came to get the impression that it was a "done deal." I think that is always a concern we should have with the public, and protect against that. I think we should applaud the conclusion that we've come to here. If we were truly a land use committee, I think the staff's foresight to look at sites like Office Max, from a planning perspective, and having those developed in the way we want in the future. They've mitigated what could have been a bad situation - they kept the housing here. I echo what Kay said also about the ownership. I'd almost prefer
to see it in the hands of UTA, because I think it would end up as a rental property sooner, if not later. This way we have control over this property and how it is maintained. If we're going to recommend landscaping let's be sure it is maintained. It's a good compromise, and a good solution for a difficult
problem.
Aria Funk: I'd like to give this another boost for the possibility of this becoming affordable housing, through some of the programs where there is some long term control maintained on it. I don't see that we have anything to lose by looking into the possibility of this.
Andrea Barrows: Do we have any control over if UTA decides to sell? We could recommend that we'd like them to look into it.
Max Smith: If they were to sell this property off they would have to be back before this body re-describing it.
Andrea Barrows: We don't have control over UTA's plans for this property
Aria Funk: I was going to suggest that we make it a condition that UTA's required to maintain the house as a residence. Then we might also encourage them to work with Karen (Denton), on something that would work for her, but until that time they need to maintain it as a residence. Number twelve concerns me also. It says " show that the property does not deteriorate beyond its existing condition" Don't we want more than its existing condition?
Robert Glessner: That is covered with number 7.
Andrea Barrows: I would like to at some point to discuss the actual structure and its appearance.
Motion for Petition No. 410-504:
Jeff Jonas made the motion in the matter of Case No. 410-504, a request for a conditional use by Utah Transit Authority (UTA) for a public utility building/structure (light rail substation power house) located in the rear yard of 928 East 400 South in a RMF-35 Zone; that based upon the findings of fact we approve this conditional use with the conditions as recommend by staff, along with the following modifications:
1. That in recommendation number 3, their four-foot fence be made of wood.
2. That number 6 be limited to a maximum of two parking spaces.
3. In number 10, that lighting around the substation shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
I think we've got the residential issues covered in number 7, and number 9.
Judi Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Smith added a point regarding the Historical nature, and the solution of involving the Heritage Foundation.
Max Smith: I would suggest a better mechanism, but a very good mechanism in anticipation of this possibly being a Historical neighborhood at a future date. This mechanism being that any changes to the residence be made in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Structures. I think that would cover that issue.
Andrea Barrows: Wasn't that part of what Cindy was saying about the supervision being a means of having a watchdog? Is that where they were coming from, when they said, II covenants would be held by Utah Heritage Foundation to allow the neighborhood to have some confidence that they would be
maintained"?
Jeff Jonas: I agree. I will add that as Max's recommendation in number 14. That any modifications to the resident be consistent with the Secretary of Interiors standards.
Bip Daniels: Jeff, might I also encourage you to change "two parking spaces" to "two covered parking spaces"? Since the residents are actually losing a garage.
Jeff Jonas: I understand the need for this, but it may affect UTA's ability to get back to the substation.
Kay (berger) Arnold: I wonder if we could also add that the home be brought to code. That would ensure a good tenant. If the home is brought to code, than the city cannot intercede in a single-family dwelling. So the way to make sure that property is maintained, is to start with a good building to begin with.
Jeff Jonas: Since that's more extensive than "Secretary of Interiors standards", I'll add the words "brought up to code."
Judi Short: I'll accept both of those modifications .
Aria Funk: On number 3, you specified a fence, made of wood. Can we add, "or iron"?
Jeff Jonas: That's the interior. Three is the interior one between the substation and the home.
Max Smith: There's actually no fence, correct?
Andrea Barrows: Correct.
Max Smith: Maybe what we need to say is that the fence, allow one to see the beautiful landscaping. Do we want a wood fence, or a nice tubular steel, to allow transparency?
Mary McDonald: I think we should define what "screening" we're talking about, would it be wood, or tubular steel.
Jeff Jonas: I'd like to defer that to the Planning Director. So add to number 4, the screening be a material that is acceptable to the Planning Director. In the case of number 3, a four-foot fence, made of wood, or other material that's acceptable to the Planning Director.
Andrea Barrows: I believe we are a long way from the substation on 9th south. I have a picture of it. This is a far, more aesthetically pleasing, however, I think the building can come further than what we've got here, in the staff report pictures. Everyone is into the fences, and I appreciate that, but I really think that that building is still pretty ugly.
Max Smith: Can we leave that up to the Planning Director? I'm suggesting that you've registered your concern about this and that we give it up to the Planning Director. Does that work, or not work?
Mary McDonald: I think we do need to make it compatible to the house and neighborhood, and it doesn't come close to that.
Max Smith: Our alternative is to bring them back again. Do we want to do that? We are either going to let the staff and the Director of Planning handle that concern, or we're going to bring them back.
Jeff Jonas: I'll say this; I think the building's okay, and it seems to be okay with the community council as well, but I'm going to address the motion and add number 15, and state that It's up to the discretion of the Planning Director as to the design of the building.
Max Smith: Noting the concerns of the two commissioners.
Aria Funk: Is it possible, and is it appropriate, to make the recommendation that UTA attempt to work with Housing, to see if this could be worked into the affordable housing program?
Jeff Jonas: I think that's what number 9 is.
Aria Funk: No, it isn't. It's whenever a vacancy occurs, its not sale of the property. I'm encouraging them to attempt to a deal with the property authority to do it (sell) right now.
Jeff Jonas: That's not acceptable to me. I'd rather have UTA own it, because it will ensure a better looking building. They've got the money to do it.
Mary McDonald: In making these changes to the appearance of the substation, do we want to change number 1 to make sure that the roof, etc. match the existing house?
Jeff Jonas: We'll add that. That number 1 will be modified to add the words, "for change at the discretion of the Planning Director."
The following Amendments were made and accepted by the Commission:
1. That in recommendation number 3, their four foot fence be made of wood, or other material which is acceptable to the Planning Director.
2. The addition to number 4, stating that the screening material is acceptable to the Planning Director
3. That number 6 be limited to a maximum of two parking spaces.
4. In number 10, that lighting around the substation shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
5. The addition of recommendation number 14, stating that the house be brought to code
6. The addition of recommendation number 15, stating that It's at the discretion of the Planning Director as to the design of the substation building, and also modifying the words in number 1 to say "for change at the discretion of the Planning Director.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, and Mr. Daniels, voted "Aye". Mary McDonald, and Andrea Barrows opposed. The motion passed.
Motion for Case No. 410-504:
Aria Funk: I would like to make the motion to recommend that UTA attempt to work with the City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division to at least enter into discussions to see if this building and/or property be sold with their program. Judi Short: I'll second that. Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, and Ms. Arnold were opposed. Mr. Mariger was absent. Mr. Smith, as Chairman, did not vote. The motion passed.
Andrea Barrows was excused from the meeting at this time.
E. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-00-57, a request by The Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division for an amendment to existing Residential. Downtown. And Gateway Zoning Districts to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) dwelling types and establish location and design criteria for SRO land uses. (Staff: Robert Glessner at 535-7625.)
Mr. Robert Glessner presented the staff report outlining the history of this case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Glessner made the following notes: On page 3, third paragraph from the top, should read exhibit 1, instead of 2. On page 4, on number 5, it says, will include a 20% open space requirement" Add "of the lot area" at this point.
The Commission then asked questions of Mr. Glessner relating to the case:
Bip Daniels: When these changes were made was the existing housing code referred to?
Robert Glessner: I looked at the existing zoning ordinances, and the business license of Chapter 5.
Bip Daniels: What laws exist stating what needs to be provided in a unit, for a resident? For instance, do they have to have a stove, or a refrigerator, and those kinds of things before they could be considered all right for occupants?
Robert Glessner: We're suggesting, a microwave, and small refrigerator, and a sink as part of the studio type units. We've also looked at the possibility of having a common kitchen, and shared facilities. The building code doesn't require a stove.
Bip Daniels: As I read through this, I thought about children. Most SRO's don't have accommodation for children, i.e. childcare. Have you given any thought to that?
Robert Glessner: I did for a single parent family. The unit size goes up to 500 square feet, which is larger than a 2-car garage. Whether or not a separate bedroom and living space with a kitchenette is included is subject to the developer that takes the project.
Mary McDonald: Do we have any SROs in the city, now? And do these guidelines apply to them?
Robert Glessner: I don't have exact locations in my mind right now, but we have 2 in the downtown area, and 1 or 2 in East Central district. The existing SROs are already in place so this is for future SROs. The intent is to expand the type of housing we currently have downtown. The developer from San Diego would
like to come here, and set the standard for future SROs.
Mary McDonald: When you talk about partial kitchen facilities, I wonder, you can fit a stove with an oven into these units, so why not do so?
Max Smith: Many SROs don't have these facilities because of cost.
Karen Denton from Housing and Neighborhood Development Division spoke.
Karen Denton: Mon can probably tell you more about this, but at present the most successful SRO we have is the RIO Grande Hotel, which is on 3rd South and across the street from the Salvation Army. It is one that is maintained by management 24 hours, 7 days a week. Mary, you asked me about "affordability" so I made copies of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board definition, and I have copies for you all. This definition states that affordable housing means not spending any more than 30% of your income for housing. We may have a slightly different definition because of our situation. We may be looking at a couple of different kinds of SROs, one for those people who can afford 4 or 5 hundred dollars a month or more, for instance people living in Park City that want to come to town and have a place to stay. There is another group of people who cannot begin to afford 4 or 5 hundred dollars a month, and that's the more problematic situation. When you say there is no wiggle room, there really isn't any wiggle room. That's where our housing trust fund money comes in to help subsidize people who are earning 250 dollars a month, and really need just a room. We need to look at a variety of ranges, but I think we should start by looking at the group from San Diego. I think SROs are often perceived as "flop houses" and we need to move beyond that in many ways.
Aria Funk: Karen, how old are these SROs in San Diego?
Joe Perkins: Our oldest one is twelve years old. All of the three that I am a part of are 10 or more years old. The first one was the Baltic Inn, which is actually different than what this ordinance allows for, in that bathrooms are located down the hall. Our next two units each had their own bathrooms. This brochure shows all of our units in San Diego. The reason many of these don't have stoves, is because elderly individuals, who eat out or microwave their dinners, occupy them. We don't want hot plates or stoves because it becomes a fire hazard.
Maun Alston from 839 E South Temple, and Joe Perkins, from 2525 Bear Hollow Dr, in Park City then spoke to the Commission.
Maun Alston: I'm here representing the long range planning committee of the Council of Governments, which is working on a plan to provide housing for homeless people, rather than building more homeless shelters. SRO is a very appropriate kind of housing for many parts of this population. The RDA has done
a study on SROs, and I think we have about 185 units in Salt Lake City. We've also lost a lot over the years. One that comes to mind particularly is the Perry Hotel, which used to provide this kind of housing to low income people, and was lost for that purpose through gentrification. I want to raise some questions, and tell you a little bit about my experiences. I had an experience with the Traveler's Aide Society, which runs the homeless shelter of entering into a management agreement to operate the Rio Grande Hotel. The Rio Grande has become with the right kind of management and the 24/7 front desk coverage that the ordinance addresses as a requirement a very viable kind of housing option for many people, who are single, working, and who don't have a lot of needs in terms of having apartments, and houses to keep up. The main thing that we've learned from this is the 24/7 is absolutely essential.
Aria Funk: Why is that essential?
Don Olsen: It eliminates the problem of people who are not residents, coming and going, and staying over. It helps keep control on the type of population you are targeting. It would put control on alcohol and drug use. The idea of having the SROs located in the downtown area is excellent. I wonder if being next to a bus line would be as good as being next to a light rail. You may wish to address this. Another issue from the property management point of view is to have week-to-week occupancy could be helpful. You occasionally get undesirable tenants, and have that go on month-to-month make is more difficult to deal with and address that kind of situation. At the same time you want to focus on long term, permanent housing. The provision for bicycles is great. The reduction in parking certainly would fit our experience. Common space in these facilities is important.
Robert Glessner: I have a draft of the details of the ordinance changes if you're interested. They're very complex and difficult to read.
Mary McDonald: You mentioned Communal space; that some have it, and some don't?
Karen Denton: That is correct. We want people to start thinking about this as they are building these units.
Stephen Goldsmith: I was able to go on a tour and see all of these units in San Diego. One of them has a little restaurant inside of it, which may of the people use. One has an atrium in it with a seating area.
Joe Perkins: There is a library and a gym in all of them.
Kay (berger) Arnold: I believe we have an SRO in the Avenues, are you aware of that? I think they're generally the old mansions that the people just rented rooms out of. There are a lot of them out there. What I see most often in the way of occupants are elderly men, and single people, rather than homeless.
Max Smith: I also took a trip a few years ago, and toured these facilities, and my eyes were opened. I saw incredible stuff. I think what you may be talking about may function in a sense as SROs, but I think we ought to be very clear on this. We're talking about a specific type of housing, and those buildings that you're talking about would not fit the definition we're talking about tonight. Karen and the staff know exactly and specifically what the SROs are here, and how they're operating.
Bip Daniels: I think there is another distinction. I call them rooming or boarding houses. They wouldn't be SROs based on what we have before us. What makes the SRO in front of us so much better suited to the community need is the 24-hour management they're proposing. Some of the problems they used to have down at the Rio went away once you put those security measures in place.
Karen Denton: I want to reiterate what Mon said regarding the occupants not always being transient. It is permanent housing.
Max Smith: That is a critical point.
Kay (berger) Arnold: Were you recommending a weekly stay?
Mon Alston: I'm not recommending that. I'm saying that it is something you should take a look at.
Max Smith: Maybe you could address that, because I know in the models in San Diego there were some real restrictions on length of stay.
Joe Perkins: Actually the length of stay rule is no longer. The city of San Diego changed that. Forty percent of the people that live in our units have been there 2 years of longer. We have two types of SROs. SROs for profit and for social programs. The SROs in the brochure that you're looking at are for working class folks that clean motel rooms, or bus boys, or cab drivers. People that work 40 hours a week, but can't seem to keep their money together to put together a big deposit and rent a one-bedroom apartment. So the SRO allows weekly rentals in that you pay by the week, instead of the month. Its great for people who are new in town and have a job, but are waiting to make some money from it. The weekly part helps, because you could have a monthly rental when you allow for weekly payments.
Aria Funk: Do you have an approximate average rent?
Joe Perkins: We're operating currently right now with monies given to us, so we have different percentages that we have to meet certain needs. We have twenty percent that is 50% median income. We go from 400 dollars a month up to 800 dollars a month. You're also taking about downtown San Diego.
Jeff Jonas: What's your rent per square foot?
Joe Perkins: It's right at about a dollar a foot or better.
Jeff Jonas: And you're getting 800 dollars for 300 square feet?
Joe Perkins: In some units, yes. We have a very small classification in our structure that allows for anybody to rent. Again, we built these 10 years ago in what was not the greatest part of San Diego, and now it's across from the civic center, and they have views of the bay. And some of the units we have are
up to 400 and 600 square feet with these views. Those we get better revenues from. Most of the units are affordable housing, have no view, and are just a room with a kitchenette. They are the 400-dollar range.
Jeff Jonas: I went through some of these in San Diego myself. I have concerns about why they're restricted to light rail, as opposed to mass transit? As I look at it, some areas on 13th South are near that light rail station, and you can't build there.
Robert Glessner: As its written right now you can't. We're hoping for future development in these areas.
Jeff Jonas: What kinds of occupants do our current SROs have, and what kind of rates are you getting?
Mon Alston: I can speak for the Rio Grande Hotel. The rooms rent for $250 a month. The bathroom is down the hall, the laundry is down the hall also. They're very, very small; just barely adequate. I don't know what the new Grande Hotel rates are, but they're full.
Jeff Jonas: What size of a building do you need to have the 24/7 management, and those kind of things?
Joe Perkins: We're right at about 200 units, which sits on about 25,000 square feet.
Max Smith: I heard that you could make if work at 150.
Joe Perkins: When you get under 150, you don't have the revenues coming in to warrant the management. Non-profit, could probably do it for under 100.
Aria Funk: Would you say then that the difference between a rooming house and an SRO is size?
Max Smith: It has to do with amenities being in the room.
Aria Funk: So what Kay is describing is NOT an SRO?
Karen Denton: No
Aria Funk: I think this proposal before us as being extremely limiting on SROs. I think it should be opened up much wider than this. I think to limit it to the downtown area is a mistake. I think to build buildings, which are clusters of SROs, are a mistake. I think it is in dire opposition to our housing policy, where we say we want mixed use. We're doing exactly the opposite by proposing SROs that are total buildings. Why shouldn't SROs be included when you build a new apartment building? There are people with disabilities, and maybe they want to work at Cottonwood Hospital, and we're forcing them to come into downtown Salt Lake, to get an SRO that is affordable for them. There are people who come into town on a temporary basis to relocate, and they need an SRO. I see a whole different approach to this problem. I don't think a building of total SROs is a good idea. It seems to me that we're better off to disperse them among the housing that we already have. You can have an SRO as part of an apartment building. You can have one over a store, or over workspaces. If you disperse them, it eliminates the need for 24 hour, 7 day, surveillance, because they are not clustered. I think we really need to re-look at this whole concept. To me, a 400-dollar SRO is not cheap housing.
Karen Denton: You're right, and that's why we're also talking about the two different kinds. So it doesn't necessarily have to be a single mixed income unit.
Max Smith: Let's go back to what we're talking about here. An SRO is a very specific thing. It is not ruling out small apartments, those housing needs are still there. This is a very focused type of building from which you cannot scatter a few small SRO units. The likelihood of there being ghettos, vast complexes of SROs, is so unlikely, because there are so few in the first place that develop them. I think there are 3 people in the entire San Diego area that do. It is a very specific type of building for which expertise is required. That doesn't rule out the things you're talking about, it just isn't what we're talking about here.
Aria Funk: Maybe what I'm asking is that if we're going to pass this ordinance, we make it more encompassing.
Jeff Jonas: I don't feel comfortable passing this amendment. I'd like to take some time and read this report from Mr. Perkins, in order to understand the process. I'm not comfortable with restricting it to the areas that we have. I think we should expand.
Bip Daniels: I think I can understand the concept of SROs as they're presented here. I also understand what we have existing in Salt Lake City, and I've also seen operating SROs in other cities, including New York City, and Washington D.C. There is a great history there. One in New York City requires that everyone who lives there work there also. One of the things that keep these SROs from dying is the city's social systems behind them. This needs some tweaking, but I think it is absolutely wonderful.
Mr. Smith then turned the time over to the Public Hearing.
Mr. Matt Wolverton of the Central City Community Council spoke on meeting Mr. Perkins several months ago, when he came before the Council.
Matt Wolverton: We thought this was a very enlightening and encouraging endeavor. We were approached after the meeting by Salt Lake City police to remind us of the current SROs that we already have. After reading through the pamphlet that Mr. Perkins presented to us, I can say that this is something that is needed in this area; especially downtown. We do have a community that is in transition. And these SROs provide an opportunity for people. I'd like to see it encompass a larger variety of people than what we've touched on tonight.
Mary McDonald: I don't know that to have it affordable we could have an historical character. How could you include this in the focus of your vision?
Matt Wolverton: I think those would have been considerations had the SRO been located in the historic district. If we'd had the opportunity, through proper design review from the Planning Commission, etc. I'm sure we would have agreed with keeping the exterior of the building compatible with other buildings. The
Central City Council is one of transition. It is a community of change. Certainly we are trying to maintain as much as we can with respect to existing houses, but that said, we wish to embrace change, and move forward with it.
Mr. Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission.
Mr. Smith stated we currently do not make a distinction between an SRO and an apartment. You can do an SRO as we define it in any zone. You could design an SRO with the same number of units as an apartment. You don't get a density break. But anyplace you can put an apartment, you can put in an SRO, and its currently defined as a structure less than 600 square feet. And you're required to have Y-Z parking stall per unit. We wrestled with this issue of weekly versus monthly, and what we want to do is make a distinction between the downtown zones and the residential zones. We have struggled to maintain monthly rentals in the east downtown area. If we allow the weekly rent, we'll have people using that SRO provision to provide hotel accommodations in a residential district. We may be able to create some definitions and some other standards to work around that. I think that's a concern that you need to address.
Aria Funk: I'd like to know what the urgency is. This has been in the plans for at least 2 years. Maybe we should continue it next week so that we can review the material.
Jeff Jonas: Joe, how many SROs in San Diego, were developed for profit, without the help of the government?
Joe Perkins: There are about 2000 units downtown, and we only handle 600 of them, so I can't address exactly how each one of them were done, but I have a pretty good knowledge of that. All had some concession to the city, whether it be with parking, or zoning and building requirements. Basically, they wrote their ordinance, as they went.
Jeff Jonas: But we don't have the kind of set up downtown as they do in San Diego. We don't have a walkable downtown; we don't have services that are walkable, from any of those places. The other issue I want to get to is an issue Max and I have talked about a number of times, and that is getting people over
the hump in terms of what you pay per square foot. My concerns are with respect to the way the ordinance has been written, especially relative to the management plan as something that needs to go through licensing, but not with this plan.
Robert Glessner: That was a specific request from the police department, that they review the management plan and the reason that it will not be part of the Conditional Use process is because it would be ten times more cumbersome to give the management to the city. That's why the changes are how they are.
Jeff Jonas: I think before we approve them we make sure that the management plan is approved by the Police Department.
Jeff Jonas: I'd like to move that we table this until the next meeting.
Aria Funk: I'll second it.
Ms. Funk, and Mr. Jonas voted "Aye".
Ms. McDonald, Ms. Arnold, and Ms. Short, opposed the motion. Bip Daniels abstained from voting. Mr. Smith, as Chairman, did not vote. The motion died.
Judi Short: I make a motion that we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for Petition
No. 400-00-57, a request by The Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division for an amendment to existing Residential, Downtown, and Gateway Zoning Districts to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) dwelling types and establish location and design criteria for SRO land uses.
Kay (berger) Arnold: I second that.
Jeff Jonas: Did roof top gardens ever become part of open space?
Robert Glessner: They are in this ordinance. (Ch21A.36-190 design guidelines.) The requirement was
20% open space would be part of the lot area.
Jeff Jonas: We're voting on changes to an ordinance that we haven't even seen. Your reference on page 5, in B the first paragraph of discussion is to establish requirements for scale, parking, open space and common areas. We haven't seen that.
Robert Glessner: I have three copies, and can make additional. Part of the reason we didn't provide this in your packets was because we wanted to have the general summation of this because it is so detailed.
Judi Short: Can we continue this next time? I withdraw my motion.
Mary McDonald: Well, we voted already.
Aria Funk: You can make a new motion.
Jeff Jonas: Why the one bicycle space?
Robert Glessner: The reason we have the bicycle rack is because most of the tenants have better access to bicycles than cars.
Max Smith: Do we have to define bicycle space?
Motion for Case No. 400-00-57:
Jeff Jonas: I'll make the motion that we continue with this at the next meeting. And get a copy of the ordinance to read.
Aria Funk: I'll second that.
Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, and Mr. Jonas voted "Aye." Ms. McDonald, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. (berger) Arnold opposed. Mr. Mariger and Ms. Barrows were absent. Mr. Smith as Chairperson gave the deciding vote. The motion passed.
Brent Wilde: What Robert will give you is not full to the compete ordinance. It's bits and pieces of the ordinance without the complete picture. We advise Robert to try to summarize the draft in the staff report. We will get this to you in the next Planning Commission packet. This will be a little tough for you to read. You're going to have to have this ordinance open to follow this. We will instead provide a bold and strike format to you.
Robert Glessner: It's a task, but it's doable. You will be getting six or seven chapters of the ordinance.
Max Smith: Would it be fair to suggest that you try to communicate this short of doing that? We don't want to go through that. In the meantime. we'll watch the video.
Judi Short: I move its time for a dinner break.
DINNER BREAK
F. PUBLIC HEARING -- Petition 400-00-51 by the Salt Lake City Administration requesting revisions to the text of the Salt Lake City Sign Ordinance to allow temporary signs in the public right-of-way [for a time period not to exceed 14 days). (Staff: Everett Joyce at 535-7930)
Stephen Goldsmith: Before Everett begins; I'd like to make a few comments about this. We had taken this very serious because the Mayor, in a very high minded way, feels that an eight year old kid who loses his dog, and goes and posts a sign in the public right of way, his being guilty of a crime is not the kind of
message you want to send to a kid. It really gets down to a benign enforcement which is not the kind of message we want to send to our youth. That it's illegal to put these signs up, but we turn our backs. Now how do we turn our backs on some things, and not others? In our struggle to help come Lip with a way to make it legal for someone to put up a sign, we've run into some fascinating issues. Matt Wolverton describes a requirement that a non-legal, non-commercial sign must have contact information for the person or group or agency attaching the sign. Well, we can't do that. The First Amendment forbids us from doing that. We've worked hard to find a way to enforce this, for example, if somebody puts their phone number up there, because this ordinance is a 14 day maximum ordinance, on the 15th day enforcers could call the number and see who answers the phone. We thought we could get around the anonymity issue because there is a leakage of the number. But this is so complex, in terms of First Amendment issues, this is about the best we could come up, in order to make accommodations to the Mayor's request to get this message to our youth.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the history of this case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Based upon the findings, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider recommending approval to the City Council to amend the sign ordinance text to legalize snipe signs within the public right of way subject to the following conditions:
1. Snipe signs would be limited to a posting duration of 14 days, after which the sign becomes a littering misdemeanor.
2. Signs are posted with a date of placement and expiration.
3. The number of snipe signs per block face is limited to three at anyone time.
4. Any single entity placing snipe signs are limited to one per block face.
5. Any single entity is limited to three 14-day periods per year at anyone-block face.
6. Snipe signs are limited to one square foot of total sign area.
7. Snipe signs are not permitted on trees.
8. Snipe signs shall be made of paper or cardboard. Wood, metal and other hard sign materials and support frames shall not be permitted.
By using the three elements: time, place, and manner, we can have some kind of control over regulation. It will still be difficult to enforce, but now we can do something about it if/when we do enforce. If people leave these signs up, we have a littering misdemeanor. If the Planning Commission recommends these concepts explained in the staff report to the City Council, then the City attorneys can develop them further into ordinance format.
Aria Funk: On page 5, your report lists seven different kinds of signs. Are these all permitted under this ordinance?
Everett Joyce: Those are the types of temporary signs allowed on private property. We identified those to let you know what other types of signs are out there. We made this identification because we cannot control the content of signs on public right of ways, and with these types of signs we have some control on content and what kinds of signs can be posted.
Aria Funk: On recommendation number 8; how are you going to put up a cardboard sign without some kind of support?
Everett Joyce: They're frequently out there now. They can be nailed to a pole.
Aria Funk: Do we need to say that the signs are posted on a utility pole? It wasn't clear to me if that was the only thing allowed.
Mary McDonald: Isn't that stated in the definition of "snipe signs"?
Everett Joyce: It does.
Jeff Jonas: In 21.A.46, second paragraph talks about it.
Everett Joyce: We can put it in the regulations.
Aria Funk: But it's saying fences and trees. And you're telling me that you can't do it on the tree. So where is the specific definition that we'll be using now?
Everett Joyce: We have to redefine the text according to the eight conditions if snipe signs were permitted. We're not working with the ordinance. We're working with the recommendations of the concept to allow snipe signs.
Jeff Jonas: Explain this temporary sign chart again.
Everett Joyce: The chart shows private signs existing that are permitted temporarily. We're showing that to you so that you'll know there are other alternatives. These will not be permitted at public right of ways.
Mary McDonald: Do you know how much of this goes back to, when the Avenues did a community street fair, where we had children paint signs, because we got permission for a period of time.
Everett Joyce: That's a temporary event. This doesn't affect that. A temporary permit would exempt you from snipe sign regulations because they are authorized by the City's approval of the temporary event.
Judi Short: What if I have a yard sale, and I want to put a sign up for it, out on 9th East, pointing towards my house, there's no place I can put it. So I'd have to put it on the sidewalk, or in somebody else's yard?
Everett Joyce: Right now, yes.
Jeff Jonas: This would make it legal to put it on the pole, now.
Judi Short: We should require the date be included.
Everett Joyce: We have that in the report. The duration would allow us to remove a sign. Once the signs legal in the public way, we cannot take it down. This type of activity may require more personnel to enforce it, but that's true for the existing ordinance too.
Jeff Jonas: Can citizens do this?
Stephen Goldsmith: Administration feels very strongly that enforcement is the key here. And whether it's going to allow you as a neighbor to take the sign down, we don't know yet.
Jeff Jonas: More typically, someone wants to put a sign up and they can't, unless they take someone else's sign down.
Max Smith: That will be legally defined in the ordinance.
Mary McDonald: You mention establishment of community bulletin boards, but there's no elaboration on this.
Everett Joyce: I wasn't looking at an alternative for replacing snipe signs, but as an alternative to a cluster of signs. This tends to occur in business areas. If we're going to allow signs on a pole on the street, we should allow community kiosks in that same public right of way. That is something that we'd
have to consider later on. Those would be authorized by the city.
Judi Short expressed her concern for not being able to put a sign up, if three people on her block all had garage sales on the same day. She felt that maybe a different standard should be set for this circumstance. Mr. Joyce informed the Commission that we couldn't define between what type of sign is present, i.e. garage sale. This is a content issue. This was resolved by a decision that if people were going to her neighbor's garage sale, they'd probably stop by hers as well. This concern will be considered.
Mr. Smith then opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Matt Wolverton of the Central City Community Council then spoke.
Matt Wolverton: What legal recourse do I have when a sign I've posted is taken down? Do I go to the Snipe Sign Hearing Officer? Could we have parking enforcement mark signs, in the same way that they mark you tire? Then after 14 days they can take the sign down. Is that an option?
Max Smith: Possibly.
Everett Joyce: That's more of an administrative function. We wouldn't want to set those standards until we know what the problem really is going to be, or what it would take to do it.
Matt Wolverton: Regarding the enforcement by the community. We have a person who is a self admitted sign sniper. He sits on the Central City Neighborhood Council board. And he can attest to the fact that those commercial signs do come down, because they enforce their own. What I think maybe the best thing to do is to let this one lie. While it's been an important discussion, we need more time. I would suggest that we perhaps table this forever.
Mr. Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission.
Judi Short: The concept of the meter maids doing some enforcement is really a good one.
Aria Funk: It's impossible to make a rule for everything. You just have to depend on the morality of people sometimes. This is the kind of thing that for me would be tabled forever.
Judi Short: One thing that would solve part of the problem is that if every sign that went up had to have a date on it, so everyone can take signs down that are expired.
Aria Funk: I think people need to know that they can take it down. I think we're creating more problems than we're solving.
Motion for Case No. 400-00-51:
Jeff Jonas: In regard to Petition 400-00-51 by the Salt Lake City Administration requesting revisions to the text of the Salt Lake City Sign Ordinance to allow temporary signs in the public right-of-way [for a time period not to exceed 14 days]. I make a motion that we pass on a favorable recommendation to the City
Council to amend the sign ordinance text to legalize such signs in the public right of way, subject to the eight conditions of staff, plus the 9th that would add littering as a misdemeanor if a sign is kept up more than 14 days.
Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas, Ms. (berger) Arnold, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye." Ms. McDonald, and Ms. Funk opposed the motion. Ms. Short abstained from voting. Mr. Mariger, and Ms. Barrows were absent. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mary McDonald: I would like to see the community bulletin boards pursued. I think that makes more sense than enforcing signs on poles.
The Commission then moved on to Petition No. 410-511.
G. PUBLIC HEARING -- Petition No. 410-511 by City Front Partners. LCC. requesting planned development approval for a 170 unit multiple family residential project on property located at 641 West North Temple Street. The Property. located on the south side of North Temple between 600 West and 1-15. is zoned G-MU Gateway Mixed-use.
Mr. Paterson presented the staff report outlining the history of this case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Based on the findings, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant planned development approval based on the plans submitted for
consideration, including the modifications of the zoning ordinance listed below:
1. Modifying the Gateway District restriction on parking lots located in block corner areas as proposed;
2. Modifying the Architectural Character and Materials standard to allow a greater percentage of EIFS;
3. Modify the Minimum First Floor Glass requirement to allow the facade design as presented; and
4. Modify the Minimum Yard Requirement to allow the front setback proposed on the site plan.
This planned development approval is subject to:
1. Compliance with all Salt Lake City Departmental requirements;
2. Compliance with the site plan approved by the Planning Commission
3. Final landscape plan approval by the Planning Director; and
4. Final architectural design approval by the Planning Director.
The Commission didn't have any questions for Mr. Paterson at this time.
Mr. Dave Conine, Deputy Director of Neighborhood Housing Services, located at 622 W 500 N, Salt Lake City, UT, spoke on the project, highlighting why the present ordinance does not "fit" the proposed development location.
The Commission asked the following questions of Mr. Conine:
Jeff Jonas: Why do you think you need 1.75 parking stalls per unit?
Dave Conine: I think we could cut the parking back, however the caveat is, the minimum of 92 stalls, would probably not work. Most lenders would be very concerned about that minimum standard being used. I strongly feel that there is a happy medium.
Jeff Jonas: The ordinance wishes to bring buildings closer out to the street, and you're doing just the opposite; especially with retail by trying to make it available to the public and the residents.
Dave Conine: I think there're two components of that. One, there is a sidewalk along North Temple, and with the high speed arterial such as it is, the sidewalk pushed close to the street makes pedestrian traffic uncomfortable. Another option is visual landscaping. The high speed arterial makes it impossible for someone to drive up to and park on the curb. You need to get off the street. Giving the nature of that sight, this is a sensible solution. The goal of making the city pedestrian oriented is commendable, and I think it will work very well. Because this is on the edge of that section, it represents a transition between
GMU and the Commercial strip.
Jeff Jonas: The expectation is that you will eventually see light rail. We're trying to push the buildings out on the street near 4th South for this very purpose. Development in this area will eventually slow traffic down, or you won't have as much traffic here. Why should we treat this location differently than we are other locations in the city?
Dave Conine: My feeling is that because its fairly high speed arterial, it needs more than just the buildings to the lot line. I would argue that on a high speed arterial, you get additional interest by pulling back and making room for landscaping. To put a strip mall there would be a terrible mistake, so you need to find a "happy medium." I believe this project comes pretty close to doing that.
Jeff Jonas: You're only required to have 25% of the facade out to the street, not the entire thing. I would rather have a buffer for the residents from the retail area.
Max Smith: You mentioned a "strip mall." In effect, isn't that what this plan does to 6th West? It puts your commercial directly behind a parking lot that is on the strip. Sixth West is not an arterial.
Dave Conine: That's true. I'd like to emphasize that right now, the parking both on North Temple and Sixth West combined to be only 36 spaces. It is well landscaped, and I believe between the interest of the building and the landscaping and the fact that it is the narrow part of the lot, it doesn't read as a strip type of development. Admittedly there are some design compromises that need to be made. Our intent is to provide the landscape amenities and the elevation amenities on the building to compensate for any detrimental affect for having surface parking.
Max Smith: Certainly GMU, nor CC, never anticipated residential units at the street level. It obviously makes no sense at all to put residential units right on the sidewalk. Those were always anticipated to be retail/commercial to enliven the street, etc. You are not anticipating moving the North Temple sidewalk, are you?
Dave Conine: I think the locations are virtually the same. I'm not one hundred percent sure.
Max Smith: Does the project fit the zone? Here we are trying to bend GMU to fit something that was never anticipated for that zone.
Aria Funk: Later in the meeting we have a final decision to limit front parking in front of retail stores in certain districts, and I think this petition conflicts with that move.
Kay (berger) Arnold: The property is residential, and the parking issues are commercial issues. What percentage of this entire project concerns this issue? Why should we worry?
Dave Conine: The commercial area is actually 11,000 square feet, which excludes a clubhouse structure, so the commercial use is a minor use in terms of overall percentage. But I do think the visibility into the site is an important aspect. That's why I think it's important to minimize the parking with quality landscaping, light standards, and pedestrian walkways. I feel that our plan includes so much landscaping that I was afraid of issues regarding line of sight for traffic safety. But again, if you build out to the street you have that too.
Jeff Jonas: How can you have it both ways?
Dave Conine: You have the kind of landscaping that visually breaks it up, but that you can see through. You don't have a private hedge that's ten feet tall, for example. You have trees, and low growing shrubbery.
Judi Short: Does this have a CPTD (Crime Prevention Through Design) review? This should be a requirement.
Dave Conine: When this project was proposed, it went through some review of the city council. I don't know how much review.
Jeff Jonas: My concern too, is this location. This corner shows them doing exactly what we don't want done in terms of planning. This is the most visible corner as you come over the overpass to that intersection. You will see exactly what you guys worked so hard to prevent happening in Sugar House. And we haven't even talked about the issue of the exterior.
Dave Conine: When we took the project over we decided how much design change we could implement and still get the thing done for some critical deadlines. We're prepared to bring the brick up, or the stone to the top of the first floor level. The other aspect of this is that the building has enough relief to break up the shadow, which helps get rid of some of the negative problems of a big massive stucco surface that no one really wants to see. I think there are possibly some additional landscape things that we can do with the parking on Sixth West.
Joel suggested we put some angled parking to visually reduce the size of the
parking lot.
Bip Daniels: Do you already have a management plan? Do you know who's going to manage the property?
Dave Conine: CDS; they're here tonight. They manage 5,300 units in several western states. We've chosen to work with them because they've shown the capability of being successful with it, as well as some historic connection to that neighborhood.
Mr. Conine pointed out the need for expediency on this project because we're convinced that we need to get this underway, or we're not going to see anything done to the area for a couple of years. The populations that the Olympics provide make it possible to have a catalyst for some good redevelopment to occur along the North Temple Corridor.
Max Smith: So the design of this building is not substantially different from the Prowswood proposal?
And they had residential units on the street?
Dave Conine: The footprint is virtually identical.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the Public.
John Sindelar with the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee located on 299 S Main, stated a desire to have this petition approved quickly so that it can be used for the Olympics.
John Sindelar: We'd love to have this as part of the program. If we can't count on it soon, we can't assure the developers that we'll use it. The users may be media, workers, as well as other categories, all of whom we have the responsibility to watch out for.
Karen Denton, Director of the City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, voiced her support for the petition regarding a combination of commercial and residential. She stated how this neighborhood doesn't want to see another strip mall. She asked the commission to look at this project as more of a meeting place rather than a commercial site. We've talked to residents in this area, and the expressed opinion is to see local retail, rather than outside businesses. The Olympic angle will allow subsidized money to be used, and put back into the neighborhood. The department encourages the support of this project.
John Francis, Vice President of the People's Freeway Council, stated that this plan would be a very good addition to the site. Minor changes recommended were:
1. The wide right-of-way on Sixth West provides the option of 45° angled parking for the commercial space with which you can slide the whole building up to the right of way along Sixth West.
2. With 80 units we expect a number of children to be present. There are no public spaces for these children to play in, other than those courtyards.
Stan Steiner, of CEO/CDS Investments, expressed a need for this project to get underway quickly. He feels that it would be a great catalyst to redevelopment down North Temple. He feels that some adjustments could be made:
1. Regarding the discussion of children-one of the courtyards is designed to be a "tot lot" area, and dedicated to the children. A fencing plan would provide some security.
2. A surplus number of parking stalls enable us to look at other options, i.e. the angled parking. -
It is not exactly what I prefer, but I'm willing to go there in order to move this project along.
Mary McDonald: These children, that everybody wants to keep off of this high speed arterial, will have to cross that high speed arterial 180 days a year. What can you do about this?
Dave Conine: There is a traffic light in that area, but to looking at additional mitigation is something that we should have to look at. I'm not sure what we could do right now. I'm prepared to look at modifications in that respect.
Moli Ngatuvai, of 338 E Stadium, Provo, Utah: I support this project. I would like to move the building off of the street, and provide a pathway that you cannot see from the road. The truth is, this all has to do with money.
Sharon Martinez: Something needs to be done in this area. I support this project.
Judi Short: Sharon, where is the school?
Sharon Martinez: My granddaughter lives on that street, and she goes to West High. They usually have to walk down the side and over. This should have been looked at a long time ago. Lights are needed under that viaduct. We need some bagels and coffee shops. We need something.
Russ Minnick, with Bridge Property Managements, located at 4885 S 900 E, Salt Lake City, UT:
Russ Minnick: I wanted to add that we actually provide, for our employees, a cross walk service. And the children do have an area that they can play in.
Judi Short: The tot lot bothers me a lot. I think if I were living on the top floor, the sound of the kids would just echo.
Russ Minnick: It certainly could, and you've got a swimming pool there also. Obviously we mitigate that by the times that pools close. And that's true of any project like this.
Judi Short: What kind of rent are you going to be charging?
Russ Minnick: Sixty percent of the units are low income. So eighty percent is of medium income, and then there will be market rates that will be forty percent.
Jeff Jonas : What would make this project not exclusionary except other than having commercial? We look at projects on the city, and its always "bring everybody in," and that's with luxury projects. Then we have a low-income project and we say its okay to just exclude everyone who is better off. It seems like this is happening.
Russ Minnick: Help me with that. I don't understand.
Jeff Jonas: There are no common areas to benefit the community. There are only areas for the project.
Russ Minnick: I understand that. And I liked Dave's suggestion earlier, as it relates to parking on that end. That we can create a little park area that would work for the community. With the parking that we have there, we can mitigate that area, and create some sort of nice park pathway. It wouldn't be a wide
one, but it would certainly be a pathway park/sitting area.
Bip Daniels: The players here are N HS, CDS, and you're now with?
Russ Minnick: Bridge Property Managements is owned by CDS Investments.
Dave Conine: Just one additional comment: One of the things, after looking at the site that really became apparent was that the street does need improvement. The houses there have been taken care of quite nicely, but there are no curbs and gutters there. The street really needs resurfacing, and I would propose that as we do this project, we coordinate with the city, for doing the entire street. And if any youth group program, teams up with "Tree Utah," and we make a public works project for the kids and for Utah out of collaborating on doing the landscaping. That could be a model for some other areas of the neighborhood as well. We just used the Youth Works in Treaty to put street trees on a project we just completed. It was a lot of fun. I think that gets everybody to buy into the neighborhood too.
Max Smith: Thanks, Dave. You will be doing over 200 feet of West side, as part of your project, so that should point out the whole street.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing, and brought the petition back to the Commission.
Mary McDonald: I have a comment about schools. I didn't see any indication that the staff had talked about schools and accommodations there, so I called the school today, and found out they have 549 students, which is right where the district wants to be with their schools. That does not include the children that are going to be moving into the school. Based on that other housing we recently approved, the potential exists to put 50 more kids into the Jackson Elementary School, which is two blocks north from North Temple. This project has the potential to bring in 80 children, that we have to provide schooling for. There is going to be a potential with the projects being approved recently and with this one, there would be close to 100 children who would need some type of schooling provided for them. In good conscience, I don't see how we can look at providing this housing for these families, knowing that they're not going to have a school that accommodates them. It's going to affect the education of all kids in the entire neighborhood. I know we've talked about his before, and while I don't have a solution, I don't see the Staff attempting to talk with the district about accommodating these families with children.
Stephen Goldsmith: This is a clarification on the school district. We did a tour of the west side area with the school board, and the city council about three weeks ago, and the school board indicated to us that the only thing they can tell us is that they will accommodate the children. So even though we have been soliciting their written comments, we learned on that trip that they're not going to give us any information other than that they will accommodate the children.
Kay (berger) Arnold: I make a motion that we approve Petition No. 410-511 by City Front Partners, LCC, requesting planned development approval for a 170 unit multiple family residential project on property located at 641 West North Temple Street, as proposed by the Planning Staff.
No one seconded this motion. Motion dies.
Jeff Jonas: I'm terribly troubled by this. I've been very supportive of NHS and the things they've done with other projects, but I don't understand how we can sit here and throw out everything that we've worked so hard to get in terms of the planning issues with this project, and how it relates to the location of the facade to the street on both North Temple, and Sixth. I think this is too important of a structure and its location, to be rushed. I don't think there is any excuse from the people who've been involved in this project, if it really did start in 1997, to not ever get to the city, and get the staff involved in this process, and ignore almost completely the guidelines set forth in the zoning ordinance, and then to come forward with this and say, "We need to approve this in a few days or we're going to lose these special circumstances
that makes this possible."
Max Smith: I am having some difficulty with this also; regarding the deadlines. Everybody loves NHS and what they've done. We're all about housing, because that's the basis for a community. I think several of us have sat here and exacted a standard on the East side of Gateway rigorously. And now in effect we are sliding considerably away from that standard. That double standard is troublesome to me, and I think that the west side deserves the same quality that the east side gets. On the other hand, I think that there are certain things that can be done. There is going to be a housing project, and if I understand correctly, they have been working with Staff under the umbrella and this isn't significantly different from that. I feel very strongly that we have created a strip center, and while landscaping helps, it still is what it is. John Francis' idea was terrific. Let's park on the street. We're not supposed to sit here and design your projects, and I apologize for that, but if you could slide the building down somewhat, it seems to me it would create a much nicer buffer on the west end. There's a possible solution. As to the materials, we've really held this standard on the east side. You've expressed a willingness to provide more masonry on the building. North Temple is going to change, and we can't hold this or the future of the next immediate project hostage to the ugliness of what it is today. It is going to change, and what we do today will help that change. I see this as an opportunity to say what North Temple can begin to be in the future. I'd like to suggest a middle ground; knowing our concerns, we have this go to the Planning Director. That we try to move this forward, and that you understand we're very serious about these issues. I don't think anyone can sit here and be charged in the future with using a double standard, which puts our credibility in your hands. I don't know if the Commission is comfortable with that approach.
Jeff Jonas: It all depends on what kind of latitude is given. There are certain things that I think are important, and one of them is, I think the building needs to be moved over to Sixth West, and right up against it. I think John Francis did have a great idea. I don't know what limitations exist with North
Temple, and I guess you'll have to explore that if we give you the latitude to do that. I think if we can move the building to the east, we can avoid the appearance of a strip mall in front. Parking on the street will clean up Sixth West, and we may be able to build some community space in that additional sixty feet that's going to be available on the west side of the building. If you could incorporate that into it, I'd be comfortable in giving the Director the latitude to go forward with this.
Max Smith: I failed to mention it before, but you are parking a half a car more per unit than the Brigham Street Apartments. If this were to go forward with the parking you're proposing, I can't think of a parking project in recent history that parks this many cars. That's a lot of money.
Aria Funk: I don't know what the feasibility of moving the Sixth west wall forward, and putting the parking directly behind it, as well as the angle parking on the street, which I think is a good idea. No one has really addressed Jeff's question about how to handle the residential units that are at the street level. I have couple of thoughts about that. Maybe there are some other services that this building can provide to the community. We've heard that they want to try and do that. If there are in fact eighty children in that building, some of them are going to be preschool age, and maybe a nursery facility could go in on that first level. Maybe there's also a possibility of an Elderly Care level of service that can be provided. I'd just like to look at some other uses for that first floor residential. I think we are inviting difficulty and instability in those units, if we put them on that first level. I'd like to see that possibility at least explored. I think the project should go forward, I think a Sixth West elevation should be moved out to the street.
Stephen Goldsmith: Do you want to make that a condition of the approval?
Aria Funk: When I say a condition, I think that could be left to you, but it has to be explored.
Judi Short: When you think of the concept of transit oriented design; if a woman has a child, she'll need a car to take that child to a daycare center. If there's daycare in the building or within the block, and maybe a light rail stop close by, or a good bus service, then maybe we can start to get something that works for the community.
Aria Funk: I don't think that we can impose on them that there's a daycare center.
Judi Short: And that might be the kind of thing that wouldn't have to be figured out by the Olympics. But it could be phased into the project, as the tenants move in after the Olympics. What about angle parking from both sides of Sixth West?
Brent Wilde: We may have some transportation issues with the parking on the street, but we can certainly explore it. I wanted to acknowledge that Dan Loftgren representing Prowswood, came in to talk to Bill Wright and me. The project was always preliminary, and never assigned to a Staff member. I remember that the original plan did show the parking out next to 600 East.
Max Smith: I appreciate that clarification.
Motion for Case No. 410-511:
Aria Funk: On that basis I'd like to make the motion that is, based on the findings of fact, that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-511 by City Front Partners, LCC, requesting planned development approval for a 155 unit multiple family residential project on property located at 641 West North Temple Street. And as part of that approval that the building on Sixth West is moved out to the street face, and the other parking options be explored, on the street, or behind the building. Also that, in addition to the recommendations made by Staff, that we eliminate condition number 1, require more brick than proposed, subject to approval by the Planning Director for number 2, approve #3, eliminate #4, and give authority to the Planning Director to approve the project based on further exploration of the first level of residential building for other uses .
Judi Short: I'll second that.
Max Smith: I have a question on #4. If we get more retail, are we anticipating putting retail on that whole first floor? (And therefore you could move over to the street.) Or are we going to assume that they will not get all of the retail needed, in which case those residential units must be set back a little further. So we'd have to keep recommendation number 4.
Jeff Jonas: With what they're doing along North Temple, I wonder if any parking lot is allowed, is it? Is it consistent with the Ordinance? I think we're all in agreement that that's okay. I just want to make sure the motion is correct that we're approving this site plan, but that we're moving it over to Sixth West. I just want to make sure that whatever we say in the motion allows that.
Jeff Jonas: How about the height of the parking structure? Is that okay?
Max Smith: We don't mind lowering it, do we?
Aria Funk: We need to make the point that we will modify that parking structure height.
Jeff Jonas: Can we also add to the motion something about a strong recommendation to transportation to allow angled parking? We want to encourage that, and we think it is vital to the project.
Jeff Jonas seconded the motion, including additions. In summary the following changes were made:
1. Condition number 1, of the Staff recommendation is eliminated.
2 . Require more brick than proposed, under number 2, with final approval delegated to the Planning Director.
3. Authority is given to the Planning Director to approve the project based on further exploration of the first level of the building being developed for other uses.
4. The site plan is approved, with the building being moved over to Sixth West.
5. The parking structure height is modified to allow a lower parking structure as proposed.
6.Strong recommendation that angled parking is allowed.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, and Mr. Daniels, voted "Aye".
Ms. McDonald opposed the motion. Mr. Mariger, and Ms. Barrows were absent. The motion passed.
H. PUBLIC HEARING -- Petition 400-00-61 by the Salt Lake Public Library requesting to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow additional uses and modify the building height provisions in the PL Public Lands zoning district and Petition 410-509 by the Salt Lake Public Library requesting planned development approval for the new main branch library to be constructed at 210 East 400 South. located in the PL Public Lands zoning district. (Staff: Joel Paterson at 535-6141 ).
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the details of this case, the findings of fact and the
staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Petition 400-00-61 regards amending the text of the PL Public Lands District.
Petition 410-509 regards modifications of the zoning ordinance standards listed below:
1. Modification of the building height standard to allow construction of the library as presented;
2. Modification of the maximum grade change provisions to allow the site improvements included on the site plan; and
3. Modification of the minimum front and corner side yard setback requirement to accommodate the subterranean parking structure.
Mr. Paterson then answered questions from the Commission:
Max Smith: Where is the parking structure, is that on 4th South?
Joel Paterson: It will be entered from 4th South as well as from 5th South.
Jeff Jonas: How did you decide what should be conditional and what should be permitted? Why are retail as well as movie theatres and an amphitheater permitted?
Joel Paterson: Mostly because of the potential impacts on the neighborhood. These changes are tough changes, and they affect all public lands and districts within the city. Primarily schools, fire stations, city offices, state facilities, and that kind of thing. While it may be an issue around some neighborhoods, it might not be on others. This gives us a little more control. The retail sales and services are "accessories." This gives us a lot of control over what those "accessories" are.
Jeff Jonas: Won't we be opening a can of worms with people coming back and saying, "Well now we've got government competing with these merchants here, by adding a permitted right to put these kinds of facilities on public land?"
Joel Paterson: We call them "accessory uses." That means that they have to be subordinate to the major use that's present. I don't think we'll have the problem of developers trying to build a strip mall at this small of a scale. I had a visit from John Price Realty, when I first received notice of this. They had some concerns, came over and looked at the plan, and decided this isn't an issue.
Stephen Goldsmith: It's not unlike the Art Barn having their Christmas Sale Crafts, or doing some festival.
Jeff Jonas: Isn't there another protective overlay that is intended to protect the view to the City County building from the east? And does this infringe on that at all?
Joel Paterson: No.
Aria Funk: I think the architect answered that for us.
Brent Wilde: What you might be thinking of Jeff, is in the east downtown plan, where there are some areas that are limited to 75 feet in height, and some go up to 120 feet. I'm not sure, Joel where this lies.
Max Smith: I remember that. That would be worth looking into.
Joel Paterson: The urban design plan identifies this as the fringe area of the central business district. It identifies building types up to 120 feet as appropriate. The potential for the building heights in the surrounding zones are similar in height to what we're proposing.
Max Smith: It was more the RMU Corridors to the Cathedral of the Madeline, and those types of buildings.
Stephen Goldsmith: Anything through a particular western view corridor.
Judi Short: If it could be no higher than surrounding buildings ...
Joel Paterson: All the zoning around this site allows building heights of 60-75 feet, except for the strip along 4th South, which is now CC and allows a building height of 35 feet. We were hoping to change that. I think in this location, the building we propose for the library is appropriate.
Judi Short: Look at this map, and look at those buildings. It looks too tall for that neighborhood. But you could tie it to what would be appropriate.
Joel Paterson: The conditional use process requires that we look at the master plan for that area. In many cases the sites are residential zones, and even 75 feet, which is allowed, isn't appropriate on all sites.
Judi Short: I think we should use that.
Mr. Smith turned the meeting over to the Public Hearing.
Ms. Nancy Tessman, the Library Director, at 1283 E. South Temple, #401, and Mr. Steve Crane of Crane Architects, located at 524 S. 600 E., spoke to the Commission.
Steve Crane: The original master plan that was done some time ago, was never officially adopted, but did address those corridors, and the fact that they were not an issue, for the things that EVA were recommending.
Max Smith: We actually approved that.
Jeff Jonas: Did we lose a building in this one section?
Joel Paterson: This building is a future building.
Ms. Tessman: If I might elaborate a little on the potential for the shops on the site. We want to keep reiterating that our goal is to provide supportive retail, which is much more in the vein of, say a post office, or maybe a news/magazine shop. Things that address what the principle uses on the block make logical. Not to bring in any unrelated retail. We're also hoping that we will provide space for community organizations that may also help us vitalize
the plaza from a different perspective. We've had interest from literacy organizations, and other kinds of community groups. Each of these retail spaces is only 400 square feet, they're really quite small. A few of them can be used in combination, and that would be a possibility. Suppose you were looking for a small cafe, to service the plaza from the outside. The intention is really not to be competitive retail, but rather supportive retail.
Steve Crane: The Friends of the Library actually take a third of the space on the inside. We've also left the door open to those people who've expressed interest in utilizing space in the current main library. we don't know exactly what that resolution will be, but a few of those proposals were more appropriate for the wall space.
Questions were asked by the Commission regarding various drawings found in the plan.
Mr. Crane explained where the amphitheater would be located, as well as a reflecting pool.
Mr. Smith opened the meeting to questions, and no one responded. He then closed the Public Hearing.
Max Smith: What a missed opportunity to not do something with Second East. to stitch these two blocks together.
Joel Paterson: We're working on that.
Mary McDonald: Is anything being done with the light rail station as to having pedestrians coming off at that point?
Steve Crane: We want to make a piazza at the northwest corner and bring the pavers right to the curb and gutter, which is typically not a city standard, so we're trying to ask permission to do that, to make this very welcoming. Right now UDOT only wants the traffic to come to here and cross at the corner. We planned for this station near a midblock walkway in the future. We've had many discussions about that.
Ms. Tessman: We've also worked with the engineer designing the light rail stops, because we feel it is important that that be integrated to the Library project. rather than feeling like it's just another station. So the artist is excited to be able to make that connection exist.
Bip Daniels: I'm strongly against the possibility that people in groups would not be able to come down, and park. There will be underground parking for buses, and for large vans?
Steve Crane: There's van access from here, and the city gets half the parking, and the library uses the other half. There are 300 plus car spaces for the library. You can come in here, and go to the first floor of the library, and the buses come through at this drop off, right to the front door. The employees come in another way. You can get a 9-person van into the parking garage.
Motions for Case Nos. 400-00-61 and 410-509:
Jeff Jonas: In the matter of Petition 400-00-61 by the Salt Lake Public Library requesting to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow additional uses and modify the building height provisions in the PL Public Lands zoning district, I'd like to make the motion that we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt and ordinance approving Petition 400-00-61. And add philanthropic uses as permitted uses.
Mr. Bip Daniels seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Jeff Jonas: And in the matter of Petition 410-509 by the Salt Lake Public Library requesting planned development approval for the new main branch library to be constructed at 210 East 400 South, located in the PL Public Lands zoning district. Based upon the findings of fact, I make a motion that we grant plan
development approval for this petition, based upon the plan submitted for Planning Commission consideration. including the modifications of the zoning ordinance listed as numbers 1, 2, 3, and that it be subject to compliance with Salt Lake City Departmental requirements, and the final plans be reviewed by
the Planning Director.
Ms. Judi Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Kay (berger) Arnold made the motion that the meeting be adjourned. Ms. Judi Short seconded the
motion.
The meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
NOTE: Final decision on Petition No. 400-00-52 from the Salt Lake City Administration regarding parking in front of commercial buildings, between the building and the street, within all neighborhood oriented commercial zones (RB Residential Business, RMU Residential Mixed Use, MU Mixed Use, CN Neighborhood Commercial, CB Community Business, CS Shopping Center, CC Commercial Corridor, SHBD Sugar House Business District), was not reviewed at this meeting. The petition requests eliminating parking in the front yard (between the front property line and the building) and to adopt other neo-traditional town planning concepts to encourage a more walkable community throughout Salt Lake City.