SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commis_sion were Chairperson Max Smith, Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Fred Fife, Jim McRea, Aria Funk, Carlton Christensen. Diana Kirk will be here at 7:30p.m., Andrea Barrows will be leaving at 6:30 p.m. Craig Mariger and Gil Iker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director, William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Doug Dansie, Jackie Gasparik, and Cheri Coffey.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:10p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they well be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Funk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, December 4, 1997. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Fife, Mr. Christensen Mr. McRae, Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted "Aye". Mr. Iker, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith as Chair, did not vote.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 400-97-77 by Concepcion and Heribeto Serrato of Salon Pantera, Inc. requesting an approval for a liquor license located at 544 West 1300 South, which is not fronting a major street.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, and findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Gloria Albertini and Mr. Eddie Heriberto Serrato, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Fife stated, the staff report stated the request is for a seasonal license and asked if this is a restaurant?
Mr. Dansie stated, the letter that came to him did request a seasonal license, and that is what he stated in his staff report, however, he has clarified it and it is actually a Class C Beer License. Also, he is not sure if it is a restaurant, and suggested that that question be asked to the petitioner.
Mr. Wilde stated, on the field trip the question was also raised, if we have a response from the police department.
Mr. Dansie stated, he has checked with the Police Department and has not received an answer from them as yet.
Mr. Wilde stated, that maybe the petitioner can answer that question.
Gloria Albertini, and Heriberto Serrato stated, a Class "C" Beer License is for a tavern and they do not serve food. They are open four days a week, Thursday thru Sunday, from 7:00p.m. to 1:00 a.m. this tavern is primarily for dancing and entertainment.
Ms. Barrows raised the question in reference to the handicap parking stall, it had a time on it, which she thought was odd. Ms. Albertini stated there is a handicap parking stall and there is no limitation. She will check, but she did not notice that a time restriction was on the sign.
Mr. Christensen also asked if they had a response from the Police Department. He also brought up the question of more lighting in the parking lot.
Ms. Albertini stated, they have been in contact with Detective Bagley, of the Salt Lake Police Department. When Detective Bagley came to their location he had no problems with their location. He did make a recommendation, of more lighting inside at the corners of the tavern. He also stated they had good visibility when you come down 5th West.
Mr. Fife asked a question in reference to parking.
Ms. Albertini stated they are using shared parking with the surrounding businesses. Most of the businesses close at 6:00 p.m. and they do not open until 7:00p.m., so there is adequate parking.
Mr. Wilde also stated, beside the Planning Commission review process on the liquor license this will go through the City's process and will have to comply will all zoning regulations. He is not sure that we are getting lighting out of the one stop review on parking lots. We could request, as a Planning Commission recommendation, to look at additional lighting in the parking lot.
Ms. Barrows stated, she wanted to be clear on the process. This would come as a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Police Department would also make their recommendations.
Mr. Wilde stated, the Police Department also will make recommendations and a hearing officer representing the Mayor will hold a hearing for the final approval of this before a business license is issued.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission for possible action.
Motion for Petition No. 400-97-77
Mr. McRae made a n1otion, based on the finding and recommendations from staff, he made a favorable and positive recommendation to the Mayor's Office for approval of a Beer License on an interior court not having frontage on a major street. With a recommendation of additional lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Fife seconded the motion, Mr. Christensen, Mr. McRae, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Mr. Ik:er, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 400-97-67 by Union Pacific Railroad Company requesting a street closure of 700 West between 100 South and South Temple. This street closure is located within the gateway planning research area. Currently the land abutting the street closure is vacant and is located in a Commercial "CG" zoning district.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is files with the minutes.
Ms. Barrows has some concen1s with the statement in Finding the Facts, Section C. The property now used as a public street will be surplus to the City's needs once the street has been removed.
Ms. Gasparik stated, the reason the clause was put in, the property probably will not be vacated and sold to the public, sometimes property like this is used in trades. The freeway ramp is going to come right over so it very possible that this property could be traded.
Ms. Barrows raised the question, does this surplus property have to go through the City review process, or declaration?
Mr. Wheelwright stated that this is the first part of that process. The second part is to go before the City Council if they choose to exercise that provision.
There was no petitioner present.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and turned the matter to the Planning Commission for possible action.
Motion for Petition No. 400-97-67
Ms. Short made a motion based on the findings of fact as stated in the staff report she moved to approve Petition No. 400-97-67 subject to the following conditions:
1. Resolution of final roadway travel lane reconfiguration and construction as necessary to resolve the South Temple Street, and railroad crossing details.
2. Conditions of all City departments.
3. That the City retain title until the land is either purchased at fair market value or other acceptable compensation consistent with City policy, or otherwise utilized to facilitate the redevelopment of the project area.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. McRae and Ms. Funk voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger, Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did no vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 400-97-66 by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, requesting that Arapahoe Avenue (640 South street) be closed east of 800 West a street which is a stub street that dead ends at Interstate 15. Also requested is the vacation of a portion of the original subdivision on this block known as Kimball Subdivision which is bounded by 800 West 800 South and Interstate 15. A minor subdivision is also being requested allowing the combination of all church property into one parcel. (Industrial "M -1" zoning district.
Mr. Christensen declared a conflict of interest for this proposal, recused himself from the Planning Commission and left the room.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is files with the minutes.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Barrows wanted clarification that they are looking at just the street closure issue.
Mr. Smith stated, the Planning Commission is not approving the site plan.
Ms. Gasparik stated we will be doing street closure and subdivision, which is vacating all the old lots and making one big one.
Mr. Jerry Sears of Church Special Projects and David Hall of Welfare Square, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations except there is some discrepancy as to the how much of the property the church owns in that area.
Ms. Barrows want to address what is being done physically to the street at this point. When they were on their field trip it looked like a lot was being done. What is the status of that street at this point?
Mr. Hall stated there is some current construction on the Deseret Dairy Processing Plant which includes the demolition of the houses that they purchased. There is some further site development that will be forth coming.
Mr. Fife is concerned about the current truck traffic flow. Is it right that the large trucks that service the milk plant will have to exit the site onto 800 West Street?
Mr. Hall stated, that is the intention, they will exit at that location.
Mr. Wheelwright stated, we are not be addressing that issue tonight.
Mr. Wilde stated, this will have to go through the City's permit process. Mr. Wilde asked Mr. Wheelwright if all of the permits are out?
Mr. Wheelwright stated, he okayed the authorization for the site prep work of the dairy building itself. But they do not have the building permit. We were all surprised on the field trip today, the street is virtually gone. This still has to go to the City Council, so this is probably a little presumptuous of the contractor.
Mr. Sears stated that the church has the building permit.
Mr. Wheelwright stated, if they have issued the building permit, they issued it in error.
Mr. Sears stated it might be in error, but they do have a permit.
Mr. Wheelwright cautioned them that they have the cart in head of the horse on the removal of the street.
Mr. Smith stated, it would be appropriate that the church get together with the staff, and see just exactly where that process is. Charles Daniels stated, the church says they own all of the property along 800 West and Arapahoe, but he owns the second lot from Interstate 15. He also stated, this meeting is about 6 months to late, as they have already torn the road out.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the public hearing to the public and return the matter to the Planning Commission for discussion and possible action.
Mr. McRae stated, that Ms. Gasparik indicated the Church had acquired all of the property.
Ms. Gasparik stated, that Monte Kingston the applicant told her they had worked that issue out. Apparently, there is some conflicting information on that issue.
Mr. Smith, for purposed of clarification, reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Sears stated that the Church does not own the property to the very north. In fact, there is a for sale sign on it.
Mr. Wheelwright stated, Monte Kingston is the applicant and he told them that the Church owned all of the property.
Mr. Sears stated, there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
Mr. McRae's question revolves around the issue of the minor subdivision. What now is being combined? Does it go all the way to the very point or just to the northern chain link fence?
Ms. Gasparik stated, just to the fence.
Mr. McRae, having not been to the site and seeing just the petition, is of the opinion that we are asking to move that we vacate and somebody is already there. So what are we doing again?
Ms. Barrows stated, the milk plant cannot be accomn1odated without the vacation.
Mr. Wheelwright stated the plant building can be built, it is not going to be built where the street is.
Mr. Wilde stated, we should not issue a building permit that predetermines the out come of a street closure petition.
Mr. Wheelwright stated, he authorized the permit and it is beyond the scope of what he thought he authorized. He was surprised as much as everyone else was on the field trip today.
Ms. Funk's concern is that the traffic flow of the trucks not having been addressed and they are moving ahead on the presumption that they will be able to operate that way. She thinks we should express that to them.
Mr. Fife mentioned that the Community Council is quite concerned about the large trucks entering onto the residential streets.
Ms. Gasparik stated, she did talk to Monte Kingston she explained to him that there cannot be truck traffic on the residential streets. The Community Council has also let her know of their feelings and she has passed them on to Monte Kingston.
Motion for Petition No. 400-970-66
Mrs. Funk made a motion to approve Petition No. 400-97-66 closing the subject portion of Arapahoe A venue and vacation the existing Kimball Subdivision, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, subject to the following conditions:
1. The new driveway access must be located in the same position of the
existing street access and lined up with the existing mid-street landscape inlands on 800 South Street consistent with requirements of the Division of Transportation.
2. All existing curb, gutter and sidewalk, and sidewalk ramps that are defective must be replaced as in the City Engineering review comments.
3. Must remove the abandon railroad tracks that enter the site from 800 South Street and new Street in1provements are to be installed on 800 South Street in place of their removal.
4. Must meet all Division of Transportation, Fire Department, Engineering Division, and Public Utilities Division requirements and regulations, as per City Ordinances.
Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. McRae is concerned about doing this after the fact. He does not want to sent the message that this is okay.
Mr. Fife would like clarification of the review process. Do they go before the Community Council's?
Mr. Wilde stated, these processes do not require Community Council action.
Ms. Gasparik has talked to the Chair of the Community Council and he gave her a verbal okay with it as long as they do not have truck access on 800 West, that was his only concern.
Ms. Barrow wanted to reiterate something that Mr. McRae stated, about knowing that they are going to get approval and going ahead without approval. Ms. Barrows proposed that staff go back and review that application and put a hold on any further work until this goes through the City Council. Mr. Wheelwright stated tonight, that the permit he issued did not authorize this, and if it doesn't then she feels they need to be sited appropriate! y and stopped.
Ms. Funk is willing to accept that, and she agrees with Ms. Barrows, Mr.
Fife, and Mr. McRae. Mr. Smith stated, the City Council will visit this issue after the Planning Commission and Planning Commission could be putting some hardship in time, maybe months on the petitioners.
Mr. Wilde wanted to clarify it from a staff prospective, there are a variety of options we could accept, the strongest response would be to table it. You could approve it with some specific recommendations or approve it with some concerns and cautions.
Amendment to the Motion.
Ms. Funk added an amendment to the motion. To approve with the recommendation that truck traffic cannot go on 800 West. Also, that the petitioner be well informed that they have proceeded illegally with what they have done and they need to comply with the City ordinances in the future. Also, the contractor will be informed not to do anymore removal on the street improvements until they are ready for construction to begin. Ms. Short second still stands. Mr. McRae, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen was recused. Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde clarified that it is fairly common to issue permits in and around activities such as this, it is a mistake, if we issue permits that lock us in to a action, such as a street closure, but it is fairly common to issue permits in advance as long as they don't encroach or interfere. The act of issuing permits in advance is not the problem, as long as we make the distinction between the permit that was issued and the protection of the street, up until the time it is formally closed. If they have crossed the line the City will take the necessary actions to assure compliance.
Mr. Smith announced that the Zoning Ordinance refinements will be postponed until the next meeting.
Ms. Barrows left the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-97-16 by Salt Lake City Council requesting a zone change from Residential "RMF-30" to Residential "R-1-5000" at 1365 and 1379 North Redwood Road.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is files with the minutes. Ms. Coffey stated she would like to include 1389 North Redwood Road she did not include this property on the agenda or in the staff report. The original petition was to down zone all of these properties. She has talked to the property owner at 1389 North Redwood Road, she is in favor of the down zoning and she is in attendance tonight.
Mr. Stuart Reid, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations
Ms. Funk asked if we can include the property at 1389 North Redwood Road since it was not advertised.
Mr. Wilde replied, the property owner is here tonight and is in support of the petition. So that property owner could join the petition and we could accommodate that request.
Mr. Stuart Reid, the petitioner, indicated that when he was elected as City Council the major concern for District 1, was the number of multi-family housing units in the whole district. The push on him as the City Councilmember was for him to do something about it. There are four Community Councils in District 1. When the Administration did their Zoning Rewrite each Community Council took a look at what needed to be down zoned in their area. There were a number of properties down zoned at that time, in order to bring a little more stability to the Community. It is one of the higher crime areas, and the performance in our schools, lower than most areas in the City. It is an area that has worked for many years to try to get a hold on its destiny, and try to improve the quality of life. Tonight the commission will hear from people who have been on mobile watch in other area of the Community involvement, and they will tell you the crime areas are around the apartments. People that know him, know that he is for development. There is a balance for the quality of life, for what is already concentrated in a given area. There are property rights involved, for both the individuals who have bought the property and also the people who own property around this area. There is a high concentration of at least four to five hundred units in this little corner of the City which truly impacts the Community. In looking at this area and trying to determine the appropriate balance between the property interest of everyone concerned to try to down zone some of these areas. The community did that, and the reaction was so positive to him as a City Councilmember, it seemed that there was some hope in controlling their own destiny within their community and they could begin to manage their overall environment and quality of life in their community.
Mr. Reid indicated that he is not sure how missed this property. Administration staff, Council staff, and Community Council all looked at this area and because there were 3 single family homes there we all assumed that it was zoned residential and it was missed. Everyone in the community was aware and made claims that no more apartments would be built in that area, except for those who have already been vested. He has more up to date infom1ation, it now does not look like the new elementary school will be built any time soon. The School Board Administration is in opposition to it and we are going to be under considerable stress. There are developers who want to build 300 to 400 new homes to the north of this area this Spring. And I vary owns a large piece and they want to develop 150 homes and it looks like we are not going to get this elementary school. These are the issues and what motivated Mr. Reid to file this petition. He has worked with the property owner, it was originally petitioned to be changed to R-1-7000 and he agreed to change it to R-1-5000 he talked to the property owner asked them look at it and to come back if there was a problem and they would continue to talk about what could be done. We did not hear from them for about a month, and the last thing we did hear, we received a letter from their attorney. We have tried throughout this whole process, and have made an effort to work with them, despite the strong opposition from the Community Council to allow this development to go forward the way they would like to do it.
Ms. Funk asked, if they were to put single family homes on this property, how many homes are we talking about?
Mr. Wright stated, first it looked like there could be 7 or 8 homes, then with some more work and a smaller lot, there could be about 15. The Townhouse proposal was for about 30 units, which is cutting it in half.
Mr. Fife stated, the School Board at their last meeting did discuss the future of this school site and the debate amongst the members, is how they are going to get this school built and whether it will be a fast track system or a routine project. So he feels the school is going to be built.
Mr. Reid stated, the latest information he received is that it could take years, if they don't fast track it, and they are talking about closing other east side elementary schools before they allow this one to be built. His experience in the past is that, that would be hard to do with the political clout that is up on the east side and the influence that has been on that school board. He was very hopeful that the school was going to be built, but he is not hopeful today. When Mr. Reid is talking about balance of property rights, the surrounding property owners will be impacted by this development. The commission will hear from a family that recently bought property, had they known that there would be a apartment complex built behind them, they would not have moved there. There has also been other neighbors who have said they are going to move out if it is built. They think their property values will decline if they are adjacent to one more apartment complex. This is how he had to make his judgment about the balance of property rights.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Michael Steed, he is the Westpoint Community Council Chair, basically he is here on behalf of the Community. He will express the Community's support for the down zoning of this prope1ty. In the overall Master Plan of the Westpoint Community, the community supports single unit housing. They feel they have had their share of multi-unit housing. The single family housing does meet what they are seeking as a community goal in development. The single family housing development throughout the community has a very positive impact, quality people, quality homes and quality individuals now participating in the community and in community programs.
This townhouse project came to the Community Council twice and both times they were opposed to it, they were appalled that this property was RMF zoned. At the first meeting it was brought up why this was not included in the down zoning. He also agreed with Mr. Reid, that they missed this parcel of ground because, there are 3 existing single home on that property, and nobody had a second thought that it was zoned differently. The community is in support of single family housing, that is what is the goal of the master plan and the community supports it.
Mr. Bill Meaders, is the attorney for the property owners, they do object to the procedural fairness of what has happened. There is no question, it says in the staff report that this down zoning petition was filed in response to their attempt to apply for the development. They are not waving their objections to the procedural fairness by addressing the merits. His clients do want to address the merits and they will do so now.
Mr. Robert Strang, property owner, when he presented the plan to Mr. Wright, they had to inform the Community Council and someone their contacted Mr. Reid then he applied for this down zoning. They do not want to build apartments. They want to build attached units that they can sell individually, so there is a misconception. Although they would get higher density, which is why they purchased the property. The property can only be accessed on Redwood Road, so he doesn't know how it can affect the properties behind it.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Strang which properties he owns.
Mr. Strang replied 1379 and 1365 North Redwood Road. There is no other access to the subdivision so they didn't think there would be a problem. They didn't think single family homes would be feasible for that area.
Mr. Terry King, he owns the property with Mr. Strang. He is the real estate agent. The property was brought to his attention back in 1996 when one of his agents that worked for him brought it to his attention. He called, Mr. Strang, who is a good friend of his, he then came to the city and checked out the zoning of the property, and when he found out it was zoned RMF he then told Mr. King to purchase it. While they were going through the process of filing for an conditional use permit, Mr. Reid was filing for a down zone against them. They feel their rights were being taken away from them.
Ms. Helen Allen, property owner 1389 North Redwood Road, the property that was not included in the petition, and would like it to be included in the petition. She bought this property about a year ago and it is like being in the country. If they put more than a few single family homes there it would ruin the quality of life.
Mr. Ralph Pettit, property owner, he borders the property on the North. His front window faces the vacant property. If they townhouses on it, they will get to look at a brick wall. Their fence is about 12 feet from the back of the house. He attended a meeting a and expressed his concerns, at which time he was told about the City's Zoning Rewrite and he was assured that this would be taken care of and now he finds out that they didn't do this parcel and it destroys his ground, and his quality of life. He went around his neighborhood and there are people here tonight that feel the same way he does. He also has a letter he received from one of his neighbors who was unable to be here tonight and he would like to read it. Letter from
Mr. Stanky Robertson, a concerned resident that will be affected on Baroness Place. He was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting held of 12/18/97. He is very much in favor changing the zoning from RMF-30 to R-1-5000 to single family dwelling. He is trying to protect his prope1ty and he doesn't want any for multi-housing units in the area.
Kathy Nelson, her parents live adjacent to the property and she also lived in the house for 20 plus years, she also just purchased the home two doors from her parents. The area has really grown in the past 25 years and they is a lot of crime that we have never had before. With all of the apartments to the north of us, it would be very difficult to deal with having more multi-family unit. She also feels the reason it was over looked is because there was livestock on the land and everyone thought it was zoned for single family housing.
Mr. Jason Reber, property owner, he just purchased the home at 1370 Miami Circle and it is right in back of the property that is zoned RMF-30. He bought it is January and he trusted his real estate agent when she told him it was zoned for single family dwelling. He never would have purchased the property if he even thought it was a possibility of multifamily housing. Nobody will pay near as much as he did with something like that crammed in their back yard. This will definitely lower his property value.
Ms. Kathy Aaron, manages North Pointe Apartments that will be overlooking the north side of that building. Looking at the plans she will be lucky to have 25 feet from the side of her "building to the side of their homes. She manages 25 units and the thought of them being able to talk to each other from their windows is scary. She also has concern in reference to animals, if only half of them get animals, what kind of noise and smell will they get from this. She deals with the crime problem all the time. It would make her life more difficult than it already is having to deal with that many people in that small of an area.
Mr. Mark Athay, property owner, stated he didn't have anything new to add but he wanted it on the record that he is in favor of the down zoning. Ms. Short made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. McRae seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. McRae, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Short all voted "Aye". The motion passed. The public hearing is closed.
Mr. Smith opened it for Planning Commission discussion and possible action.
Mr. Christensen is concerned about the development encroachment in that area as it is one of the final rural areas in the Salt Lake Valley. It has a element of ruralness in the middle of a metropolitan area. He is concerned about the balance of the growing population and farms of that area. He feels this is a compromise from both sides.
Mr. McRea asked what is the final score of the legal change. There seems to be some conflict on when things were submitted.
Mr. Wright stated we don't have a conflict on when anything has been submitted, because there hasn't been a submittal made to the City. There was an attempt. Part of the debate was when they should they be required to take a conditional use application to the Community Council for their input. The City's law, practice, and procedure requires Community Council review prior to filing an application, and he doesn't foresee Salt Lake City changing it. If they want to challenge that there is an appropriate method for doing that. The issue for the Planning Commission is to evaluate the land use goal for the area and what is the appropriate zoning for that.
Mr. McRae mentioned that a couple of weeks ago they talked about housing. How does that housing report relate to this area.
Mr. Wright commented that part of that report was saying there is a need for affordable housing and for density in housing, but it really focuses on the east downtown Gateway area. There were some statements in the housing plan that span the overall housing balance could be met in our community. The housing policy would not give you a specific guidance to say that this specific parcel should be single family or should be multifamily. The overall policy city wide is to stabilize the neighborhoods and to provide urban housing in the urban area.
Ms. Funk stated, she comes from a area where there is a fair amount of multiple units and it is very difficult when that percentage hits very high. She has great sympathy for this community it her feeling that this should met with the lower density. One of the questions she feels should be asked at this point is, are the developers willing to negotiate further if we were to leave this open and on the table for them to do that, or is it appropriate to ask their feeling or are they going to go legally for whatever recourse
you feel you have at this point.
Mr. Smith stated, we can reopen the public hearing for just an answer to
that question.
Mr. Strang stated he would be willing to negotiate.
Ms. Funk stated it would be in the best interest of everyone if that is the way we can proceed at this point, rather than to have to proceed legally.
Ms. Funk would like to propose that we table this and see how those negotiations come out. It is appropriate to give them some feeling where the Planning Commission would stand on this issue at this point, or should we just take a vote.
Mr. Wright stated, he would respond then Mr. Smith could give you some direction.
Mr. Wright stated, that as Mr. Reid stated tonight, up to about a month ago they thought they were attempting to look at options. Maybe they read our comments a little differently than we thought we were portraying to them, but the issue to the Planning Commission, at this time is that you are not making the decision. You’re making a recommendation to the City Council, so there is more process to take it to the City Council for a final decision. That would provide some opportunity for more negotiations, if they are wanting to find son1e balance. If you make a recommendation tonight, it will make a pretty strong signal of where you believe the right direction is, and it may assist in those negotiations, one way or another. Mr. Wright wants to make it clear, the Planning Commission is not making the final decision, it is not like it is ended right now. It is likely to take between four and six weeks, before a hearing date could be made, or longer because, the City Council will not meet until January 6th, to set a date, so It Is more likely the first of February before this issue would have a final decision. So there is still time in the process, the n1atter is how strongly do you feel about the position of low density, send that signal and see if there are any more options to review.
Motion on Petition No. 400-97-16
Ms. Funk made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition No. 400-97-16 that includes 1365, 1379 and 1389 North Redwood Road to rezone the property to R -1-5000 based on the findings and facts contained in the staff report. She would like to recommend that the planning staff and the developers try to negotiate a solution so that there can be some agreement between the City and the developers, before the final hearing and decision by the City Council.
Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. McRae, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. Christensen and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith announced to the public that they will be taking a little break, we are waiting the arrival of Diana Kirk so we will have a quorum for the
next item.
Ms. Short, Vice Chair, will be conducting the rest of the meeting.
Mr. Smith recused himself from the public hearing, so she will be chairing this portion of the meeting.
Ms. Short stated, the last item on the agenda, the Discussion of Zoning Ordinance refinements will be postponed until the next meeting. The purpose of that is because we are going to loose the quon1m after this next item on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 40-97-74 by Winthrope Court, L.C. requesting zoning changes from Residential "RO" and "RMF-35" to "RMU" and "RMF-75" at 550 to 558 East 300 South and 326 to 352 South 600 East.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which
is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Jonas, the petitioner, was present for this portion
of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff
recommendations. It if a moving target, as to what this project will be as Mr.
Wilde and Mr. Wright can tell you. The out come of the Landmarks processes we
will probably be preserving one additional building, (the four-plex) on 600
East. Mr. Smith has found a way to incorporate into the project. They are going
to try to move the Mumford House. They ran an ad advertising a free house and
they have had 50 calls today. A contractor called, and said he was bringing a
letter on intent, and he has a lot to put it on. The issue today, is the
rezoning, which Mr. Wright said, it is a land use issue. He has been to the
community Council and they are very supportive of getting housing in this area.
They have tried to design it be consistent and sensitive to the Historic
District on 600 East.
Mr. Fife asked the question, would these unit serve as a first home buyer.
Mr. Jonas replied, these will be apartments, and they will be very high end. The land has been very expensive and putting the underground parking will necessitate them to be very high end units. Their partner on the construction will be Oakland Construction and they built the Brigham Apartments.
Mr. Wright stated, as Doug Dansie pointed out that the light rail station being close by, we think this is a project that fits will with what is called, Transit Oriented Development that we will be spending some time on this coming year. We are anticipating the rethinking of some of the planning we have in place around the light rail stations as they development.
Mr. Fife asked, what would the price range be of the apartment?
Mr. Jonas replied, we have a mix of units from 500 sq. feet to about 1200 sq. feet, so we think about $500 to $1,400 a month.
Mr. Chris Quann, a concerned citizen, indicated that in general he is very in1pressed with this project and is in favor or it. He feels the density is right on target with the goals of the East Downtown Master Plan. He does feel the project falls short on pedestrian access. There is pedestrian access through that block now and this cuts off any East or West connection through that block.
Mr. Wally Wright, neighbor in the area, and has had a real estate office a 57 East Third South for many years. He sold a major part of the property to Mr. Jonas for the development. He support this project, it is exactly what we want in the neighborhood.
Mr. McRea made a n1otion to close the public hearing. Ms. Funk seconded
the motion.
Mr. Fife, Mr. McRae, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Short all voted "Aye". The motion passed. The public hearing is closed.
Mr. Christensen asked, Mr. Young about transportation or traffic report.
Mr. Young stated, they have had a chance to review the traffic report, but not enough time to go through it in a lot of depth. There are some issues we have with it as stated in the field trip is the condition of the interior court. Also the exit on 500 East would have to be improved. That street is only 16 feet wide and that is not enough to handle the cars turning in and out. The overall third and fourth signal system can handle the projected traffic. There may be a need for a center turn lane on 5th East like they did for Fred Meyer. These are the concern that need to be addressed. They have not received any information on the status of the right of way of the interior court and that is another issue that will need to be addressed.
Ms. Funk asked about pedestrian access from the North and South.
Mr. Quann was concerned about pedestrain access from the East and West. The assumption of this project is that you will have a lot of people walking in and out.
Mr. Jonas responded, they have viewed this as a pedestrian project. The whole idea is that it is built in courtyards that will be used to walk through. All of the courtyards have entrances to the first level units: In reference to the access on the interior court, it is not a pedestrian friendly place. At the Community Council meeting, it was stated that it was one of the worse crime areas on the east side.
Mr. Short stated, that just maybe the extra traffic and the project will help
it automatically.
Motion for Petition No. 400-97-74
Ms. Kirk moved for approval on Petition No. 400-97-74 based on findings and facts with conditions stated in the staff report, which are as follows:
1. The RMF-7 5 zoning district carry with it a restriction on height for
a maximum of 35 feet, rather than the base zone height of 75 feet.
2. The rezoning be conditional upon Salt Lake City Transportation providing a favorable recommendation regarding the traffic analysis.
3. The final site design meet all applicable ordinance requirements.
4. Rezoning shall become effective at the time the building permit is issued.
5. This project is going to come back to the Planning Commission as a planned unit development. The traffic and other site design detains shall be addressed further through the Planned Development Process.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion.
Mr. Christensen proposed that instead of condition number five, it should
state that it is going to come back to the Planning Commission as a planned
unit development.
Mr. Wilde stated, at the time the staff report was prepared, they were not
sure it was going to come back as a planned development. We can specify
that the traffic and other site design details be addressed further through
the Planned Development Process. "
Ms. Kirk added the an1endment to her motion that the traffic and other site
design details be addressed further through the Planned Development Process.
Ms. Funk accepted the amendment.
Mr. Jonas asked, why does that it is going to be a Planned Development
have to be added as a condition.
Mr. Wright stated, that part of the assumption is that we are going to be seeing the Planned Development Process. All they are doing is saying that when that comes through for review, that they are going to look closer at some of the issues of the pedestrian and traffic report at that time. One of the findings was the traffic impact. If we say that the public facilities are adequate, then it gets to the City Council, someone could question whether the finding have really been fully been evaluated and decided, and our response would be it will be part of the planned developn1ent. At the rate in which we are moving, the planned development maybe done before the City Council does their hearing.
Mr. Christensen, Mr. McRae, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Kirk voted "Aye". Mr. Iker, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows were not present. Mr. Smith was recused. Ms. Short, as conducting Vice Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Other Business
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30p.m.