SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Jennifer Seelig. Arla Funk and Peggy McDonough were not present.
Present from the Planning Staff were Acting Planning Director, Brent Wilde; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor, Cheri Coffey, and Planners Doug Dansie, Janice Lew, and Melissa Anderson
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 21, 2002
Chair Daniels indicated the reference to Ms. Arnold entering the meeting at 6:55 p.m. and asked that it be clarified that “Ms. Arnold entered the meeting at 6:55 p.m. to ensure a quorum after having been excused from the meeting”.
Mr. Muir referred to Page 18, bottom of the page, and questioned the spelling of the Jule apartments. Chair Jonas replied that the correct spelling is Juel. Mr. Muir referred to the last sentence on that same page and the sentence reading, “There are no environmental features associated with this site. The Staff believes there will be no net cumulative adverse impact.....”. He wondered if they should be using that terminology since a definition is pending. Mr. Wilde replied that the phrase is one of the conditional use standards and should continue to be used until it is amended.
Chair Jonas referred to the Motion for Petition 410-561 on Pages 7 and 8, and noted that it states that as part of the motion that Mr. Muir asked about the landscaping and Ms. Funk assumed that it would be natural grasses on the landfill and a clustering of trees on the perimeter, with no rock. Chair Jonas felt Ms. Funk’s statement should be added to condition #3 as part of the phased landscaping plan. Chair Jonas referred to Page 12, the second sentence at the top which reads, “Mr. Wheelwright explained that the property is in Mr. Stalling’s name so he would finalize the plat and sign the plat as the owner”. He referred to the next sentence and felt the wording did not make sense. Mr. Wheelwright suggested changing the next sentence to read, “Once the plat is recorded, he would own all the lots and some or all could be conveyed to a buyer. Chair Jonas referred to Page 16, Condition #4, which reads, “Installation of landscaping as identified on the plan and other amenities as approved by the Planning Commission and the Planning Director”. Mr. Jonas asked that the words, as required and approved by the Planning Commission be added to that sentence. This would address their discussion regarding the removal of the fencing along the front going down the street on that first lot. Mr. Jonas referred to Condition #5 on that same page and noted that Planner Gasparik requested that wording be added to the building permit stating that a certificate of occupancy must be received before occupying the building. He requested that language to that affect be added to Condition #5.
Mr. Diamond referred to Page 12, second paragraph, the sentence reading, “Ms. Gasparik explained that typically they sign off on a temporary building permit that does not provide a certificate of occupancy until the final plat is recorded.” Mr. Diamond wanted to know if there is a temporary building permit.
Mr. Muir agreed that this statement is accurate and should read, temporary certificate of occupancy. Mr. Diamond referred to the next sentence which reads, “The building permit counter will check the plans and she will sign off for the Planning Department, but the computer will be flagged and the inspectors will be informed that the applicant cannot have occupancy of the building without her clearance.” Mr. Diamond did not think that sentence made a lot of sense.
Mr. Wilde suggested that the sentence be changed to read, “The building permit counter staff will check the plans and she will sign off for the Planning Department, but the permit will be flagged in the computer and the inspectors will be informed that the applicant cannot have occupancy of the building without her clearance”.
Motion
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to accept the minutes as modified. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Muir, Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda abstained because they were not present at that meeting. Ms. Funk and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA - Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
Prescott Muir moved to approve the permit for Holladay Water Company on behalf of Salt Lake City Public Utilities to use a portion of the Salt Lake - Jordan Canal right of way for underground waterlines at approximately Highland Drive (1700 East) and Holladay Boulevard (4175 South) and also at Woodside Drive (4000 South) in unincorporated Salt Lake County. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk and Ms McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Laurie Noda moved to approve the Salt Lake City Property Management request for acquisition of a property described as lot 223 of the Mt. Haven Subdivision located in Big Cottonwood Canyon in un-incorporated Salt Lake County. The purpose of this acquisition is for the watershed protection program. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-02-32 is a request to amend the zoning text and create a “Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District on the real property located at 1530 South 500 West in a CG zoning district. Proposed is a sign overlay district to permit pole signs every 150 linear feet of street frontage, rather than one pole sign per property frontage regardless of the length of the street frontage, as permitted in the existing CG sign ordinance. The overlay would also permit multiple wall signs for the multiple businesses within the automobile dealership.
Planner Everett Joyce reviewed the petition as written in the Staff report and reviewed the vicinity map showing the location of the proposed pole signs. The building currently has 350 feet of store frontage with multiple flat signs. The applicant has stated that manufacturers for franchises impose separate design requirements and conditions when granting the franchise. Also, the Division of Motor Vehicles has requirements for car dealers for multiple signage to separate different dealers. This request supports that requirement. Mr. Joyce explained that the overlay district is used in several zones in the City on sites of 2 acres minimum. It is used for sites with a common theme and similar use. This lot is a large one parcel lot and not typical of most lots in the CG zone. The applicant has indicated that due to the inherent nature of car/automotive dealerships, a large parcel of property is needed. Mr. Joyce noted that the staff report contains a comparison to the existing Ken Garff at 600 South and State. It is an older development that was developed on multiple parcels. Six dealerships reside there and there are over six pole or monument signs on that property. The applicant went before the community council with a request for one sign for used car vehicles and one for a Hummer franchise.
Mr. Joyce noted that the staff report identifies seven purposes of sign regulations. The actual sign overlay ordinance meets several of these purposes by allowing pole signs for the franchises and allowing various wall signs for the different businesses to help locate entrances and service areas. Mr. Joyce summarized the findings written in the staff report and modified a draft copy of the ordinance text included in the staff report. The first change is to footnote 1. In the table that identifies flat signs, wall signs, and pole signs, all other signs that are applicable would go back to the typical CG zoning standards. A second change is to the number of signs permitted per sign type under pole signs. Mr. Joyce recommended that the language be modified to say that a single manufacture franchise be displayed on only one pole sign on the property. This would prohibit a dealership from obtaining approval for four signs and putting all franchises on all four signs. The purpose of additional pole signs is to direct the customers towards the actual businesses because it is such a large complex.
The Staffs recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the creation of an alternative sign overlay district along with the draft text with the modifications as stated.
Chair Jonas asked for the size of the current sign and Mr. Joyce replied that it is 225 square feet. Under the requested proposal, only one sign can be 300 square feet and the rest have to be smaller but they cannot total more than 654 square feet. This holds true for the flat and wall signs. Footnote 4 allows a combination of general and oriented flat signs so the maximum there would be 3 square feet per linear foot of the building face. Chair Jonas wondered if there was any reason to extend the overlay zone to 1300 South to accommodate the same use. Mr. Joyce was unsure if those dealerships have multiple uses. Mr. Wilde stated that this idea was discussed and the staff determined that it needs to be advertised and processed on its own merits.
Dorothy Pleshe, attorney for Jerry Seiner Dealerships and Jeff Davis, construction manager, were present to represent the applicant. Ms. Pleshe thanked the staff for meeting with them over the last year and a half to work out something that is consistent with the City goals and still meets the needs for the various manufacturers. This proposal would limit the number of signs to a maximum of four with restrictions. If they parcel the property like others have done they would be allowed to have six signs but that is not in the best interest of Jerry Seiner or the City. They decided to go with the overlay district because they were able to define business specifically to the automotive related industry. The proposed language for the overlay district defines business to include new automobile franchises, service business for new automobile franchises, parts business, manufacturers certified used car business in conjunction with new automobile franchise, the café, the car wash, and separate other business units specifically affiliated with that dealership. They were very careful to have that provided under the umbrella of the new car dealership to avoid having other businesses piggy back on this type of ordinance. Ms. Pleshe stated that in the event the property is ever sold or converted to a different use, they would have to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council to eliminate the sign ordinance. She believes this ordinance is a good compromise that works for everyone.
Ms. Pleshe noted that the existing pole sign advertises Jerry Seiner Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac. She asked Mr. Joyce if his modifications to the text would change their ability to have those three names on one pole sign. Mr. Joyce explained that it would prevent them from having those names on other pole signs.
Chair Jonas clarified that the number of signs could reach a maximum of four even though three were discussed during the field trip. Mr. Davis explained that the reason for doing that is to accommodate new franchises that Jerry Seiner may obtain by having the signage already approved by the City. Chair Jonas understood the intent but he felt that Jerry Seiner could do what he has previously done and put multiple dealerships on one sign. Mr. Davis remarked that the manufacturers will not allow them to put three franchises on one pole. As an example, they could not put Hummer with any other franchise.
Mr. Daniels asked if the proposed signs would be illuminated and Mr. Davis replied that they would. Mr. Chambless wanted to know if the intent is to make these signs visible to the freeway traffic and he was told that was the intent. Chair Jonas felt it was safe to assume that they would maximized the height of the signs. Mr. Davis noted that the existing sign is at the maximum height so the new signs would be the same. Mr. Wilde clarified that the sign ordinance allows a freeway oriented sign to be 25 feet above the pavement grade of the freeway. The maximum height is based on the height of the freeway for freeway exposure.
Ms. Seelig noted that the community council notes indicate that the vote was on two signs and she wanted to know if the proposal was changed after going to the community council. Mr. Davis stated that the community council was not interested in seeing the written material he presented and asked for a brief explanation prior to taking a vote, therefore, he may not have explained it as well as he should. Chair Jonas clarified that Jerry Seiner’s proposal is to put up two more signs and this overlay district will allow them to put in an additional pole sign at some point in the future.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Jim Derek, representing the Larry H. Miller Group, supported this signage request.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas asked how the staff made the determination of 150 feet. Mr. Wilde explained that during the course of negotiations, Jerry Seiner wanted to maintain some flexibility and 150 feet was still more restrictive than what could be accomplished if this were a series of 100 foot lots. Chair Jonas asked if the 150 foot number came from any other precedent and Mr. Wilde replied that it did not. Mr. Chambless asked if it was also intended to be highly visible for a period of time to vehicles moving along the freeway.
Mr. Wilde stated that the size and height standard is inherent in the zoning ordinance so they did not focus on freeway visibility distance issues.
Motion for Petition 400-03-32
Based on the findings of fact, Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the creation of a localized alternative sign overlay district for the multi-franchise automobile dealership at 1530 South 500 West Street in a CG zoning district. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir suggested that the motion include the recommendation by Staff that each franchise be represented on one sign only. Mr. Daniels and Ms. Arnold accepted this amendment to the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed localized sign overlay would permit the number of signs that would be similar to the more typical parcel size within the CG zoned area of the West Lake Community and is consistent wit the land use policies of the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan. The sign overlay meets several of the purposes of sign regulations of the zoning ordinance. As a multi-franchise automotive dealership with attendant facilities, it is the type of large-scale development to which the overlay district is intended to apply.
B. The proposed sign standards of the automobile dealership’s “Localized Alternative Sign Overlay” provide for sign patterns and usage what are consistent with the signage character that exists within the CG zoning district for the more typical smaller parcels. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development.
C. The adjacent properties are not adversely affected by the proposed sign overlay text changes.
D. There are no overlay districts affecting the subject property and this standard is not applicable.
E. The public facilities and utilities are adequate to serve the property.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms Funk and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No,. 410-606, by SpectraSite Communications, Inc., requesting conditional use approval to install an additional wireless telecommunications equipment pad and extend the existing 60 foot high monopole to 80 feet to accommodate the co-location of another antenna structure at 1505 South Redwood Road. The property is located in a General Commercial (CG) zoning district
Planner Janice Lew reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. The existing pole has a full array at the 60-foot level with the capability of accommodating twelve antennas. The diameter of the pole is 24 inches, which is sufficient enough to support an additional installation if it were extended. The proposed antenna structure consists of three dual mounted arms, each two feet in width. Ms. Lew was unsure how wide the antennas and the arms would be if the pole is extended She had a problem scaling the drawings that were submitted.
Ms. Lew noted that a 10' x 20' equipment pad is also proposed and would be located within the currently existing lease area, which is triangular in shape and enclosed by a chain link fence. Ms. Lew reported that during the process staff suggested that the applicant flush mount the system to help mitigate any negative visual impacts created by the additional height. She reviewed the proposed design included in the staff report.
Ms. Lew reported that the West Salt Lake Community Council voted on this proposal on September 18. The vote was 11 opposed and 10 in favor. The main concerns expressed by the Council were the number of existing monopoles in the area, as well as the Council’s preference to locate additional facilities on the west side of Redwood Road.
Based on the staff analysis included in the staff report, and recognizing that utilizing a flush mounted system and tapering the top portion of the pole above the 60 foot level to reduce the adverse off-site visibility of the proposed co-location, the staff could recommend approval of extending the existing monopole to the 80 foot height with the eight conditions outlined in the Staff report.
Chair Jonas referred to the Code Criteria and Finding of Fact B that talks about being in harmony with the general purposes intent and compatible with the goals and objectives of the City. One of the goals the subcommittee set forth in terms of these types of facilities was to encourage co-location as opposed to building a new site. Chair Jonas did not see this mentioned in the findings. He felt it would be easy to make a finding that this is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City because they are trying to encourage co-location. Mr. Muir agreed that co-location was discussed at previous hearings but he did not think it was codified in the master plan or in the ordinance. Mr. Jonas understood that there is a document or policy that encourages co-location. Mr. Muir remarked that it needs to be incorporated into the master plan before it can become a reality. Mr. Wilde stated that the ordinance does not address co-location. It has been an evolving policy of the Planning Commission to give preference to co-location and that is probably reflected in minutes of previous meetings. He did not think that it was written anywhere outside of the minutes. Ms. Lew noted that the second group of standards address co-location more than the master plan. Mr. Muir wondered why the Planning Commission has not moved co-location forward to become part of the master plan. Mr. Wilde recalled that one statement had been written about co-location and offered to find it. Mr. Wheelwright remarked that Finding bb discusses co-location of antennas or other existing structures and that language came out of the ordinance.
Kevin Deis, a consultant for SpectraSite and William Bennet, representing SpectraSite, were available for comment. Mr. Deis provided an overview of the project. He explained the design of the pole and noted that they are proposing to bolt on an additional 20 foot section at the same 24 inch diameter with antennas in a flush mount configuration. Mr. Deis presented a drawing showing the detail of how the proposed structure would look. Mr. Deis explained that Voice Stream picked this site because there is a gap in their coverage of that area. He also noted that while SpectraSite is the tower owner, Voice-Stream will be the co-locator on the pole itself. He presented Odyssey drawings showing the current coverage without the pole and the coverage at the 80 foot level.
Mr. Deis commented on the community council vote and noted that it was very close. Half the people at that meeting use cell phones and would like additional coverage in this area. The other half felt like the area is being dumped on because all the cell phone companies are putting their facilities in this area. Mr. Deis tried to explain that coverage for a cell phone company is not based on the easiest location to put a pole. The coverage depends on the need and the need is capacity which is measured by the number of users in the area.
Mr. Deis read the co-locator language from the ordinance and reiterated that this is a co-location. A 20 foot extension would eliminate the need for Voice Stream to install a new pole. As proposed, he did not believe that this would be a huge visual impact or create any net cumulative adverse impact over and above what currently exists. Adding a new pole would be a greater impact than extending the pole.
Mr. Deis entered into the record a letter from Voice Stream indicating that they are interested in that site as a co-location. To demonstrate the precedent already set in the area, Mr. Deis identified a number of existing poles and their locations.
Mr. Deis commented on the conditions contained in the Staff report. He stated that they did not discuss tapering the pole and since this is an oil derek type of pole, it would be difficult to taper. He contacted the manufacturer to find out the options and he was told that the diameter could be reduced but it brings future co-locations into question. They would like to remain with the 24" diameter because they have done the calculations and know that a third co-locator could be accommodated. Mr. Deis was comfortable with conditions 2 and 3. Regarding condition 4, Mr. Deis noted that Voice Stream does not want a shelter so their equipment would be less noticeable. He suggested additional language stating that if Voice Stream chooses to use a shelter, it will not be any bigger or different than what exists. Mr. Deis noted that they have already complied with conditions 5 and 6. Regarding condition 7, Mr. Deis stated that Voice Stream does not anticipate using microwave dishes but if a dish is ever required, it would come back to the Planning Staff for administrative approval. Referring to condition 8, Mr. Deis noted that the cabling is already inside.
William Bennett provided a brief background on SpectraSite Communications and offered to answer any questions or address any issues.
Ms. Arnold asked if they would request to go higher than 80 feet. Mr. Bennett stated that they might want to add a third co-location in the future but not at a higher elevation.
Mr. Daniels asked for better clarification as to why they are opposed to tapering the pole at the top. Mr. Deis explained that the current pole is straight with a flange and the construction of the current pole does not allow it to be larger at the bottom and tapered at the top. Mr. Daniels understood from Mr. Deis’ comments that tapering is difficult but not impossible to lessen the visual effect from the 60 to 80 foot level. Mr. Deis replied that rather than tapering, they will look at the possibility of reducing the overall width from 24 inches to 18 inches. They still need to take into consideration the possibility of a third locator. Mr. Bennett stated that this is a structural issue but they are willing to investigate it.
Mr. Chambless referred to Mr. Bennett’s comment that SpectraSite has 8,000 poles throughout the country and he wanted to know how many are tapered at the top. Mr. Bennett replied that there are very few, if any. East Coast cell tower sites tend to be much larger than the sites in the West.
Mr. Diamond asked if it is possible to replace the entire pole to 80 feet and design it in a way that would work. Mr. Bennett replied that the original entitlement was granted to Nextel and they are the existing carrier. To drop that tower creates several problematic issues including down time coverage and expense.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Jay Ingleby, representing the Glendale Community Council, stated that the community council voted against this petition. A new subdivision is going in at the back side of this pole and the residents are concerned about interference with TV’s, appliances, etc. Mr. Ingleby noted that three poles are located within two blocks and there are eighteen within their community. The poles started at 30 feet then went to 60 feet and now they want 80 feet. What next. These poles are sticking up all over the community. Mr. Ingleby stated that the developer of the new subdivision has expressed his displeasure with the idea of people looking out their windows at a looming tower. The Council asked the applicants why these towers cannot be placed west of Redwood Road in an industrial area rather than right next to a residential area. The community felt that voting against this would send the message that they do not want anymore. Mr. Ingleby asked the Planning Commission to look favorably on the community.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Ingleby if he felt that three poles within two blocks constitute blight. Mr. Ingleby stated that he was here to represent the community and his intent is to relay some of the remarks from the residents. They all feel like they are inundated with these poles. Mr. Chambless understood that Mr. Ingleby was saying that the poles are out of place in their community. Mr. Ingleby replied that the residents are trying to protect the community. There were too many questions that the applicants could not answer. The Council did not feel comfortable passing something they were unsure of and that is why they voted against it.
Chair Jonas noted that ten people voted in favor of this petition and he wanted to know why those people were not opposed. Mr. Ingleby felt that most of the ones who voted in favor have cell phones. They are a low income community and most of their residents do not have cell phones.
Michael Polachek, indicated the number of poles within a two mile radius of where he lives. He stated that the height and additional antenna structures would impact the neighborhood and there are TV reception issues and possible medical issues that have not been explained. The residents believe that raising this pole is not consistent with the West Side master plan under study at this time and he has been in touch with the City Planners to discuss this master plan. One issue that keeps coming up is that they would like to make the east side of Redwood Road more of a residential/small scale commercial area as opposed to the west side of Redwood Road which is more general commercial. Mr. Polachek noted that a year and a half ago, the thirty foot pole behind the Soup Kitchen area came before the Planning Commission for an extension from 30 feet to 60 feet. That petition was denied and appealed and the denial was upheld. Mr. Polachek believes the same reasons for denial apply in this case as well. He reiterated the comment that this is a low income community with fewer cell phone users. Mr. Polachek remarked that the residents request that these poles not be extended and in the long term be moved to the west side of Redwood Road which would provide adequate coverage within a commercial area and away from the residential neighborhood.
Hugh Graham reiterated previous comments about last year’s denial of a 30 foot extension to the pole located near the Soup Kitchen. That pole was denied based on visual impacts and he believes this pole would create even greater visual impacts. Mr. Graham was concerned with comments about additional co-locators and worries that arms would be added to create more of a visual impact. He urged the Planning Commission to deny this petition and encouraged them to allow these poles to be erected further west.
Mr. Deis responded to the interference comments and explained that the FCC has done massive studies with regards to interference and health issues and there is no evidence that cell phones or the radiation from the antennas interfere. He stated that the cell phone companies are mandated by the FCC for E91 connection, meaning that there has to be a special antenna on these poles so they can triangulate with other poles in the area in the event of an emergency. It was proven in 9-11 that cells phones in an emergency can be a great asset.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Daniels wanted to know if the petitioner has made any attempt to locate an additional pole on the west side of Redwood Road instead of raising this pole. Mr. Deis replied that Voice Stream has a permit to erect a 60 foot pole on the west side. They have not taken that direction because they wanted to pursue a co-location since that is a quicker installation and they can get additional height.
Mr. Muir referred to the subcommittee and since Ms. Funk was not present this evening and the remaining subcommittee members no longer sit on the Planning Commission, he asked the Staff to refresh his memory as to why the subcommittee opted to vary from the ordinance that allows an unlimited number of 60 foot poles and go to a conditional use to allow 80 foot poles. Chair Jonas stated that the ordinance encourages co-location rather than just restricting the poles to 60 feet and the subcommittee determined that the visual impacts would be less with a 20 foot extension than with an additional 60 foot pole and necessary facilities. Chair Jonas pointed out that the conditional use allows poles higher than 80 feet. Mr. Wilde recalled that the subcommittee did give preference to co-location but he could not remember how tightly that was defined.
Ms. Arnold agreed with this petition in a general sense but she also agreed that the neighborhood has been heavily impacted in that area. In her opinion, having another site on the west side of Redwood Road would still allow the petitioner to achieve the coverage they need for cell phones. Ms. Arnold was not comfortable supporting this petition.
Ms. Seelig agreed with Ms. Arnold and tied it to Finding K in the staff report. Based on what she saw on the field trip and the testimony from the neighborhood and community council, she does not find the extension compatible with the neighborhood. Regarding impacts to the neighborhood as a whole, the staff believes that the impacts would be lessened by a tapered pole but the feasibility of that is questionable from the standpoint of the petitioner. Ms. Seelig does not agree with Finding K in the staff report based on comments heard this evening.
Chair Jonas asked that a motion specify definitive findings to support whatever action is taken. If no one is interested in making a motion, they could table this item to allow the applicant time to further study the tapered pole issue.
Motion for Petition No. 410-606
Prescott Muir recommended denial of Petition No. 410-606 by SpectraSite Communications requesting conditional use approval to increase the height of an existing 60 foot high wireless telecommunications monopole to 80 feet based upon Finding B, that the proposed development is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the title, which allows for 60 foot poles without a conditional use permit, a 60 foot height is more compatible with the adjacency of residential land uses and the increased residential development into the area; Finding F, that there is not appropriate buffering to adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impact; Finding H, that an 80 foot pole would greatly exceed the potential for landscaping that would provide any type of buffering effect for the pole; Finding K, that the proposed conditional use is not compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will have a material cumulative net adverse impact upon the neighborhood. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk and Ms. McDonough were not present. Chair Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-605, by David Morris, requesting a conditional use to reuse an existing building at 1492 South State Street as a private club. The property is located within a CC Commercial Corridor zoning district. Due to inadequate notice to owners legally required to receive notice for the September 19, 2002 Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission will rehear the issue and receive public comment.
Chair Jonas indicated that this is a contentious issue and the Planning Commission is aware of issues that have flared in recent meetings. He asked everyone to approach this meeting in good decorum when stating their opinion and he noted that a two minute comment period per person rule will be in effect. Chair Jonas requested that speakers present new information rather than reiterate something said by a previous speaker.
Planner Doug Dansie reiterated that this item was previously heard and acted upon by the Planning Commission and it is being returned due to a noticing issue. The matter was noticed within 300 feet of the site based on a mailing list received by the petitioner, however, the City has a ordinance that excludes streets which added additional feet. This resulted in ten additional sites that needed to be noticed.
Mr. Dansie stated that very little has changed since the previous meeting. The site is on the west side of State Street at 1492 South State. Since the last meeting there have been small site plan modifications such as adding bike racks and changing the internal layout of the proposed private club. Mr. Dansie remarked that the petitioner indicates that he has a signed agreement for parking. At the time of the original petition, he only had a letter of intent from the property owner for shared parking. The name of the proposed private club has been changed from Temple Bar to Piper Down.
Mr. Dansie noted that the issue of a church closer than 600 feet was raised. That issue went through a Business Licensing Administration Hearing and it was determined that the church had not gone through the proper process to establish itself as a church. That is why it did not show up as a church with City licensing. Also, the Liquor Hearing Officer came to a finding the proposed private club would not significantly impact the church.
Mr. Dansie explained that in order to have a private club, it must be in both a zoning district that allows a private club and also a liquor area that allows a private club. Mr. Dansie reviewed the liquor area map showing the three zones that control the spacing of the number of bars or clubs allowed in one area. He went through the list of liquor licenses that exist between State Street and Main Street and 9th South and 21st South. At the present time, there are two Class C beer license taverns and four private clubs. Mr. Dansie noted that private clubs are listed as conditional uses in the CC zoning district because of the potential for impacts and the varying difference between private clubs. This particular club is 2800 square feet and the site plan proposes 65 seats. The occupancy load for the fire department is 128 people.
Prescott Muir requested that Mr. Dansie reiterate the standards referenced in written correspondence, relating to the proximity of the proposed private club to the Community College and the church. Mr. Muir felt that if this was clearly explained, there would be no reason for people to bring up that issue during the public hearing. Mr. Dansie explained that under the Business Licensing provisions the proposed private club cannot be located within 600 feet of a school, church or park. For a school, this means, elementary, junior high, and high school. It does not apply to colleges so Salt Lake Community College is not considered for Business License, the Hearing Officer can waive the issue of a church if he finds that there are no significant impacts. This matter has gone to a Hearing Officer and it has been determined that there are no significant impacts on the function of the church. Cheri Coffey remarked that the 600 foot spacing is part of the Alcohol Beverage Ordinance and not part of the Zoning Ordinance. This is something the Business Licensing Staff considers and not the Planning Commission. Ms. Coffey stated that she talked with the City Attorney who represented the City in that case and he stated that just because the Planning Commission has to re-hear this case does not mean that they will have to rehear the business license case.
Tim Chambless asked if the City ordinance indicates the number of pawn shops that can be located in proximity to one another. Mr. Dansie replied that there is not a spacing requirement for pawn shops. Pawn shops were formerly an allowed use in the CC District, but now they are not.
Jennifer Seelig understood that the Central Community Master Plan is still a draft and she was told that was correct. Mr. Dansie explained that a 1974 Central Community Plan was adopted and in 1995 the zoning map was adopted which became the official update future land use maps of the 1974 master plan. The current draft of the master plan has not been adopted by the City Council. Ms. Seelig clarified that the existing plan lists the area as commercial and that has not been officially updated since 1995. Mr. Wilde reported that pawn shops are not allowed in the CC Zone and the CC Zone covers most of South State Street This change occurred after 1995 in response to a pawn shop issue.
Robert “Bip” Daniels understood that the petitioner has garnered enough parking to meet legal requirements. He recalled discussion from the last public hearing regarding the distance of the parking from the buildings and he wanted to know if that was still an issue. Mr. Dansie replied that the zoning code states that parking must be within 500 feet from property line to property line. In this case the distance is considerably less. Ms. Seelig asked if the parking obtained from the shared parking agreement abuts residential property. Mr. Dansie noted that the proposed parking does not abut residential property. Mr. Dansie replied that also, with the original petition, the applicant had a letter from the property owner indicating an agreement to have a lease. The petitioner has indicated this evening that he now has a legal agreement that can be recorded against the deed. The City has a condition stating that before a building permit is issued, something must be recorded against the deed that commits the property for a minimum of five years.
Chair Jonas echoed Mr. Muir’s position and informed the public that the Planning Commission would not listen to comments about the spacing of the proposed private club from churches and schools. These are not items for the Planning Commission to consider and anyone speaking to those issues will be asked to sit down.
David Morris, the applicant, remarked that his dream is to open an Irish style pub and the name has been changed to Piper Down, an Olde World Pub. The name Temple Bar was changed out of consideration to the neighbors. Mr. Morris identified the materials proposed for the building and the floor plan which is designed to feel authentic to the theme. He noted that this private club will also have a full kitchen the word “Pub” is derived from “public house” and the local pubs in Ireland have been used for hundreds of years as a gathering place where people can socialize. He hopes to be the gathering place for many Irish social events in Salt Lake City. Mr. Morris does not intend to be exclusively Irish and hopes to attract a diverse group of patrons interested in traditional and folk music. He intends to have dart boards, pool tables, video equipment and televised sporting events. The most important feature of this pub is the management/ownership. He does not intend to spend the money to build a pub for someone else to run. Only those who own Piper Down will run it. Mr. Morris stated that he owns the real estate and he has made a serious investment in the community.
Mr. Morris stated that after receiving Planning Commission approval in September he purchased the 90 year old vacant building at 1492 South State and began removing the layers of past remodels. He will be investing a large amount of capital to bring this building in compliance with code. Mr. Morris noted that since the approval in September he has done nothing but wait on appeals and hearings regarding decisions that were already made. He believes that mis-information has been circulated by those appealing the decision and because of the noticing issue, he now has the opportunity through this rehearing to address those issues. Mr. Morris believes that a vocal minority oppose this business and the person spearheading this emotionally charged campaign has ignored his invitation to tour the property and visit with him personally. This has caused mis-information to be circulated about him and the nature of his business. Mr. Morris stated that the vast majority of people who have stopped by to visit or those who know him, either support his endeavor or do not have objections to the club at this location. He submitted a petition with 423 signatures in support. Mr. Morris stated that his moral character has been questioned and claims that he is not willing to follow the law when working on the building speaks more to his inadequacies as a contractor that to his moral character. He now knows that a separate permit is required for sheet rock repair versus demolition. In every aspect of this project he has followed the guidance of Planning and Zoning, and building inspections and permits to the best of his abilities. Mr. Morris commented on the crime in the area and agreed that the 1400 block of State Street is not the nicest part of town. However, as someone pointed out, neither was the Firestone Tire Building before Caputo’s went in or the Red Rock Café on 2nd West. Mr. Morris believes that the biggest draw of crime to this neighborhood is the abundance of vacant buildings. They need to attract legal regulated businesses in their neighborhood in order to deter illegal unrelated businesses. In an effort to become more pro-active, he has become an active part of the neighborhood watch program. He has spoken with Detective Calley from the Salt Lake Police Department who approved this project and believes it may help improve the area. In addition, he plans on 24-hour video surveillance and he is considering the possibility of hiring a private outside security guard for the safety and convenience of the neighbors.
Mr. Morris stated that the laws of the State hold him responsible for the actions of his members even after leaving the club. It is illegal for his establishment to serve an intoxicated person and the State vigorously enforces those law. All employees will be trained and certified in State sponsored classes to insure compliance. Mr. Morris commented on the parking and stated that his nighttime business will have little impact on the daytime parking. He will not be open for lunch and will not open until 6:00 p.m. He will pay for signage for other businesses and he intends to print the location of parking for his business on the back of the membership cards. Valet parking is one option being considered.
Mr. Morris urged the Planning Commission to come to the same decision they did in September. No facts have changed other than the ones mentioned by Mr. Dansie and the huge financial investment he made purchasing the building.
Russ Naylor, the project architect, stated that his firm was retained to prepare plans for the remodel. Plans were submitted to the Building Department for a plans checks. He has received plan check comments from all City agencies and he is very close to having all the issues resolved so a permit can be issued. Mr. Naylor assured the Planning Commission that he has reviewed the parking calculations for the shared parking agreement and he believes they meet all the standards for the City. Mr. Naylor is confident that there will be no problem meeting the City’s ordinance for this project.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Samantha Francis, representing the Peoples Freeway Community Council, stated that the Community Council advertised this pub in August. They held a public hearing and at that time voted to support this club. She, as chair, along with her executive board, decided not to re-vote on this issue because nothing has changed since August. Ms. Francis stated that the Peoples Freeway Community Council still stands behind their vote and supports this project. In November Mr. Morris attended the Community Council meeting as a community member because he owns the business and has the right to do so. He was asked by her and the secretary, Mr. Davis, to make comment at that time to clarify some of the community concerns. Mr. Morris answered those questions and the Community Council stated at that time that they would not rehear this until the appeal was won. Since the appeal was removed and the item needed to be reheard by the Planning Commission, the Community Council did not vote nor did they take comment at their meeting last night. Ms. Francis remarked that this project is located within their Community Council area and notification was sent to all who attend their Community Council meetings. There were not objections in August and as chair of the Community Council, she stands behind the vote that was taken in August.
Mr. Chambless wanted to know how many people voted at the Community Council meeting in August. Ms. Francis stated that she did not attend that meeting but the minutes reflect that 50 people were present, 27 voted to support it, and no one objected.
Mr. Muir recommended that Ms. Francis extend a formal invitation to the Community College to participate in their Community Council meetings. That is where they can be informed as to what is going on in their backyard and have a voice. Ms. Francis noted that the bylaws changed in 1999 because business owners were not allowed to have a voice with the community council at that time. They changed the bylaws to allow the business owners and property owners to come into the council and be voting members to have a voice. She noted that the College is on the east side of the State Street and therefore falls into a different community council but they are more than welcome to come.
Jim Fisher, representing the Liberty Wells Community Council, stated that a motion was passed at the last meeting and part of that motion was to present the motion to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher read the motion which stated that the quality of life in their neighborhood is of primary importance to the Liberty Wells Community Council and that the safety and well being of citizens in Liberty Wells is a primary objective. There has been brought before the Liberty Wells Community Council an issue concerning Council support of the Temple Bar. It has been noted that crime in the area has risen and Salt Lake City does not have the ability to insure that crime would not increase. There are numerous taverns, bars, and private clubs in the area and several issues have not been resolved, such as parking. The developers of the Temple Bar have misrepresented their intentions when attempting to garner Council support. Citizens who initially supported the applicants have now changed their minds and do not support establishment of the Temple Bar after being made aware that hard liquor will be sold. The owners of the proposed Temple Bar have been shown not to follow the laws when constructing the building and they have been red flagged. The Liberty Wells Community Council opposes the establishment of the Temple Bar located at or about 1492 South State and ask that their opposition be made known to those governing agencies who will have an impact on the approval process. Mr. Fisher indicated that the vote was 25-5 in favor of this motion.
Jeff Davis, addressed the issue of parking with the Salt Lake Planning Code. The plans he saw indicated the square footage at over 4,000 square feet and he does not believe that meets the parking requirements. Mr. Davis asked the Planning Commission to make sure that the project does meet all parking requirements as part of their decision.
Dean Munanui stated he is currently the South City Institute President for the Institute of Religion for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at 1535 Edison Street. Mr. Munanui read a petition signed by 120 students who attend the Institute of Religion, opposing the establishment of a private club at 1492 South State Street. They oppose any establishment that serves alcohol beverages so close to their school. They have weeknight classes and weekend activities and they have a fraternity and sorority that meet on Thursday evenings, as well as frequent Sunday evening meetings. The bus stop their students take is directly in front of the proposed club. They are afraid that people from the club who have been drinking will disrupt classes and activities. Currently the neighborhood is not safe because of crime and drugs and the addition of a drinking establishment to the neighborhood would only make this situation worse. They do not feel that this type of establishment is the right kind of business for a college neighborhood. Mr. Munanui understood that the distance a bar has to be from a religious institution is 600 feet and he noted that their building is 644 feet.
Chair Jonas reiterated that the distance from a school and church is not within the Planning Commission purview. That issue has been addressed by an administrative hearing officer. Chair Jonas again asked the public not to speak to that issue.
Charles Hathaway stated that he represented the morals and values of the Institute of Religion for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the South City Community College. Mr. Hathaway stated that the purpose of the Institution is to build unity, protection and safety for the students, both physically and spiritually. There is much stress among students during their college experience and often they will turn to alcohol as a means to rid that stress. The Institute is there to provide for the spiritual side and it will be a big mistake if they allow that bar. Mr. Hathaway stated that he takes the bus and it stops right in front of the bar.
Bonnie Peters did not wish to speak but offered the following written comment read by Mr. Jonas. Ms. Peters is opposed to this club being in their neighborhood. The impact in terms of an increased element of crime and drunk driving, etc. would not be in the best interest of our children, area residents or businesses. Children coming from the residential areas on Main Street, West Temple, and beyond have to have access to State Street to get to their school and should not have to be exposed to the litter, possible loitering, etc. which having this club would impose.
Joseph McPhie voiced his concerns against granting this petition in lieu of the fact that the neighborhood is saturated already with outlets of liquor of different types. He is concerned about what is happening to State Street. Close to this outlet is a porn shop and next to that is a tobacco appliance shop. Mr. McPhie stated that he is 90 years old and has been through the prohibition days and the repeal days with this evil and he has noted over the years that wherever a club or license to a beer parlor is granted, it has a depressing effect on the neighborhood in regards to the values of the properties surrounding it. Very few have an aesthetic value. There is another establishment one block north of this one and the entry is always full of bikers, garbage cans, and littler. Very few of these outlets have any aesthetic value and it has a depressing effect on other properties around it.
Art LaFeber stated that he is the realtor involved with David Morris. Mr. LaFeber understood that he is on the outside because he does not live in the area but he had a business at 3rd East and Kensington for four years and he knows and appreciates everything everyone else has to say. Theft, crime, pillage, etc. has gone on. Mr. LaFeber submitted a different point of view to the Planning Commission. Every day in the paper he reads about how they are trying to revitalize downtown and even though this area is on the periphery of downtown, he submits that somebody of the caliber of Dave Morris and his wife who are willing to spend their life savings to purchase a building and remodel it into a restaurant and private club, will be an initial step towards taking care of a lot of the problems that exist in that area. Mr. LaFeber stated that his opinion comes from doing business in that area for four years and not just by driving by. He believes all the vacant buildings are contributing to the problem and this is a step towards having more upscale businesses in the area.
Jeff Pickett did not wish to speak but offered written comment read by Mr. Jonas. As a homeowner concerned with property values, crime, and such, he opposed introducing the Temple Bar into this area so close to this residential area. He feels that such a business will make it more difficult to maintain their neighborhood and make it inviting for people to want to live in, especially those with families.
Thomas Boley operates the Mel Boley Company and he is the owner of the property at 1484 South State Street. Mr. Boley appealed to the Planning Commission on behalf of the Mel Boley Company that some sort of satisfactory solution be made to the problem of parking. His 96 year old firm will be driven out of business under this present arrangement. He has had previous experience with long term parkers. Twenty two years ago the business machine company operated a school and he was severely impacted when they had long term parking for that school. It nearly closed them down. Fortunately, the school operated for five months and the problem went away. Mr. Boley offered the suggestion of enforcing one hour parking.
Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Boley how the parking issue would affect his business if the private club does not open until 6:00 p.m. Mr. Boley stated that he could submit evidence that the 6:00 p.m. hour has been misrepresented. Ms. Arnold noted that if the club is licensed for certain hours of operation they would not be able to operate any earlier. Mr. Boley stated that on October 1 he received a letter from Mr. Morris saying that he will be open from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.. However, the minutes of the November 4 meetings reflects Mr. Morris as saying that the Temple Bar will have a full kitchen so its customers could eat lunch or dinner. Chair Jonas did not understand why this club would put Mr. Boley out of business. Mr. Boley remarked that he sees no reason why this would be any different from his previous experience twenty two years ago and he can guarantee that the parking situation will put him out of business. He reiterated his suggestion that one hour parking limits would alleviate the problem. Mr. Boley also noted that he is considering the possibility of night openings for his company.
L. Neil Rasmussen, a property owner at 66 Cleveland Avenue, down the alley from this proposed establishment, opposed this business for several reasons. He submitted a list of 35 people that live within one block of where this club will be established and all 35 are in opposition. These 35 names are people who would be directly impacted and he found no one who was in favor. Mr. Rasmussen referred to a police report that shows 558 crime cases that occurred in this area in the last year ranging from assaults, to accidents, to car prowls, burglaries, and auto thefts. He is concerned with the preservation of property values in the area. People have invested money in these properties and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers have surveyed that where private bars and private clubs are established, the crime increases, traffic is a problem, and drunk driving arrests increase. Mr. Rasmussen asked that the Planning Commission deny this petition and help preserve the integrity of the area. Granting this club will be a detriment to this neighborhood.
John Welch, affiliated with the Hibernian Society of Utah, which is an Irish Organization, stated that the Hibernian Society has existed for twenty five years. They are a cultural organization and enjoy celebrating the things Irish, specifically dancing, music, and song. Mr. Welch noted that currently there is no place to congregate to celebrate their music and this establishment would provide an excellent opportunity for musicians to come and play and for people to enjoy the culture. Mr. Welch stated that the St. Patrick’s Day parade has been going on for twenty five years and that has heavily impacted Salt Lake City. He is not aware of any activities the Irish have been participating in that has had an adverse affect on any neighborhood or on the City. The parade brings people downtown and contributes a lot to the community. Based on the grounds of low negative impact and high positive impact on this particular area, Mr. Welch appealed to the Planning Commission to approve this club.
Glenda Matthews did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Mr. Jonas. Ms. Matthews was opposed to having the Temple bar in her neighborhood because of parking and also the concern for drunk driving through the neighborhood, accidents, children playing and being exposed to that, as well as the lifestyle these places promote. Her neighborhood is working very hard to make it a safe and inviting place to be for families and people who desire higher values and expectations.
Brenda Scharman stated that she owns a business at 1600 South State Street. Her business is a beauty college and she has 100 young girls attending who range in age from 15 years to 35 years. Ms. Scharman does not live in this neighborhood but four years ago she moved to her current location. She was originally at 2500 South and State Street where she did not encounter the crime that she experiences now. Ms. Scharman asked the Planning Commission to remember that this area is where the majority of the people here tonight live and these are their homes. She lives in on the east side where she does not experience crime but when she comes to work every morning she finds broken beer bottles and drug paraphernalia in her parking lot. She has students who are afraid to walk to their cars and one year ago she employed a Salt Lake City Police Officer to secure her building. She referred to the comment by Chair Jonas at the beginning of the meeting offering to have security walk people to their cars and she thinks it is sad that it has come to that point in this City. This fear and caution happens every day in the neighborhoods and at her business. Hiring a police officer to watch over her business is very expensive on her part but she needs to make her place safe for the young girls who attend her college. She invested half a million dollars into her building not realizing problems associated with the area she was investing in. She believes she brought a business in that enhances the neighborhood but they are saturated with a lot of businesses that take away from that enhancement.
John J. Murphy stated that on behalf of the Irish in the City there is a lot of enthusiasm for having a cultural center where they can hear Irish music. He noted that Father Patrick Carley, an Irish Catholic priest and pastor in the Valley for the past 30 years, would like to issue his support for the Piper Down Club. Mr. Murphy believes this club will bring in people who will enhance the neighborhood. He realizes that the neighbors do have fears but he hopes that before long they will win their trust, given the opportunity.
Patrick Thomas represented the Hibernian Society of Utah. Mr. Thomas noted that the Piper Down Club came up at their business meeting in November and was discussed at length during the business session and afterward. The Society membership of 400 people is unanimous in support of this bar because it gives them a place where they can be Irish and make the neighborhood a better place because of what they are doing culturally. There will be folk dancing and folk singing but nothing that would bring crime to the neighborhood. The Hibernian Society feels that what David Morris is trying to do is not reprehensible and it is supportable and laudable.
Elaine Clark did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Mr. Jonas. Ms. Clark is very much in favor of Piper Down and believes it will strengthen the presentation of Irish culture in the community. It will additionally serve as a positive social gathering place bringing a new growing clientele to this area of State Street which is something that is needed.
Mark Cantor is not Irish but he has played Irish music and has an Irish music radio program. He has performed and produced music concerts for the past 22 years. Mr. Cantor supports Piper Down and the Morris’. He is part of a large community of traditional musicians who are teachers, biologists, engineers, therapists, researchers, health care consultants, opticians, nurse practitioners, business owners, social workers, attorneys, professional musicians, and composers, economists, and even Catholic priests. They have bachelor degrees, master degrees, PhD’s and law degrees. Many have certificates and licenses to practice their professions. Along with other offerings that the Morris’ have in mind, as well as what the Hibernians have in mind, he believes musicians are a large draw to the area and they will draw many people within their same ranks. Mr. Cantor believes that empty buildings do contribute to problems of crime and the presence of Piper Down will help to discourage the presence of those involved in street crime.
Steve Barth felt his comments would be redundant with the comments of previous speakers who support this project.
Norman Steffen did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Mr. Jonas. Mr. Steffen stated a number of reasons for opposing this club which include a non-controlled intersection at Kensington and State Street, which is a pedestrian hazard for inebriated people, and the lack of parking. He believes the “Irish Pub” concept is better but a hard liquor, dance club concept is too disruptive to the local community in terms of parking, public disturbance, and criminal activity. Mr. Steffan works at the Salt Lake Community College/South City campus.
Russell Bernard, owner of Quality Stamp and Sign at 1470 South State Street, stated that his business is impacted by the State Liquor Store located on Main Street. He finds drunks in his parking lot and experiences other problems when they come to work in the morning. Mr. Bernard noted that there are a number of vacant buildings in the City but two years ago none of those buildings were vacant before the recession started. He has a rule that his employees do not work past 6:00 p.m. because it is not that safe of a neighborhood. Mr. Bernard commented on the questionable activity that occurs in his parking lot at night and in the middle of the day. They are in an area where they do have to be careful with their employees. Mr. Bernard stated this bar may be good for the neighborhood because the tenants of a bike shop that was located next to his business several years ago were the best tenants the neighborhood ever had. Mr. Bernard was unsure how he felt about having this establishment in the neighborhood but he did want to comment on the liquor store and the crime in the area.
Betty Eatchel submitted petitions that were circulated within the Liberty Wells Community Council area. These signatures represent neighbors living three or four blocks from this bar and they are all in opposition. Ms. Eatchel submitted petitions signed by business people in the neighborhood who do not want the bar because they are afraid for their safety. They worry about all the added traffic and since Kensington at State Street does not have a traffic light it will be hard for traffic to get through. It took her five minutes to cross that intersection in her car today because of the amount of traffic. Ms Eatchel believes this will add to the traffic problems and she noted that traffic on State Street is very heavy from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The added traffic that will come with this bar will add to the problem. Ms. Eatchel is very concerned and she asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration that these people have lived in their neighborhood for years and they want a safe neighborhood.
Mr. Chambless asked Ms. Eatchel for the exact street address where there is no traffic signal. Ms. Eatchel stated that there is no traffic light on Kensington Avenue at State Street.
Tamara Wharton stated that she is proud of her Irish heritage and explained how her grandfather came here as an indentured servant. She worked in an Irish restaurant and she loves Irish food. Ms. Wharton remarked that this is not a matter of culture, it is a matter of safety. People in this neighborhood are afraid to walk out on the street. Two weeks ago she was walking across State Street and some guy followed her wherever she went because he thought she was a prostitute. There were 48 cases of prostitution last year and 558 total cases of crime in the area. She had her car stolen across the street from an auto repair shop. Ms. Wharton stated that this is an area where they need to consider the needs of the community and the immediate neighbors and businesses. She commented on the amount of money David Morris has invested in this project but she wanted the Planning Commission to realize that her property is worth more than that. Collectively the neighbors have invested millions of dollars in this area and they want to stay. This is the last straw for the neighbors. They have so many problems already and she asked the Planning Commission to consider the interest of the immediate neighbors. Ms. Wharton questioned the parking issue and understood that Mr. Morris only has a licensed agreement and not a lease agreement. According to City ordinance you must have a contracted lease or deed against the property for five years. Mr. Morris has a year to year agreement. She passed around a photo showing motorcycles parked on the sidewalk in front of this building when Mr. Morris was working on his building. This is a man who is already trying to go behind people’s back. He started working on his building without a permit and he has tried to buy out the lease of the church down the street.
Kimberly Neil stated that her husband pastors a church in Kearns. He is in England and unable to attend the meeting but he wanted her to express their opposition. Ms. Neil noted that they have established a church at 1526 State Street. This church was put there for a reason and they have backed this church financially and sent people from their church in Kearns to this area numerous times outreaching and asking people to attend this church. They do not think this bar will help the church or the surrounding areas. Ms. Neil is a retired employee of the Santa Monica Police Department in California and she came out here to pastor the church in Kearns. She believes it is ludicrous and a great deception to think that a bar will not affect a community. She opposes the alcohol that is involved. Alcoholics will come and they know how this works. They are all adults and they need to understand that this will have an affect. They have invested some of their best people into this area to make it a better community.
Mr. Daniels asked how long the church has been present in the area. Ms. Neil stated that the church was started in the pastor’s home three years ago and her husband’s church rented the current building two years ago. Mr. Daniels asked if there are any figures showing what the presence of the church has done to the crime level. Ms. Neil did not know but she offered to find out.
Becky Rosser, the pastor’s wife at the Door Church, three doors down from where the proposed club would be, spoke as a mother whose children play outside the church. There has been deception in opening this private club. Her husband was informed that this would be a place where people could have a sandwich and drink a beer and nobody said anything about being open until one o’clock in the morning. Her husband was offered a free membership but after they found out what it really was and did not agree, their landlord was approached to buy out their lease. Ms. Rosser referred to comments about their zoning and the fact that they did not obtain permits for the change in use. Before they leased this building she spoke to Zoning and Planning and was told that they only needed parking. They have been brought up as an illegal church that tried to slide into a neighborhood but the truth is that Planning and Zoning did not provide her with adequate information. She accused Mr. Morris of speaking with the City to try and get them removed and another church has been spoken to about being removed.
Mike Pappadakis, a business owner at 1480 South State Street, stated that his business is a pawn shop which is apparently the second worse business to have. He has been in business for 42 years in Salt Lake City and after what has gone on in the last ten years, anyone dumb enough to open up a business on State Street should be allowed to do it because it takes guts. He has a parking lot that he is willing to share so if the objection is parking, Mr. Morris has it. Mr. Pappadakis felt that bringing religion and politics into the matter is not right. This country was built on people having the right to open their own business and Mr. Morris should be allowed to do the same. Mr. Pappadakis strongly supported this private club.
Verlyn Thomas stated that he has lived in the area for 52 years and they truly love it. Mr. Thomas believes they need to give their youth the chance to enjoy good things in life and not a bad example. A lot of youths will be passing this bar and that sets a bad example. Also, there is a McDonalds across the street where the youth go and they will be able to see what goes on in that bar. Mr. Thomas believes they owe it to the youth to be able to maintain the area so they can continue to live there and enjoy it. Mr. Thomas hopes this bar is turned down because there are other bars people can go to in the area. When his children and grandchildren come to visit, he likes to think that they are coming to a safe place without having to see what is going on in that bar. Much more needs to be weighed and considered in turning down the option for having that bar.
Charles Mann a resident living one block from the tavern, read a letter from his mother-in-law who could not attend this evening but has the business north of the proposed tavern. “My name is Linda Lassiter and I own the commercial building located at 1488 South Street, north and adjacent to the Morris building at 1492 South State. I also own and reside in a home less than one block away at 1463 South Edison Street. My husband Steve and I own and operate our business next door to the proposed private club and we are in full support of the proposed use intended by the Morris’ family. We believe this owner/operated business as proposed will strengthen the financial vitality of the block and surrounding neighborhood. Anyone willing to purchase a building that has been vacant for a year and a half and totally renovate it, and place within its walls a place that will draw respectable customers deserves to achieve the American dream of owning their own business. A viable business is always better than a vacant building and it will help strengthen the economy of our City. Owner/operated means they care and will work harder to run a respectable establishment helping their neighborhood wherever possible to be safe and successful for the benefit of all. We welcome the Morris’ help in making our neighborhood a better place to do business and safer to live in. If they can fulfill the requirements of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City and the State, they should be allowed to open their doors and given the chance to earn a decent living. The objections made by the opposition may or may not exist, but to say that the problems will increase is hypothetical. It is not their place to tell the Planning Commission what they already know. These problems exist all over our City and in some places worse than our neighborhood”.
Carrie Mann stated her support for the project and felt her comments would be redundant to those already stated.
Daniel Morris, the father of David Morris, stated that a televised report from the Mayor’s office asked local businesses in the area to stay the course and be good stewards to the Salt Lake City community. He wanted to call the Mayor’s office to let him know they were way ahead of his request. After the September Planning Commission meeting they were given the green light to open the private club at the location. They purchased the building after that approval and started renovating it with necessary demolition permits in hand. In less than six weeks they put $70,000 into this property. They were then stopped by various maneuvers causing delays in getting the business up and running. His son and daughter-in-law have been harangued and have endured slanderous insults for trying to do some urban renewal and bring some joy to the Irish community. Mr. Morris wanted to set the record straight and stated that they are not outlaw bikers, they do not front the Sundowners motorcycle club, and they do not condone prostitution.
Rodney Rosser, the pastor of the church at 1536 South State Street, stated that this private club would greatly interfere with the ministering of his church and the moral and ethical values of the church. They currently have fifteen members and one couple is an ex-drug addict and an ex-alcoholic who live up the street. Mr. Rosser believes his church is making an impact in the community to demise the ill effects of alcohol and to demise the effects of drug use in the area. Mr. Rosser stated that he cannot support this in any way. This community needs viable businesses to bring up the community. He was a recovering alcoholic and he knows the effects of alcohol and what it does to family and children. They are standing as a beacon in this area to help people and this bar will greatly hinder what they are doing.
Jaynie Brown, representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving, stated that she is a member of Rocky Anderson’s drug and alcohol task force. Her husband is the president of MADD and she presented a paper he had written. Ms. Brown noted that Rocky Anderson asked her to do a radio spot with him of the Mayor and MADD presenting an idea of not to drink and drive during the holidays. She mentioned the matter of Temple Bar to the Mayor and Mayor Anderson was surprised that the church was not being considered a church. One of his good friends has been going to that church for years and he goes there to talk about the bible every Sunday. Ms. Brown found it very disturbing that Mr. Dansie and the Planning Commission would say what they have about the church. Ms. Brown presented national statistics research by the National Law Enforcement. She stated that the presentation of this private club as a positive neighborhood influence is incorrect and is not supported by national statistics and research. What they have found is that every time you increase the density of bars, you increase the crime, the violence, and the traffic fatalities. Sixty-percent of all alcohol related street offenses occur on or near bars or pubs. Forty-percent of all offenders admitted to taking alcohol before they robbed homes. If you increase the bar attendance by 10% you will increase the number of traffic fatalities from 2% to 3%. To present this as a positive influence in the neighborhood is simply erroneous and MADD hopes the Planning Commission will consider the neighbors and their community.
Monlo Beck, a resident at the Terrace Apartment, opposed the bar with respect to pedestrian safety and disabled individuals. At the Terrace Apartments he knows of nine people in wheelchairs including his wife. When walking his wife and other people through the neighborhood he has difficulty getting on and off the sidewalks because it is an old neighborhood with old sidewalks. This is of great concern to him because his wife crosses State Street at 2000 South regularly and in the past year she has nearly been hit twice by cars running red lights. If alcohol is involved then it will be worse. They do not need more bars. If it is not involved, they do not need to add alcohol to any further incidents of that.
Ian Harding supported David Morris and his private club. He reiterated a previous comment that all private clubs are not the same and the impacts on areas is not the same. One year ago he opened a private club on State Street at a much more infamous address. The site of his establishment was under investigation by the Federal Government and the DEA for drug trafficking . This was a location that had multiple incidents of crime including a murder in the back alley. The Police Department was not thrilled about another place going in that building. He opened up his establishment which catered to a younger crowd and since that time all his neighbors have told him he is a value to the area. Radio Shack next door has offered him their parking during the evening. The neighbors next door live above their business and they have told him many times that the activity that used to occur not longer happen because he changed the element of the area. Mr. Harding believes the pub will be a classy establishment and a benefit to the neighborhood.
Dr. Mark Hazel did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Mr. Jonas.
Dr. Hazel has performed Celtic music at Utah Arts Council sponsored performances across the State. The prospect of a new private club that emphasizes Celtic and other folk music sounds like a good idea. It would give him a reason to visit that area and patronize other nearby businesses because he has had less reason to do so since Southern Plantation Restaurant left. He hopes Piper Down opens so he can visit. Dr Hazel reminded those who oppose this club on religious and spiritual grounds that in the British Isles where Celtic music comes from, it is customary for families with children to attend the neighborhood pub every Sunday after church.
Bob Bell remarked that the clientele attending Piper Down will not be your total drunk, drug addict, loser motorcycle gang crowd. This crowd will be upstanding members of the community who just want to go out to socialize and interact with other people. Mr. Bell fully supports Piper Down. A lot has been said and he does not want to repeat it, but he hopes the Planning Commission will allow this club to go in.
Anthony Marino spoke in support of David Morris because he has intentions of becoming a bartender at Piper Down. Mr. Marino tried to alleviate concerns of the community regarding the way bars are actually run. He is certified through the State to serve alcohol and he has made that choice to be a bartender and to serve alcohol to people who visit social clubs responsibly. He has no intention of getting people drunk and rowdy. People go to be social and have a good time with their friends and other people in the community. Mr. Marino stated that he tends bar for another establishment in the City and he was recently set up for a sting by the Salt Lake Task Force and he passed. He has been bartending for seven years and he has never been charged with serving people too much and allowing them to drive carelessly.
Neal Wheeler, pastor of the Liberty Baptist Church at 1625 South Main Street, stated opposition to this club on behalf of the church membership. Mr. Wheeler felt the church has made a positive impact on the community and on the number of people who come to their church with drug and alcohol problems. Mr. Wheeler noted that he operates a Reformers Anonymous Addictions Program in his church on Friday nights. His church is surrounded by bars and vandalism is common to their church vehicles and church property. Everyday he picks up syringes and beer bottles. Another bar will add to this problem. Mr. Wheeler remarked that they will be a good neighbor no matter what is decided and they will have a good spirit and a good attitude. He stated that the bible does give warning to those who give their neighbor strong drink, to those who sell strong drink to their neighbor, and to governing councils who grant the licenses to sell.
Carlos Sosa stated that he and his parents own a pawn shop at 1522 South State. Unlike what is said about pawn shops, he does care about the community and what it is dealing with. There are three pawn shops within two hundred feet of this establishment. Mr. Sosa opposes this club because each of those pawn shops has a federal firearms license and they deal with firearms every day. Mr. Sosa noted that when the church next door to him asked if they could use his parking for their services, he was happy to oblige. He is not of their faith but he believed it was a good thing for the community. Mr. Sosa asked the Planning Commission to listen to the public and to consider their concerns. He has been to dance clubs and he knows from experience that people do not park in lots far away. They will park wherever they can closest to the front door. Mr. Sosa did not have anything against the owners of the pub and he assumes they are good people, but they need to consider the safety of their patrons and of the neighbors.
Michael Lasater supports the business. He was a student at the Community College and spent considerable time at South City Campus. He is familiar with the credibility and intentions of David and Shelley Morris in opening a business on State Street. Mr. Lasater believes that if the intentions were truly known and if the integrity of David was truly known there would be much more support. The Morris’ are intelligent people and they would not make an investment in a place where it would not prove to be successful. This business would only be a positive contribution to the community and in no way would there be negative impacts.
Mario Platoro opposed this establishment. He found it interesting that the name of the bar was conveniently changed from Temple Bar to Piper Down and now brings in a cultural aspect to the establishment. Having been a part of the Native American Community, the Indian Walk-in Center is not far from here and they hold weekly alcoholic anonymous meetings. Anything close to representing a bar does not represent his people very well. Mr. Platoro stated that he wears many hats that start with being a father to a board member of a non-profit organization that represents five ethnic cultures. They opposed alcohol during the Olympics and turned down sponsorship money because it was an alcohol related sponsorship. Mr. Platoro stated that he is a homeowner in the area and he and his brother-in-law purchased a building in the area because they were afraid it might become a bar. Mr. Platoro reminded the Planning Commission that each of them have a responsibility to protect the citizens and their neighborhood.
Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Platoro if he belongs to a neighborhood watch program and he replied that he did not. Mr. Chambless asked if the building Mr. Platoro purchased is vacant or doing business. Mr. Platoro replied that it is doing business as Mama’s Southern Plantation, across from the Buzz Baseball Field on West Temple.
Eric Guiles stated that he attends the Door Christian Fellowship Center in Kearns, which is the mother church of the church at 1526 South State. Mr. Guiles opposes this establishment because he cannot support any kind of alcoholic place. He pointed out that with all the businesses in the area, there are more churches and more bars. Mr. Guiles referred to an earlier comment about revitalizing Salt Lake City and he does not believe that the direction spoken to by the Mayor or the Governor had anything to do with increasing crime. Mr. Guiles commented on the crime situation and referred to a murder that recently took place outside of a “classy” bar downtown. It is time to realize that they need a change in Salt Lake and it needs to be a change for the better and not the worst.
Pamela Carson stated that she lives within 600 feet of this building. She objects to this pub because of its proximity to her house. The neighbors need many things from the City such as improved street lighting, improved sidewalks, and infrastructure. What they do not need from the City is a pub. Ms. Carson noted that the 400 people who support the pub and the majority of people who came to speak in support this evening do not live in the neighborhood. Ms. Carson remarked that the Planning Commission has the responsibility to make a wise decision for their lives. They are considering their lives and she asked to be careful in how they consider.
Sandi Roundy did not wish to speak but offered the following written comment read by Mr. Jonas. Ms. Roundy found it interesting that all of the patrons who want this bar do not live in the neighborhood. She would be interested to know how they would feel if someone wanted to put a bar in their backyard.
Jeff Zapato stated that he attends community council meetings in the Liberty Wells area. Mr. Zapato opposes this bar because his sister was killed by drunk driving. He noted that federal law does not allow pilots to drink when they fly and truck drivers are not allowed to drink when they drive. Why would he want people driving through his neighborhood when they have just come from a bar. If that is truly the American dream, these people might want to wake up.
Mele Takuvaka stated that she has raised six children and none of them drink alcohol because she has taught them not to drink or smoke. She does not use alcohol but she has learned from others what affect it can have. She works with people in the neighborhood and she sees how it has affected their lives. Ms. Takuvaka stated that these people live in their neighborhood and some are very poor and hungry and have no place to live. Ms Takuvaka opposes this club because of these people and because she does not want this affecting her neighborhood.
Reed Sherman opposed the bar but he did admire Mr. Morris for trying to do something with the building. He just wishes he would not serve alcohol and he is sure he would have a classy establishment if he did not serve alcohol. Mr. Sherman is a business owner with Mario Pataro who purchased the building at 1394 South West Temple. When they wanted to purchase the building, they were told that three other people wanted to buy it to open bars. Mr. Sherman believes the City Council and the Planning Commission need to help this neighborhood. He lives at 1800 South and Main Street and it is a neat area. They need to eliminate these kinds of things in the neighborhood because he wants his kids to grow up there and go to school without worrying about certain elements such as bars.
Mindora Albrecht a resident in Holladay stated that she is a member of the Door Christian Church in Kearns. She understands that in Ireland a pub means a place to come together and talk but in America a pub is a place where alcohol is served and when you want a drink that is where you go. Ms. Albrecht stated that a theater is different from a pub. A theater is entertainment, family, and fun which is different than a pub. When alcohol comes in it changes all the rules and regulations. If Mr. Morris wants a classy joint she does not believe State Street will do it for him. His clientele may come one time but they will not come back again because their cars will be broken into and they will stumble over alcoholics and drunks. She urged Mr. Morris to get out now before he invests any more money because she does not see how it can be a success for his family, for State Street, or for the residents in the area.
Toni Devous did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Mr. Jonas. Ms. Devous felt this Irish Pub would bring upperclass people to the neighborhood. She also felt it would lessen the crime and loitering in that area. A vacant building at this location on State Street will only bring crime and loitering. The pub can and will bring great revenue to the neighborhood. David Morris has a right and a chance. Toni Devous believes this pub would bring a lot of revenue to the neighborhood and a lot of upperclass people. It would get rid of a lot of the crime going on in the vacant building and up and down State Street. David Morris is a respectable person with respectable friends and all of them will be coming to his pub. They will be looking out for the neighborhood a lot better than the neighbors are doing if that building is not vacant. Ms. Devous fully support this establishment because it can only bring good to the neighborhood.
James Williams stated that he is a Born Again Christian and he is opposed to alcohol. He is also a counselor at an addiction program so he understands the problems with alcoholism. Mr. Williams believes a bar will cause that much more problem. He noted that everyone is talking about vacant buildings and how this will be a good place because it fills a vacant building. A vacant buildings is not the problem but alcohol is and a bar serving alcohol will cause a big problem. Mr Williams understands that the Planning Commission has a lot on their mind but they need to realize that God is watching.
Bob Kenner remarked that KSL news gave statistics on how every 30 minutes one person is killed from a drunk driver and one person is injured every ten minutes every day throughout the year. When people say that alcohol does not matter, please give him a break. There is a State Liquor Store near 1300 South State Street and the alley that runs down to that is full of drunks every night and broken bottles. There is singing, and yelling and fighting and the neighbors do not need more of this in their neighborhood.
Mark Spute stated that he is not here to support the bar as much as he is to speak against those opposed to it because of the way this whole matter has been handled. He believes that if the name had been different this whole matter would have been a moot point. If it were called Tony Roma’s or Chili’s or any other restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages with their meals, they would not be here this evening. Mr. Spute believes the name is unfortunate and he thinks it will be a divisive element in their community. He wishes it were a pizza parlor rather than a pub but when he initially got involved in this fight, he was led to believe that this would be a strip bar and that the frat brats from the University would be there at all hours of the night. When he sat down and listened to Mr. Morris he found out that the reality was totally different from what he was led to believe. Mr. Morris did not believe that a democratic free society can be built on the basis of misrepresentation, falsehood and deception, and he does not believe that those who practice these things should be allowed to triumph in this matter. Mr. Spute stated that he does not support the type of establishment proposed by Mr. Morris but he does support him following his dream. Mr. Spute stated that if the Planning Commission can deny this on sound legal basis, that is one thing, but hysterics and emotion cannot be allowed to dominate a society.
Emma Santiago stated that she is a member of the Door Christian Fellowship Church in Kearns and she has also gone to the church at 1526 State Street. She is currently a teacher at Oquirrah Hills Elementary and she also works for Odyssey House at night. Ms. Santiago passes through that neighborhood at 11:00 p.m. each night and she does see all the prostitutes and drunks walking around State Street. She agreed with Mindora in that Mr. Morris may have a classy place but State Street is not a classy street and people will get tired of dealing with all the drunks and crime that goes on.
Sonny Buster, a resident in Utah County, stated that he has been following this matter for several months. Mr. Buster noted that he was present during the Business hearing and they did not deny that the Door was a church. They only said that this pub would not impact the church. Mr. Buster stated that Mr. Morris has stated that his patrons will only use the front door of his establishment but if he has handicapped parking, he has to use the back door. If they only use the front door their proposed parking lot is over 500 feet away. Also, Doug Dansie has stated that only elementary, junior high, and high school are considered by the Liquor Board. He wanted the Planning Commission to know that South City Campus states that they will include a high school starting in the spring.
Mr. Jonas reminded Mr. Buster that he asked the public not to address the school or church issue and informed him that he would have to sit down if he had nothing more to say.
Sheila Gifford stated that she is against alcohol and she understands how the neighbors feel. However, the people who want to open this establishment have that freedom of choice. Ms. Gifford wanted to thank the Morris’ for changing the name from Temple Bar to Piper Down because a lot of people who live in this valley value the name of the temple. She felt this name was a mockery. Whether or not they are allowed to open this establishment is for the Planning Commission to decide but she wanted to thank Mr. And Mrs. Morris for having the courtesy to change the name.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas stated that many times it is not fun for the Planning Commission to sit on this side of the table and he is sure this is going to be one of those occasions. This matter is filled with a lot of emotion and the Planning Commission will try to take out that emotion and focus on the land use issues, which is what they are charged to do. He understands that whatever the outcome, there will be disappointed people, but the Planning Commission will do the best job they can to make a good decision. Chair Jonas noted that all of the Commissioners have lived in the City for a number of years and they are all concerned about the community, particularly this area of State Street. It has been bad for a long time but they do not control law enforcement and they share the same concerns for cleaning up the area. They will do whatever they can do to help in cleaning up the area as it concerns planning and zoning.
Ms. Arnold asked for a show of hands as to how many people are members of neighborhood watch and she informed them that this is the first place to start handling the problems.
Ms. Noda understood some of the community’s concerns regarding this establishment but she could not find anything new or compelling this evening that would have her reverse the earlier decision. The Planning Commission needs to follow the zoning ordinance law and this establishment meets the criteria. Ms. Noda did not believe there is sufficient evidence to prove a net cumulative adverse impact to the community as a whole. Substantial testimony was given this evening to indicate that this pub could be a positive addition to the community. What she understands from the Hibernian Society and musicians who regularly perform Irish music, she believes this establishment will provide a higher class clientele for the area and for the neighborhood. Ms. Noda stated that she does respect the Hibernian Society. They have done a wonderful job promoting cultural activities throughout the community in terms of Irish culture and it is always done in a responsible manner. Overall, Ms. Noda thinks this pub could add much to the community. She understands the concerns with alcohol but there is not enough evidence that drinking will take place in a negative way. Ms. Noda stated that the Planning Commission needs to weigh all the elements impacting this area and she believes it could be all the vacant buildings that are a detraction. Pawn shops could be another negative impact. She is not sure that a pub of the caliber proposed by Mr. Morris will detract from the neighborhood. For that reason, Ms. Noda would vote to sustain their earlier decision.
Ms. Seelig commented on the management plan and wondered if the business license could be revoked if the management plan is not followed. She also wanted to know what would happen to the parking if the parking agreement is terminated prior to the end of the five year lease. Mr. Dansie explained that the zoning ordinance is clear that if off-site parking is not owned, parking must be obtained through a lease or some other type of agreement for a minimum period of five years. Mr. Wilde remarked that termination of that lease in the interim period would be cause to recall that conditional use.
Mr. Muir expressed his concern with the tenor of the divisiveness and rhetoric of the community these days. He realizes that this stems from other issues that have precipitated this divisiveness but they all need to endeavor in this community to figure out how to get along. He believes that starts by extending the hand to the neighbor across the aisle who may not share your specific beliefs. Mr. Muir stated that part of extending that hand is a good faith belief that if somebody says they are going to do something, that they will do it. On the other hand, it is up to the person who makes these promises to live up to the things he has represented. If Mr. Morris prevails this evening, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate that he will care about the community, improve the neighborhood, raise the quality of the clientele currently disrupting the neighborhood, and really become a good citizen. Mr. Muir did not think that the fact that he serves alcohol will preclude all of the above. Mr. Muir could not find legal findings that would support the Planning Commission denying this application.
Chair Jonas reiterated Mr. Muir’s concerns about what is happening in the community. He moved here thirty years ago and he is here because he loves it. He feels terrible about what he sees going on and a portion of that was demonstrated here this evening. Chair Jonas pointed out that there is not a bar in that building currently but there is still all kinds of trouble in this part of the City. They would all like to see that change and he is a strong believer that empty buildings do nothing but attract bad things. Putting a business in that building and putting people on the street can be good. It will be incumbent on Mr. Morris not to let these people down and to be a positive example of what can happen for this community. Chair Jonas stated that if this were truly a pub, which is a place where people can go and drink, he would be more concerned, but this is a private club and that adds a whole different dimension for the person holding the license and the controls placed on him.
Mr. Daniels stated that if any of the public present is like him, they should stand ready to support the Door Church, the people in the community, and the Piper Down Pub. He can support all three. He happens to be a non-drinker and a non-smoker, and he happens to be a person who patronizes private clubs, pubs, parties of all kinds, and church sessions. He is part of the community and a part of all these things and he suggested that the rest of the citizens do the same thing. Mr. Daniels stated that he will probably patronize this establishment if it is approved, and possibly buy a membership, but he will not take a drink because it is not his thing. However, he will not look down or sneer upon anyone who does take a drink. Mr. Daniels noted that if he sees a bar tender serving someone who has already had too much to drink, he will personally call the police and if the club owner is the kind of man he believes he is, he would support him in doing so and would not allow that to happen.
Mr. Chambless echoed Mr. Daniels sentiments. He hates crime and favors a zero tolerance policy for people who drive drunk and for drug dealers. The police chief has come before this Planning Commission and said that statistically there is a problem when you have a number of places that serve alcohol within a certain area and it tends to increase the need for police surveillance. Mr. Chambless had a member of his family killed by a drunk driver and he had strong feelings about this issue. However, he is respectful of individual initiative and he is pro-business. He believes in the law and in City ordinances and this proposal for a private club meets the City ordinances. Mr. Chambless understood why the Planning Commission previously approved it and why the Community Council approved it unanimously. He also expressed his concern about the lack of civility and the way the community is so divided on issues like these.
Motion for Petition #410-605
Based upon the Findings of Fact set forth in the Staff report, Laurie Noda moved to approve a conditional use to allow a private club in the CC zoning district at 1492 South State Street with the following conditions:
1. The club still must meet the building code and complete shared parking requirements.
2. The club must remove the dead driveway approach in front of the building.
3. The club owner should submit, as part of the building permit, a management plan acceptable to the Police Department and the Business Licensing Agency to be renewed on an annual basis.
Mr. Chambless asked Ms. Noda if she would include in her motion the need for strong lighting and a study for the possibility of a traffic light at the intersection of State Street and Kensington Avenue.
Ms. Arnold noted that State Street is a State Highway and the Planning Commission cannot make a traffic study part of their approval. Mr. Chambless asked that the Planning Commission include it as a recommendation only. Ms. Noda accepted the amendment to her motion regarding lighting as well as the recommendation to study the appropriateness of placing a traffic light at the intersection of State Street and Kensington Avenue. Mr. Chambless seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The Planning Commission is authorized to permit a private club as a conditional use in the CC zoning district.
B. As a small private club, the proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of applicable master plans.
C. There will be no significant negative impact to the street system by allowing the proposed conditional use. State, Kensington and Major Streets are capable of handling the traffic generated by this use. The dead driveway approach should be removed.
D. The internal circulation system is adequate. The building is changing use and requires adding additional shared stalls off-site. The petitioner has a written agreement to allow fourteen shared parking spaces. The lease must meet requirements for the Zoning Administrator to approve shared parking.
E. Utilities are adequate in this area.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
G. The architecture is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
H. Landscaping meets the requirements.
I. The use will not affect historic structures or environmental features.
J. Operating and delivery hours will be compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed Conditional Use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposal will be reviewed for applicable building permits and shall comply with all other applicable ordinances.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No. 410-599, by Smith’s Food and Drug Stores represented by Bret Wahlen of Great Basin Engineering is a request for a conditional use permit for redevelopment of the site located at 2135 South 900 East, in a Community Business (CB) Zone. The proposal will entail demolition of the existing structure and development of a new building for Smith’s supermarket.
Due to a conflict of interest, Prescott Muir recused himself from discussing this item and left the meeting.
Planner Melissa Anderson reviewed the proposal for a conditional use permit as written in the Staff report and noted that the conditional use permit is required because the building is larger than 20,000 square feet in a CB zone.
The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either l) deny this application based on the findings; 2) initiate a petition to amend the Sugar House master plan prior to approving the conditional use permit; or 3) articulate other findings as a basis for this approval. The Staff report recommends denial of the conditional use permit based on the fact that it is inconsistent with the Sugar House Master Plan. The Sugar House master plan designates this area on the future land use map as business district/neighborhood scale/mixed use. That is articulated in the master plan as built to the street with no setback, strong street orientation and pedestrian scale 30 feet high, and approximately 40% non-reflective glass. Other descriptions are outlined which include being focused around a transit pedestrian oriented commercial retail area with a strong street presence, wide sidewalks, street furnishings, etc. The neighborhood scale mixed-use occurs along the perimeter of the business district and acts as a transition to adjacent residential and commercial uses. Ms. Anderson noted that other language in the master plan references the development pattern for the area. For the record, she submitted the Sugar House Master Plan. Ms. Anderson stated that the street representation is interpreted as 2100 South being the main corridor. Twenty-first South is discussed in the master plan in a variety of aspects. One statement is to design 2100 South to provide a safe pedestrian environment. Ms. Anderson commented on a large Capitol improvement project that will be installing new decorative street lights in the business district from 700 East to 1300 East and from Ramona Avenue to I-80. The fact that lighting is going in all along 2100 South emphasizes the fact that this is the main pedestrian corridor in terms of the streetscape. The intent is to focus more of a street presence on 2100 South.
Ms. Anderson stated that in reviewing the criteria, the Staff found that the public way needs to be redesigned to meet the engineering standards and the percent of decorative pavers need to be consistent throughout the district. A tree protection plan is required by the Urban Forester, deliveries are recommended to be limited between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Staff recommends additional buffer for the east and south sides to buffer the adjacent residential uses. To address the urban heat factors. Reflective roof top material is recommended for such a large commercial building. Additional detailing is needed on the east and south elevation and the Staff recommends that final approval for the lighting, elevation site plan, and landscaping plan be delegated to the Planning Director.
Ms. Anderson stated that the Planning Division would like to support the applicant to redevelop this site, however, the site design as presented with the footprint to the rear of the block is inconsistent with the general development pattern of the area. The Staff recommends denying this application based on the findings.
John Diamond referred to the traffic study relative to parking in front of the proposed design, and asked if a study was done with the building shifted in different directions. In his opinion, dumping all the traffic at the intersection of 2100 South does not seem like a good idea, however, pushing parking to the back strongly impacts the neighborhood. Ms. Anderson replied that in terms of the 2100 South intersection, the Staff report indicates that additional information regarding traffic impacts will need to be provided to the Transportation Division.
Chair Jonas commented on the neighborhood scale referenced in the Staff report and building to the street with no setback as being one of the items in the master plan. He wanted to know if the Staff proposes building to the street. Ms. Anderson replied that if the building was pushed to 2100 South with windows and an entrance, then not having a setback would be acceptable. However, having the back of the building on Elm Street with no setback is unacceptable because it creates a 25 foot wall. After further discussion, Chair Jonas clarified that if the building was pushed up to 2100 South, the Staff would want access from 2100 South but the parking would be behind the building. He wanted to know how they would propose access in front and in back. Ms. Anderson stated that the Staff would have preferred to discuss many different options for moving the building up towards 2100 South. One possibility is to use the same layout proposed and move it closer to 2100 South and another option is to renovate the existing building and add on the north towards 2100 South. That would provide one way in and out of the building as well as access to the parking from all aspects of the block. Ms. Anderson stated that there is not one set answer and the ability to discuss any portion of bringing the building up to 2100 South would be very positive.
Brent Wilde stated that the Staff understood the dilemma created for the applicant by pulling any part of the building in its current configuration northerly to the northern edge of the property but they hope to find some solution where a portion of the building can be anchored to 2100 South.
Bret Wahlen from Great Basin Engineering and David Nielsen from Smith’s Food and Drug were present to represent the applicant. Jack Robinson from Prescott Muir was also available to answer questions.
Mr. Wahlen noted that he was hired by Smith’s to resolve some of the problems and to see if he could find a way to redevelop the existing site. They have been working on this for sixteen months and he provided a history of where this project started and where it is today. They started working with Staff and held neighborhood meetings with neighbors immediately impacted by the store. After additional meetings with Staff they attended community council meetings and later worked with a subcommittee. Additional neighborhood meetings have been held to work with the neighbors on how this building should be sited to minimize the impacts. Mr. Wahlen noted that Peggy McDonough was part of a subcommittee and they met with her to preview this item in an effort to solve these issues.
Mr. Wahlen commented on the problems associated with this site and noted that Smith’s and the Staff have agreed to disagree on many issues. Mr. Wahlen felt that the only issue is how the site is developed and where the building is sited. All the other issues are minor and Smith’s has agreed to most of them. Mr. Wahlen was surprised at some of the issues listed in the staff report because he thought they had come to some agreement.
Mr. Wahlen reviewed the existing site map showing the building facing west onto 900 East. He noted that the current building has been in that location for a number of years and was expanded several times. It is a tired store with a lot of problems and the design is very inefficient. In order to be successful, a grocer has to have accessible parking and the parking immediately in front of this store is very limited. The lighting is deficient and needs to be upgraded and promotes transients into the area. The current store is 45,000 square feet and the proposed store will be 53,000 square feet. Mr. Wahlen stated that this current store does not meet the walkable communities orientation. They are looking at which option will be best for the community. For Smith’s to get a return on their investment they need to get additional people into the store. If there is a no build scenario, the store will remain in its current status and possibly be remodeled.
Mr. Wahlen understood that the transient problem comes from the rail line running east and west a block to the south. This is also the proposed location for light rail and as that happens, people will be coming down 9th East from the light rail system. A primary question is what is the major street and nothing in the master plan identifies a major street. Mr. Wahlen stated that he finds nothing to support the Staff’s interpretation that 2100 South is the major street.
Mr. Wahlen commented on other issues with the existing site. There is one driveway location on Elm Street into the neighborhood and after talking with the neighbors they know it is a concern because that driveway puts a lot of traffic onto the residential road. That driveway has been eliminated in the new site plan. The current site has five driveways; two on 900 East, one on 2100 South, one on Lincoln Avenue, and one on Elm Street. The new proposed plan limits the number of driveways to three. Mr. Wahlen noted that this site is bordered by four streets and any grocery store barely fits. The current site plan has no interior landscaping and landscaping has been added in the new site plan. Mr. Wahlen noted that the proposed building is much boxier and that is the efficiency that Smith’s needs in order to run a grocery store. Mr. Wahlen indicated the location of the truck docks as proposed on the east side of the site and noted that they have eliminated the need for dual truck docks. Existing maple trees along the east side of the truck dock would remain, as well as a screen wall that would obscure the trucks and minimize any noise attenuation. Mr. Wahlen pointed out the three entrances; one on Lincoln Avenue, one on 2100 South, and one on 900 East.
Mr. Wahlen noted that twelve months ago he met with the Staff, the Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department and they were ecstatic about the traffic circulation. In response to Mr. Diamond’s question regarding a traffic study, Mr. Wahlen stated that this project will not generate any new traffic. Typically, a traffic study is required when an additional 100 peak trips per hour is generated. Smith’s asked the Traffic Department to clarify whether or not a traffic study was necessary and the Staff requested that one be done. Smith’s is not opposed to doing that traffic study. Mr. Wahlen stated that he has worked very hard to integrate a pedestrian friendly shopping center. They propose to reconstruct the sidewalks and pedestrian ways around the site in a textured concrete to emphasize a pedestrian friendly environment. Mr. Wahlen identified locations suitable for pedestrians to enter the site.
Mr. Wahlen believes they met the intent of the master plan when siting this building by orienting the entrance on 900 East. With future mass transit coming down the rail corridor and bus route on 900 East, they felt it was critical to tie the pedestrian friendly element into 900 East. They have also proposed a Sugar House plaza/monument that would help promote the Sugar House Business District. Mr. Wahlen noted that lighting has been added to meet the security measures needed to make the area feel secure. Regarding the landscaping, the staff report indicates that the Staff did not like the ivy concept but that was a suggestion that Stephen Goldsmith recommended they follow. Mr. Wahlen stated that the neighbors requested that the building be pushed to the back of the property line to eliminate any opportunity for transients to loiter at the back of the building. This issues applies to Elm Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. Wahlen stated that Smith’s is willing to redevelop this site at a cost of $7 million but in order to do that they must have a return on their investment. They will need to shut down the store for 8 months and that will result in lost revenue. Mr. Wahlen remarked that backing the building up to 2100 South goes against retail industry standards. In order to be successful in retail you need to promote your product and you need to be visible. Smith is concerned that they will look and feel similar to Circuit City if they were to back up to 2100 South. Mr. Wahlen noted that the current site is a permitted use. It has been approved by the Planning Commission for rezone but it has not been approved by the City Council. The site is currently not in the Sugar House Business District. They are only discussing the walkable community concept because it is a conditional use. Mr. Wahlen stated that they have been working with Staff but they have not been able to solve the problem. They are here this evening to find a solution and to solve any other issues the Planning Commission might raise.
Melissa Anderson concurred that this application is based on the conditional use criteria and standards and not the Sugar House Business District Zone. In terms of the brick pavers, Ms. Anderson did not believe the Planning Commission has the authority under the conditional use process to change the pavers in the sidewalk area. Engineering standards are a maximum of 20% brick and 80% concrete. The City needs to maintain those sidewalks and it is difficult to do if they have different materials. Ms. Anderson stated that the property to the east is proposed to be rezoned to the RB zone, which is residential business, but it has not been rezoned yet. If they are operating as a business, it is illegal. In terms of the ivy, the Staff would like to have the ivy to soften the wall but additional buffers are also needed. Staff appreciates the applicant’s proposal for buffering to address the transient issue but she believes other design measures can be considered to address those issues.
Mr. Wahlen stated that he disagreed with the Staff interpretation that the Planning Commission would have to amend the Sugar House Master Plan before they could approve this project. The master plan consists of goals that help provide direction so the Planning Commission can make good planning decisions.
Jack Robinson with Prescott Muir reviewed the elevations. He agreed with Staff that more can be done to articulate some of the surfaces if that is deemed necessary. The primary issues have centered around how the building is sited and not its appearance. Mr. Robinson stated that the important points the design addresses is use of red brick for neighborhood compatibility, clear story windows along 900 East, and a real and functional entrance along 900 East. They are willing to work with Staff and the Planning Commission to address any concerns regarding the elevation.
In response to a question from Chair Jonas, Mr. Robinson explained the east elevation and how the wall works with the loading dock. Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Robinson to point out the proposed locations for glass on the building other than the entry. Mr. Chambless asked if consideration was given to having similar glass windows that emit natural light on the south side towards the roof level. Mr. Robinson replied that there is an opportunity on the west elevation for higher windows that would let natural light into the store and provide a presence of activity inside the store for the traffic on the street. The east elevation does not show glass at this time because the produce department, the bakery, and service departments are on that side and typically do not lend themselves to glass treatment. Mr. Chambless felt the structure had a fortress appearance which is out of character with Sugar House. He wondered if there is any possibility of entertaining a natural light source along the east and south sides toward the roof level. Mr. Robinson explained how the proposed grocery store design would function and noted they have talked with Smith’s about the possibility of more glass but they would not be real windows. Mr. Robinson felt that the light out of those windows might be objectionable to the neighbors. Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Robinson if consideration has been given to a below grade level for parking or for shopping given the restraints of the site. Mr. Robinson replied that they have not entertained that design arrangement.
Chair Jonas asked about the parking calculations and Mr. Robinson stated that the preference is 5 per 1,000 and they are currently at 3.3 per 1,000 which is below where they would like to be. Mr. Diamond asked about the size of the Smith’s store at 9th and 9th. Mr. Robinson stated that it is approximately 75,000 square feet and the proposed store is 53,000 square feet. The proposed store has been scaled back from the standard prototype that Smith’s is currently building which is 57,000 square feet.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Judi Short, representing the Sugar House Community Council, referred to Lynn Olsen’s letter which reflects the process and the vote of the community council. The vote was 11 in favor and 2 opposed for sending a negative vote to the Planning Commission for the Smith’s redevelopment proposal. The biggest reason for this vote is the fact that the proposal is in total opposition with the master plan. Ms. Short appreciates the work that Smith’s has done and she knows they have looked long and hard at how to handle this difficult site. She believes there are several ways the building could be designed up against 2100 South with an entrance on the street and an entrance to the parking lot at the rear. A layer of clear story windows 20 feet off the ground is not anywhere close to walkability standards. The window needs to be placed in a way that promotes interaction between people walking and activity in the store. Ms. Short felt that having the plant section and the bakery along 2100 South with windows is something that would draw people in. She thinks that Sugar House is the most walkable district in the City but as you move further west where the buildings have vast parking lots, that walkability disappears. Ms. Short commented on articles showing stores that Kroger has done. The community would like to see Smith’s stay but they need a better site plan. The master plan was recently approved and it does not make sense for the first project approved under this plan to be totally against it.
Chair Jonas clarified that Ms. Short’s preference would be to front the building off of 2100 South and have the parking in the rear. Ms. Short replied that he was correct but they also need to be careful about visibility for traffic at the corner. Ms. Short stated that another option would be to face the building on to 900 East with a door at 2100 South and a door off the parking lot. Chair Jonas questioned whether people would walk to this grocery store and Ms. Short replied that several members of the community council live in the area and would prefer to walk rather than take their cars. The current Smith’s is a scary place and she does not go there. An upgrade is needed but they do need to respect the master plan and keep the activity on the street.
Chair Jonas noted that meeting Ms. Short’s request for moving the building closer to 2100 South and 900 East puts all the traffic at the back and on to Elm and Lincoln Streets. Ms. Short felt the building could be designed to protect the neighbors on Elm Street. Lincoln Street is mostly business already.
Craig Peterson, a local resident who shops at the Smith’s in Sugar House, represented the Sugar House Chamber of Commerce. The Executive Committee of the Chamber asked him to attend this evening, as well as the Government Affairs Committee. The Chamber of Commerce supports the reconstruction of the Smith’s store. They have looked at the issues involved and they are hesitant to see this store moved closer to 2100 South because the density and the mass of the store could adversely impact that street. They like the improved landscaping proposed and the redevelopment of that part of town. The Chamber understands that Smith’s had conducted a survey and on any given day, only 6% of their customers walked to the store. In their opinion, moving the store closer to 2100 South will generate increased traffic into the neighborhood. Mr. Peterson remarked that over the years Smith’s has been a great corporate citizen of the inner city and they were the first major store to make a commitment to Salt Lake City. They built key stores on the west side of the City when no other retailers would look at those areas. As they see new retail stores come into the City, it is important to continue to support the stores that first supported them. The Chamber fully believes that this site plan meets the master plan. It is good for the neighborhood and would be good for the City.
Phil Blomquist, owner of the commercial property to the south where the Fisher Bicycle Shop is located, favored redevelopment of this property. Mr. Blomquist raised safety concerns regarding the intersection on Elm Street and 9th East. He sees a lot of traffic congestion and accidents and he is afraid that a 25 to 30 foot brick building on the corner will increase the safety hazards that currently exist. Mr. Blomquist was concerned about the fortress type wall on the south side of this building and the traffic, loitering and other nuisances it might cause. Mr. Blomquist stated overall support for the redevelopment of Smith’s as long as they can address the issues that will help the community and the store become better to bring better people into the neighborhood.
Tom Judd represented himself and eight other residents on Elm Street. He submitted for the record a signed authorization giving him the authority to speak for them this evening. Mr. Judd and the Elm Street residents heartily approve of the plan. He agreed that 2100 South is the main corridor and he asked that the City not make Elm Avenue the main corridor. The proposed plan will reduce Elm Avenue to the residential street that it should be and it will reduce the traffic problems and congestion mentioned by the previous speaker. Mr. Judd begged the Planning Commission to give major consideration to the residents who live there and shop there. He noted that voting members of the Sugar House Community Council do not live near this particular project and none of them shop there.
Chair Jonas read into the record the names of the eight residents represented by Mr. Judd.
Michael Lane favored the current Smith’s plan for the new store as presented. Placing the store along 2100 South and 900 East will create a tremendous eyesore due to the massive size and volume of the building. He doubts that people traveling down 900 East or 2100 South will want to stare at a large building right on that intersection. Mr. Lane believes that placing the store back from the intersection provides a visual relief and reduces the impact of the size and volume of the intersection, much the same as the current store. Current large commercial centers along 2100 South such as Circuit City and the pad above 1100 East that houses Quest Wireless actually reduces the appeal of the complex and does not invite people in. Placing the store to the front continues the trend of hiding the potential shopping that is available. Mr. Lane believes that master plans should be used as a template or guideline. In requiring that buildings be placed along the street fronts, consideration needs to be given to the size and the use of the building. The development along 9th and 9th works well with development along the street fronts because they are small restaurants and coffee houses. Mr. Lane does not agree that this should be done with a large building or shopping center complex.
Mark McGrath opposed the Smith’s proposal because it ignores the fabric of the historic character of the area. This site will house the largest building in the Sugar House area and it is of the utmost importance to get it right. If they don’t get it right, it will be a major obstacle in the success of creating the walkable community so valued in Sugar House. Mr. McGrath agreed with the Staff and the community council about bringing the building up to the corner. They could have an entrance at the corner of 2100 South and 900 East and another entrance on the west side of the buildings towards the parking lot. He did not blame the residents on Elm Street for being upset about the existing conditions but the proposal presented including a 25 foot high wall facing the residential uses on Elm, would be awful and he is surprised that they support it. Anyone who wants to get a feel for what would happen should go to the Family Center on Fort Union, where they have the exact same situation, and see how it destroyed their residential street.
Scott Kisling stated that he was chair of the master plan committee for the Sugar House Community Council during the re-write of the Sugar House master plan. He distributed copies of a letter he sent to Helen Peters, chair of the community council at the time of the master plan rewrite, explaining why the committee opposed the Smith’s proposal and why it did not meet the master plan objectives. Mr. Kisling remarked that the major issue the committee had trouble getting through was siting. Mr. Kisling commented on the affect to property values when there is a 25-foot wall in front of a house. He noted that the community council is committed to stopping decay, to protecting the property values, and to supporting beautification of the City. Criminal and graffiti activity will only continue on a big blank wall. Mr. Kisling was surprised to find that Kroger’s owns Smith’s because if you do a web search on new urbanism and supermarkets, you will find that most of the pictures are Kroger’s. In accordance with the master plan, the Sugar House Community Council would like to square up the building and bring it towards 2100 South.
Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Kisling if he had provided the applicant with a copy of the letter he distributed. Mr. Kisling replied that he had not because it was the committee’s recommendation to the community council chair at that time.
Chair Jonas referred to Mr. Kisling’s concern for the property values and asked how he would respond to the neighbors who would directly be impacted yet favor this proposal. Mr. Kisling stated that he has never lived with a blank wall in front of him but he thinks the current vehicle entrance on Elm Street has a large impact on the community. It would definitely help if that entrance could be eliminated but he does not think it needs to be eliminated with a 25-foot high wall.
Tavia McGrath did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. McGrath believes the new building should conform to design standards consistent with the historic character of the neighborhood, which is built to the street and not behind a parking lot.
Maureen Simes stated that she would not necessarily enjoy looking at a 25-foot wall but she supported the Smith’s proposal for three major reasons. l) She is the neighborhood clean up lady and she goes around picking up trash that comes off the parking lot two or three times a week. This proposal would eliminate that problem. 2) She and her daughter find needles in the current 15 foot setback and that problem is starting to come into the neighborhood. This proposal will eliminate that problem. 3) Her kids and other kids in the neighborhood play in the front yards and this proposal would eliminate the current traffic problems they experience now. Ms. Simes stated that for these reasons she does support the Smith’s proposal.
Duncan Williamson stated that he was born in Sugar House and he has lived and worked there most of his life. Mr. Williamson felt the Planning Commission should consider the amount of work that went into writing the master plan and follow it as closely as possible. Mr. Williamson was concerned with the Lincoln Street traffic and the large trucks that will be unloading and moving in and out. He wanted to know how this can be done without impacting the neighborhood.
Dany Tremblay stated that he owns the property at the corner. In many respects, he is the ideal Sugar House resident. He lives in Sugar House and works in his house and he walks everywhere he goes. Mr. Tremblay believes the master plan is a great idea and he appreciates all the hard work that went into it, however, he does not think it is right to move the problem of the street into the residential area. Putting the store on 2100 South does meet the intent of the master plan but it destroys the neighborhood behind it. Mr. Tremblay felt the master plan worked great for the commons because all the parking is hidden within the shopping complex and there were not residential areas to be impacted by that concept. In this case, due to the configuration of the street, if they follow the master plan they destroy the neighborhood by giving them the parking problem.
Angela Waagen, stated that she has lived in her house on Elm Avenue for 23 years and she supports the Smith’s proposal because she does not want the traffic into her neighborhood. Ms. Waagen noted that none of the members of the Sugar House Council live in the neighborhood. They keep talking about people walking across the parking lot but if they put Smith’s on 2100 South, then the residents in the neighborhood will have to walk across the parking lot and they are the ones who will most likely be walking to the store. Ms. Waagen stated that Smith’s has been a good neighbor and when she has called them several times to let them know that transients were loitering behind the building, they always take care of the problem. When Smith’s first started discussing this proposal with the neighbors, they addressed all their concerns. Her biggest concern was the lighting that would be proposed so they would not have the same issues associated with a blank wall. Smith’s addressed her question satisfactorily and she believes this proposal is a great idea. Ms Waagen requested that the Planning Commission move forward and allow Smith’s to build the building where they want.
Chair Jonas asked Ms. Waagen to explain the lighting plan that was presented to her. Ms. Waagen understood that Smith’s will have lighting all along the building on the south side. It will be directed on to the building and vegetation but it will not point into the neighborhood.
Derek Payne stated that he is a resident of Sugar House and he was also on the committee to develop the revisions to the master plan. They spent over two years discussing ways to maintain the character and charm of Sugar House and it always came down to one goal; a walkable community. That meant an unbroken chain of storefronts along 2100 South with a lot of transparency so pedestrians could interact with what is inside. Mr. Payne believes this proposal epitomizes all of the development forces they were most fearful of and adversely affects the qualities of Sugar House and why he lives there. He implored Smith’s to use their talented architect to help them develop a more urban model that will enhance the qualities of Sugar House and not destroy them.
Jeff Nolte opposed this proposal and stated that Phil Blomquist spoke for both of them.
Camille Biexei did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Biexei lives in Provo, Utah but she thinks the Smith’s present facility is unkept. Rather than demolish and rebuild the current building they could greatly improve the site by keeping the grounds cleaner and provide landscaping. It is ugly and uninviting to local customers. Ms. Biexei stated that she does not presently live in the neighborhood but she soon will.
H. Smith Broadbent did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Broadbent lives in Provo, Utah and supports the use of the property desired for the Smith’s expansion. This area is now a messy area which entices loitering and crime which could be preempted by a good, well-maintained active property. The idea of a “walkable neighborhood” is only a chimera unless it is an attractive area. In an area as thoroughly developed as this area already is, “walkability” is already compromised beyond practicable retrieval. The most viable option is to continue development of clean, universally accepted business activities, not bars, lounges, pawn shops, etc.
Rawlins Young stated that he is life long resident of Sugar House and he is with the Coalition of Livable Streets as well as the Salt Lake Transit Committee. Mr. Young remarked that he is one of the few people who have read all of the master plans of Salt Lake City dating back to 1919. Mr. Young supports the Staff report and opposed this project. He noted that 2100 South is the only east/west bus route in the City, other than 400 South. 900 East is also a bus route so that corner is one of the few transfer points in Sugar House. There are bus stops on all four of the corners of the 900 East and 2100 South intersection. It is one of the few places where people can buy groceries and use the bus. Mr. Young stated that 2100 South is the major arterial street in Sugar House and by orienting the store to the intersection reduces the traffic conflicts that develop out of driveways being closer to centralized intersections.
Bob McDonald, a property owner on 900 East and owner of Leisure Living could not understand why this proposal would not add to the fabric of the Sugar House community. His grandfather established Sugar House Park and his family has worked in Sugar House for 85 years. He cannot think of anything more exciting for the Sugar House community than to have a brand new facility, beautifully landscaped with parking in front and access from 2100 South, with new sidewalks and curb and gutter. Mr. McDonald stated that he would not walk there, but he would run there because it would be a fun place to go shopping. Mr. McDonald noted that not one resident who lives in the area wants the building on 2100 South and he agrees that it would push all the cars into the neighborhood. He also pointed out that not one resident near Smith’s is opposed to looking at a 25 foot landscaped wall. He agrees that looking at a landscaped wall is better than looking at a parking lot. Mr. McDonald stated that as far as the fabric of Sugar House, this Smith’s store will be a positive influence. Mr. McDonald remarked that Smith’s has to succeed. They know how the building should sit and how it should flow and it is important for the community to let them succeed.
Gina Thompson stated that she does 90% of her shopping at Smith’s and at least weekly her husband buys groceries at Smith’s walking home from the bus stop. Ms. Thompson would like to see the site developed but she believes it is extremely intimidating to a pedestrian to have the parking lot on 2100 South. Having the parking lot on 2100 South is very destructive to the walkability of Sugar House.
Susan Petheram felt everyone was in agreement on wanting to see the area redeveloped. If they compared the site plan with the language of the master plan, it would be contrary to what the people who developed the master plan would like to see in Sugar House. This store would be an example of what they do not want to see with development, particularly along 2100 South. Having a vast expanse of parking cannot be mitigated by any amount of architectural detailing on the facade of the store. Although it is nice to see some of the changes and additions that Smith’s has made, it would be a stretch to call it oriented to the street. Ms. Petheram stated that 2100 South is the major western gateway into Sugar House and to have something like this developed with a visible parking lot for the next twenty five years would be a detriment to what the master plan is trying to achieve. With careful detailing and looking at the site more carefully, Ms. Petheram believes there is a compromise that can provide more pedestrian friendly orientation and still address the concerns for the residents on Elm Street.
Mark St. Andre did not wish to speak but offered the following written comments read by Chair Jonas. The site for this Smith’s resides in the Sugar House neighborhood. The Sugar House master plan, which reflects the will of the community, emphasizes the importance of development that is pedestrian friendly. The proposed building design with a large parking lot in front is obviously not pedestrian-centric but automobile-centric. The inappropriateness of the proposal seems obvious. The orientation of the entrance on 900 East is friendly to pedestrians on 900 East coming from the future rail stop (although that will not occur for many years). However, if the building were pushed to 2100 South there could be walkable entrances on 900 East and 2100 South.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Laurie Noda appreciated the time and effort that has gone into this proposal and the fact that Smith’s has willingly worked with the Staff. However, she believes the proposed plan is in conflict with the Sugar House master plan and it does not meet the criteria of a walkable community. The parking lot on 2100 South is problematic and greatly impacts 2100 South. The Sugar House master plan tries to create store fronts similar to what they have in the Commons and she agrees that Smith’s needs to create some ability for pedestrians to look into the store. She noted that other Kroger stores do look more friendly and they have a lot of glass and front the major street. Wild Oats on 1100 East has a lot of glass on its building and it looks very nice and makes the business more approachable. Ms. Noda understood the impacts to the residents on Elm and their concerns. She felt there may be ways to have the parking lot set back further and still have green space to buffer that parking from the neighbors. Ms. Noda was unsure about the traffic aspects and she could understand the neighborhood concerns but she had to agree with Staff that this proposal does not meet the intent of the Sugar House master plan. At this time, she could not vote to support this proposal.
Chair Jonas agreed with Ms. Noda in terms of making the building more friendly from the street and he agreed that Wild Oats has a more friendly street facade than what Smith’s is showing. However, if the Sugar House master plan is so rigid that it cannot allow a plan like the one proposed, then they were wrong in approving it and that was not his intent when he voted for this master plan. The Planning Commission has forwarded to the City Council a rezoning proposal for this sub area, including proposing to take the RMF-35 zone down to an R-1-5000. In his opinion, moving this building to 2100 South and placing the parking where it creates impacts to Elm Street and Lincoln Avenue is unconscionable after saying that they want to preserve the R-1-5000 neighborhood. This proposal protects the people who are most affected and the plan is certainly more walkable than it was. If the master plan says that development needs to be to neighborhood scale, then this does not fit. Chair Jonas pointed out that the other Kroger buildings referred to this evening do not have four major streets on all sides of the site. This is an incredibly difficult site and problematic with whatever they do. Chair Jonas was not sure whether the Planning Commission should approve this current plan, but he could support this plan easier than a plan that moves the building forward and pushes the parking to the back. In terms of scale, Chair Jonas questioned whether it would be proper to put a huge building against 2100 South at the sidewalk.
Jennifer Seelig asked if there has been commentary from the Transportation Division relating to traffic flow if the building was moved forward to 2100 South. Ms. Anderson replied that she did not send that option to the Transportation Department because the building was not designed in that configuration. Comments from the Transportation Department regarding that site configuration are unknown at this time. Ms. Seelig asked for clarification of Findings B which states, “street setback from 2100 South and the parking lot location are not consistent with a pedestrian orientation”, and wanted to know what setback would be consistent. She understands terms such as “walkable” and “friendly”, but in her opinion a more landscaped area would be a friendly place to walk. However, she was unsure whether her opinion met the standards of pedestrian oriented design. Ms. Anderson stated with that criteria they would be looking for is some aspect of the building oriented to and facing 2100 South. This can mean pulling it completely forward or positioning it in another manner so the parking can be placed on the side and around the rear. Ms. Anderson noted that the Staff has not had the opportunity to look at any of those options with the applicant. Brent Wilde referred to earlier comments and the question of whether orienting the building to 2100 South or 900 East meets the intent. In the strictest sense of trying to develop to the intent, the Staff would try to tie this building to the corner. As they continue to reach a compromise, they have not been able to close that gap. Mr. Wilde stated that with 2100 South as the spine, the preference has been to strive to tie that building to 2100 South and 900 East in terms of pursuing potential solutions. Mr. Wilde felt it was important to note that Smith’s will not build this building if they do not have confidence in the final site layout. He personally believes that a driveway on Elm Avenue is not an option. Mr. Wilde believes they have heard enough comments this evening to validate their concerns and raise additional questions.
Chair Jonas did not favor a large building on the corner of 2100 South and 900 East and preferred that it be pulled to the corner of 2100 South and Lincoln. As a gateway, it would be nice to have some space on the corner of 21st and 9th. Chair Jonas suggested the same option that was used at Walgreens where a small building was placed on the corner. This same thing could be done on the corner of Lincoln and 2100 South if the Staff feels strongly about putting something on 2100 South. Ms. Anderson stated that this suggested option would not be preferable to the Staff. However, there are other options that the Staff has not had the opportunity to look at. Chair Jonas asked Ms. Anderson to provide some input and explanation on what those options are since the Staff has been working on this for sixteen months. Mr. Wilde remarked that the idea of bringing a second building out to 2100 South is an option but if this is done, they would prefer to anchor it on 900 East and 2100 South. Ms. Anderson used the site plan to review other options that can be studied and pointed out potential problems with each alternative.
Mr. Daniels worried that moving the building to 2100 South and 900 East would create traffic chaos at that intersection. He also believes that moving the building to 2100 South is a disservice to the residential neighborhood on Elm Avenue. Mr. Daniels could not understand why no one has considered pulling the building to 2100 South and Lincoln as suggested by Chair Jonas. He noted that many stores are adding service stations and that could be the building that comes forward if Smith’s ever adds a service station. Ms. Anderson noted that Barnes and Noble frames the street and comes to the corner and that would not have been allowed if the Transportation Division felt it would create a traffic hazard. Ms. Noda agreed with Ms. Anderson. The Barnes and Noble building works fine and she does not believe that doing the same thing with the Smith’s building will create traffic problems.
John Diamond felt that this building as proposed does not meet the scale and character of Sugar House. In order to make this fit within the community and meet the master plan, Smith’s needs to take the approach of doing something different that does fit within the fabric of Sugar House. This approach involves a lot of things and he did not believe they could solve the problem tonight. Mr. Diamond suggested that the Planning Commission request that the Staff and Smith’s work together to decide how Smith’s can move forward with this project. Chair Jonas asked if there was a subcommittee working on this. Mr. Wilde replied that they have been using the Planned Development Subcommittee consisting of Prescott Muir, although he is recused, Peggy McDonough, Arla Funk, and Laurie Noda. Ms. Anderson noted that a meeting was held on November 20 and unfortunately only one commissioner attended. The comments at that time were to strengthen the pedestrian connection east and west at the front of the store, disguise the loading dock area and carry the architecture of detailing over to the dock on the east elevation, provide more architectural detailing on the south elevation, and re-evaluate the site layout to bring the building closer to 2100 South.
After further discussion, Chair Jonas stated that the best thing they can have in Sugar House is a successful anchor. This building does not fit the mold but the site does not fit either. Chair Jonas stated that he will never support creating impacts on the neighborhood that they have recently taken steps to protect. Mr. Diamond agreed that if the Planning Commission approved the current proposal, it would create a negative impact on the neighborhood. This development is not appropriate and he does not support this plan.
Motion
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to table this issue and allow the Staff, the Sugar House Community Council, adjacent residents, and Smith’s representatives to come together to find a workable solution.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Daniels to include the subcommittee as parties in his motion. Mr. Daniels accepted this suggestion to his motion
Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted Aye. Prescott Muir was recused. Ms. Funk and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote.
The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Daniels distributed a document he initiated asking for support for the west side community regarding tax issues which leads to a land use issue and perhaps rezoning. This document is intended to go to the Salt Lake Board of Equalization. Mr. Daniels explained that the tax assessors are saying that the property values are escalating. It is alarming for people to have to pay a large percentage of tax increases each year when, in fact, they are being offered low ball amounts for their homes because of the railroad tracks and the reactivation of the 900 South line. Mr. Daniels stated that this area is one of the few places in the City where the low income sector can buy houses. Chair Jonas was comfortable sending this letter on to the Salt Lake Board of Equalization. The Commissioners concurred.
Chair Jonas requested that the staff initiate a petition for downtown off-premise animated signs in an effort to help downtown and Main Street.
Mr. Wilde asked the Planning Commission to clarify their intent for changing the meeting dates and meeting location. The Commissioners preferred to use the room they used this evening and elected to change the Planning Commission meetings to the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of the month. Mr. Wilde noted that he spoke with Ms. Funk about the meeting change but he was unable to contact Ms. McDonough. He clarified that the change will take effect the second Wednesday in January which is January 8, 2003.
Chair Jonas reminded everyone that the Planning Commission will meet on December 12. Mr. Wilde indicated that the agenda for December 12 will include property conveyance matters as a consent agenda item and he felt the Planning Commission could move through them quickly. The Planning Commission will receive a revised agenda with those items listed.
Ms. Seelig commented on a long term planning issue that was raised as a result of the Pub discussed this evening. She understood that the zoning map and the central community master plan was changed in 1995 but that is not the vision for the area. One of the speakers mentioned that the master plan is where the community wants to go and she felt that reiterated the importance of staying up to date. From a professional standpoint, she is unsure if there is an acceptable rate for reviewing these master plans but the City is being unfair to the community when they do not frequently look at the master plans. The last time a master plan was approved for this area was 1974. She knows that there is a draft to update the master plan but a draft is a working document and not an approved document. She understands that the draft can be helpful but the Planning Commission cannot make decisions based on a draft. Ms. Seelig wondered if the Planning Commission could make a statement or request that all the master plans to be reviewed regularly on certain cycles. She felt it was irresponsible for the Planning Commission to make a decision based on a 1974 community master plan. Mr. Wilde replied that it is a matter of resources. At one time the City strived to update the master plans every ten years and the ideal would be every five to seven years. He recognized the need expressed by Ms. Seelig and noted that it does take funding allocation from the City Council. Mr. Wilde offered to provide Ms. Seelig with a schedule of when these plans were adopted and their contents, as well as upcoming updates.
Mr. Wilde announced that Cheri Coffey has agreed to serve as an Acting Deputy Director in the interim of trying to find a new Planning Director.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.