SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair, Tim Chambless; Vice Chair, Laurie Noda, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Kathy Scott. Craig Galli and Jennifer Seelig were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Doug Dansie; Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis; Principal Planner Ray McCandless; Principal Planner Lex Traughber; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Traffic Engineer Kevin Young.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:53 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 Wednesday, November 10, 2004
This item was heard at 5:53 p.m.
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected on the November 10, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Muir asked that his comments regarding the Yalecrest petition be included in entirety on page 11 of the minutes.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough abstained. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted in favor, one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, November 17, 2004
This item was heard at 5:54 p.m.
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected on the November 17, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Noda abstained. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Three Commissioners voted in favor, three Commissioners abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chair Chambless noted that the Planning Commission and City Council Chair and Vice Chair have an upcoming meeting scheduled for December 21, 2004.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:54 p.m.
Mr. Wilde noted that Staff has arranged a Planning Commission site visit to the new Gateway condos on December 15, 2004.
Mr. Wilde thanked the Planning Commission for accommodating the additional meeting on December 21, 2004. He asked if the Commission would like visit that site prior to the meeting, and if they prefer dinner or light snacks.
The Commission indicated that they would not need a fieldtrip and that dinner is not necessary due to the short meeting.
Chair Chambless noted that the first Planning Commission meeting in 2005 is scheduled for January 12th.
Mr. Wilde referred to item A on the agenda this evening, noting that the petition has gone through an open house process. The public was noticed for the open house as well as the Planning Commission meeting this evening. He stated that due to the nature of this petition Staff decided to prepare a fairly general additional notice for the hearing this evening. He said that due to the number of phone calls regarding this petition, Staff has concluded that the notice for the public hearing this evening was not as thorough as it could have been. Staff sent notices to the public; however, there was not enough information given relating to each affected address. Mr. Wilde stated that Staff’s recommendation is for the Planning Commission to allow public comment regarding the petition for those who are in attendance this evening and Staff will re-advertise the petition at a subsequent meeting and document every affected address to ensure that the notice is adequate.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Commission could continue item A to a subsequent meeting without hearing public comment.
Mr. Wilde said that the Commission has the discretion to do that.
Mr. Wilde noted that Kathy Castro, Planning Commission Secretary has accepted an Administrative Assistant position under the Community Development Department.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to the Planning Commission approval in the fall of 2003, of the planned development to convert the Redman Building into a condominium project. He noted that there was also a prior approval for a larger project when Woodbury was a partner. He stated that Woodbury is no longer a partner in the project. The Planning Commission approval of the smaller scale planned development in the fall of 2003 included 22 on-site parking stalls. There was also a necessity for off-site parking, which the Applicant worked to arrange on a parking lot parcel which was part of the Homestead Village planned development subdivision, which Woodbury claimed to own. The Planning Commission extended the one year approval in November of this year. Mr. Wheelwright said that the Redman plans have changed and Staff felt it necessary to describe the changes to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not they feel that the changes are substantial. If the Commission decides that the changes are substantial then the plans would have to come back before the Planning Commission for re-approval.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright to be more specific.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that projects often change from the time that they are reviewed by the Planning Commission and the time that they are actually built. The ordinance allows Staff a certain amount of latitude in deciding that the changes are substantial and need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheelwright noted that one of the changes is a request to construct the shell of the structure with one building permit and as the units are purchased the tenant finishes will require separate permits. He noted that the proposal now will include a lease agreement with the adjacent Chevron for 15 parking stalls to replace the lost parking. Mr. Wheelwright noted that Staff has received the condo plat and the Applicant is proposing 8 residential units and 6 commercial space units with the basement as assignable storage space. He said that it was never clarified as to the ratio of residential units versus commercial units.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Applicant has explored incorporating the required parking into the basement of the structure.
Mr. Lyle Beecher with Beecher Walker & Associates, the Architect for the project addressed the Commission. He stated that they are requesting to replace the off-site parking because they could not implement the parking as originally proposed. He stated that the Woodbury group misrepresented that they owned the said parking parcel. He stated that the Applicant is requesting to replace that off-site parking with Chevron stalls.
Commissioner Scott asked regarding the Applicant obtaining the building permit separately to complete the tenant finishes as the units are purchase. She asked if that is a significant change.
Mr. Wheelwright said that through the development process that level of detail was not discussed. He said that the mix of residential units versus commercial units was not finalized. He said that as the Applicant has explored possible tenants they have made changes. He said that there were never discussions of the separate permits for the finish work as part of the original approval.
Commissioner McDonough made a motion that the Redman condo project remain within the purview of the Planning Staff and Planning Director.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-02-43, by the Planning Commission in 2002 in order to correct zoning errors that occurred during the Zoning Re-write process. Several parcels were designated in the wrong land use zone, or not all of the parcels that belong to a use were zoned together, thereby creating split-zone situations.
This item was heard at 6:16 p.m.
Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis stated that there are 23 parcels included in this petition. As noted some of the parcels are split zones, which means that the zoning boundary falls in the middle of the parcel or in the middle of a collection of properties. She stated that other parcels were misplaced into the adjacent zoning or wrong zone. Ms. Lewis referred to the second item on the agenda noting that the Applicant’s property is also included in the proposed fine tuning petition. Ms. Lewis stated that Staff received responses from some of the property owners of affected parcels, who indicated that they do not want the zoning to change. She specifically identified item number 14 in the staff report, which is a property involved with the Bennion School. There was also concern with item number 19, which belongs to Dr. Gabbiola; and item number 5, which is located adjacent to the La Frontera Restaurant.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Ms. Heidi Nielsen, property owner of item 3 located at 653 South Milton Avenue, addressed the Commission. She stated her property is currently zoned public land, and she supports the request to rezone the property to residential.
Commissioner De Lay stated that as Ms. Nielsen’s Realtor at the time that she bought the home, they did not know that the property was zoned public land.
Mr. Scott Sabey, Attorney representing Dr. Gabbiola addressed the Commission. He stated that Dr. Gabbiola is opposed to the request to change the zoning of her property, located at 1167 East South Temple. He stated that Dr. Gabbiola requests that her property remain as it is currently zoned, because she believes that the potential real property value is increased by maintaining the public lands designation as oppose to residential zoning.
Mr. John Rokich, property owner of the 613 North Columbus Street, addressed the Commission. He stated that he supports the proposed rezone of his property.
Mr. Wilde noted that Mr. Rokich’s property is mentioned in the staff report under item 17A for the zoning change and item 17B for a property exchange.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-43
Commissioner De Lay made a motion to table Petition No. 400-04-43 until early 2005.
Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-04-41, Declaration of surplus land, and subsequent land exchange associated with the Mapping Fine Tuning Amendment. This petition is a request made by the residential property owner, to exchange a portion of the property located at 613 North Columbus Street for a portion of the property associated with the Capitol Hill Water Tank site. This exchange for the City is a declaration of surplus and an acquisition of equal size.
This item was heard at 6:25 p.m.
Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the petition as written in the staff report. She noted that during the fine tuning process, Staff contacted Mr. and Mrs. Rokich who indicated that there are slope issues at the rear of their property. Ms. Lewis stated that the purpose of the proposed exchange is to clear up those slope issues which will provide more protection for the Capitol Hill water tank site, as well as provide the Applicant with more useable land. Ms. Lewis noted that Salt Lake City Public Works have reviewed the proposal and have indicated no concern.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the Community Council reviewed the proposed petition.
Ms. Lewis replied that the Ordinance does not require Community Council review of this type of petition; however, the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee (MOSAC) has submitted a favorable recommendation.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Rokich, the Applicant addressed the Commission to say that the proposed action will be a positive solution for all involved.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-41
Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission declare the subject property surplus and transmit a favorable recommendation to the Mayor to allow the equal exchange of the subject property with the property associated with 613 North Columbus Street address with the condition that the property being transferred by the City will be free of encroachments or barriers (i.e. fencing) by the date of transfer.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. Petition No. 490-04-08, by Troy Herold of C.L.C. Associates representing Sam's Club, requesting approval of a 1-lot minor subdivision located at approximately 1905 South 300 West in a General Commercial “CG” zoning district.
This item was heard at 6:28 p.m.
Principal Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that Sam’s Club is currently proposing to construct a new membership retail store at approximately 1905 South 300 West. The Applicants are requesting a subdivision approval to consolidate four different lots into one single parcel. Mr. McCandless stated that the subdivision was approved at an administrative hearing on May 4, 2004; however, Staff received a letter protesting the approval from the adjacent property owner of the Peterson Filter Company. The letter indicated two concerns; one, was the limitation of large truck access to the Peterson Property; two, was a concern with the fencing along the south property line next to the Peterson Filter property. Mr. McCandless noted that the two issues are site plan related issues and the request before the Planning Commission is the subdivision. Staff recommends based on the findings in the staff report that the Commission approve the requested subdivision with the conditions noted in the staff report.
Commissioner De Lay asked regarding the potential for a traffic signal in this area.
Mr. Kevin Young, City Traffic Engineer replied that the only potential location would be at Hartwell Street. He said that if the driveway issue can not be resolved between the property owners, then the Peterson driveway would need to be located out of the intersection at Hartwell Street.
Commissioner De Lay indicated concern that the Peterson Corporation may have issues that will not be addressed if the subdivision is approved.
Mr. Young said that he is confident that the site access issues can be worked out after the subdivision is approved.
Commissioner Muir suggested that the Applicant attempt to purchase the Peterson property. He said that he did not believe that a decent intersection for this property could be developed without the acquisition of the Peterson property.
Commissioner McDonough asked what the Commission is reviewing as part of this petition. She stated that her inclination is to critique the site plan as well as the request for subdivision approval
Mr. McCandless replied that the Commission is reviewing the request for a subdivision.
Commissioner De Lay stated that she appreciates Commissioner Muir’s concern that the plan before the commission could be problematic for the Peterson Corporation.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that Staff included the different options of access in the staff report to demonstrate to the Commission that there are different options that can be pursued.
Mr. Troy Harold, Senior Project Manager with CLC Associates, representing Sam’s Club addressed the Commission. He stated that they have been consistently working with Peterson Corporation since to issue was brought up in early May. He stated that the only existing access for the Peterson property is a 12 foot wide driveway at the north side of his building. He said that they proposed to landscape over the existing access and provide a newly paved access into the actual truck maneuvering area. He added that they also planned to fence the Peterson property. During the final negotiations Mr. Peterson agreed to the proposed plans at a cost that was not feasible for Sam’s Club. Mr. Harold stated that they need to proceed with the development to meet their timelines and the approval this evening is all that is needed. He referred to the suggestion that Sam’s Club purchase the Peterson property saying that they did not feel that it was appropriate to negotiate with Mr. Peterson anymore, and they did not need the Peterson property to develop a safe intersection. Mr. Harold reiterated that they are requesting a subdivision approval and the issues identified by Mr. Peterson are site plan related and will be addressed through the site plan review process by Staff.
Commissioner McDonough asked how the Applicant felt about option C of the staff report.
Mr. Harold replied that it is not ideal for them because it would not allow for a future signal. He indicated that Sam’s Club prefers a signal for the convenience and safety of their customers. He indicated concerns that customers may be making dangerous maneuvers while trying to leave the site if there is no signal.
Commissioner Muir asked how the Applicant feels about option A of the staff report
Mr. Harold reiterated that they are requesting a one lot subdivision approval, which meets the ordinance requirements. He said that they are willing to meet all of the requirements of the subdivision as well as install the improvements per option A and approved site plans. He said that they can not force someone to dedicate their property to Sam’s Club nor can they force someone to put in a traffic signal.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. Lance Neverline, an employee of the Peterson Corporation addressed the Commission. He stated that there are concerns with the increased traffic associated with the proposed Sam’s Club. He stated that it is currently difficult to maneuver a truck into the Peterson lot and the increased traffic will only make maneuvering large trucks on 300 West more difficult.
Commissioner McDonough asked how trucks currently enter the site.
Mr. Neverline replied that the signal at 2100 South allows a break in traffic and the truck utilizes that and backs into the Peterson access.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Mr. Harold stated that the site plans address the concerns by allowing a truck to maneuver into the site without the conflicts that Mr. Neverline mentioned. He stated that they are concerned that if Mr. Peterson does not agree to the proposed plans then he will have those issues to deal with.
Commissioner Muir asked, hypothetically, if the Applicant would be open to the possibility of Sam’s Club dedicating that access drive to the City as public domain. Perhaps the City could help loosen the negotiations by the threat of eminent domain, to create a better solution to this problem.
Mr. Harold stated that they would be open to that possibility. He stated that they hope that the Commission could approve the request and Mr. Peterson would see that the project is proceeding and would be more willing to negotiate.
Commissioner De Lay replied that she believes that the plans presented would improve the current situation and she is inclined to approve it.
Commissioner Muir asked Staff if the Commission can render an opinion on the options presented.
Mr. Wheelwright replied that the issues are not relevant to the subdivision approval; however, there is a relationship between the subdivision approval and the site plan. He said that Staff’s intent in including the various options was to show that there are many viable options for the south drive approach. Staff prefers not to be the strong arm of condemning the Peterson driveway.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the Commission include a condition regarding the signal and traffic flow.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the staff report identified the criteria for subdivision approval. He said that the Commission may apply conditions that have a rational nexus to the approval.
Motion for Petition No. 490-04-08
Commissioner Muir made a motion based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval of the Sam's Club Subdivision subject to:
1. Meeting all City departmental requirements.
2. Recordation of a final subdivision plat, including street widening dedication as required.
3. The Planning Commission feels that the traffic configuration at Hartwell Street of option A is the only practical solution, and admonishes the Administration to bring about that configuration.
Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.
Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay voted “Nay. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-04-42 & 410-710, Unity Center Rezone, Master Plan Amendment, and Conditional Use. Request by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department for a rezone of the property located at 1385 South 900 West from “I” (Institutional) to “PL” (Public Lands) to accommodate the proposed Unity Center building. In addition, a rezone is requested for the properties located at 1325 South 800 West, 1327 South 800 West, 747 West 1300 South, and 739 West 1300 South from R-1-7000 (Single Family Residential) to “PL” (Public Lands), as well as a conditional use on these properties for off-site parking to serve the proposed Unity Center. The rezone for the off-site parking requires an amendment to the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan to an “I” (Institutional) land use designation.
This item was heard at 7:01 p.m.
Principal Planner Lex Traughber presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that currently the location of the proposed unity center and parking lot are vacant. Mr. Traughber stated that this site was part of the compromise reached for closing Main Street between North and South Temple. Mr. Traughber identified two adjacent properties that the City is in negotiations of obtaining to realize this project. He noted that those two properties are currently zoned “PL”.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the location of the parking lot in relation to the proposed health and fitness center. He asked what will be done to address the slowing of traffic to ensure the safety of pedestrians while crossing the street.
Ms. Coffey stated that the Commission has the prerogative to add a condition to ensure that that will be addressed.
Commissioner Delay asked Commissioner Diamond for a suggestion to address that.
Commissioner Diamond suggested options such as: further narrowing the road, texture in the road, or signage to reduce the potential speed of traffic.
Mr. Rick Graham, Salt Lake City Public Services Director addressed the Commission. He noted that this project came about as part of the solution to the Main Street issue. The Alliance of Unity dedicated 4 million dollars in addition to the LDS Church donating their property with the condition that the fund and the land be developed through partnerships, into a unique and cultural unity facility that is designed to meet the service and programming needs identified by the local community. He stated that they explored several options for this facility and expanded off of the Sorensen Center concept and other youth programs to develop the current plan. Mr. Graham noted that they conducted a community involvement process that was much more extensive than would be typically conducted. From that process the community indicated five types of programming needed one, the expansion of health and physical fitness; two, cultural exchange where the community can come together and express themselves; three, education and training, which would allow space for organizations to provide skill development; four, mental, dental, and physical health programming; five, a resource center such as financial and legal assistance. Mr. Graham stated that they have taken the community concerns and have developed the current plan with the collaboration of several different development groups. He noted that through the partnership many emerged who were willing to bring their own capitol to this program. He noted that the Guadalupe Elementary School has expressed an interest in relocating their school from 400 South Goshen Avenue to a location adjacent to the proposed Unity Center. He stated that the school is working to raise the needed finances to achieve that process. Mr. Graham referred to Commissioner Diamond’s concern regarding the pedestrian safety. He stated that they are exploring the suggestions made by Commissioner Diamond and are very concerned with the pedestrian safety and want to crate an easy and safe access to the site.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the landscaping of the parking lot identified in the site plan. He asked if that plan is representative of what will be realized.
Mr. Traughber replied that that plan is not representative of what Staff envisioned. He noted that in the Staff recommendation one of the conditions of approval is that the final landscaping plan be approved by the Planning Director.
Commissioner Diamond encouraged more landscaping to help buffer the property.
Commissioner Noda referred to page eight of the staff report which noted that the proposal as presented assumes that the two residential parcels which the City is in negotiations of obtaining, will be obtained and purchased by the City. Commissioner Noda asked if that acquisition of property is likely.
Mr. Graham replied that the residential property owner has accepted the offer for the two properties and the closing date is set for December 15, 2004. He said that the two parcels will be acquired by Sorensen Development, and the property will be donated and transferred to City ownership.
Commissioner Scott asked how many parking spaces are in the parking lot to the east of the site. She asked what the parking requirement for this type of use is.
Mr. Traughber replied that he believed that 130 spaces are proposed. He stated that the parking requirement is 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Commissioner Scott asked if the parking will be shared among the different structures in this project.
Mr. Traughber replied that he believed so.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-42 & 410-710
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-42, based on the comments, analysis, and findings noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject properties from “I” (Institutional) and “R-1-7000” (Single Family Residential) to “PL” (Public Lands). Further that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the West Salt Lake Master Plan to reflect an “Institutional” land use designation for those properties to be occupied by the proposed off-site parking located off of 800 West.
In addition Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-710, based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission approve the request for the conditional use for off-site parking for the subject parcels located off of 800 West with the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall submit applications for preliminary subdivision approval for both locations, namely the proposed building site on 900 West and the proposed off-site parking fronting 800 West. The preliminary subdivision process to consolidate those lots where the Unity Center building is proposed depends on the Applicant’s ability to obtain adjacent residential properties.
2. Should the City Council deny the rezone request for the properties to be used for the off-site parking fronting 800 West, any Conditional Use granted by the Planning Commission at this location shall become null and void. In other words, the Planning Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use is conditioned upon the City Council’s approval of the rezone request.
3. Final approval of the landscape and buffering plans for the off-site parking shall be delegated to the Planning Director with specific instructions and emphasis on slowing traffic between the Health and Fitness Center and the parking lot to the northeast of that building; and creative landscaping for that area.
Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 410-707, by Gateway Retail Holdings, L.C., requesting a planned development approval to construct a new building in the Gateway Mixed Use District. The proposed location of the new retail building is 4 North 500 West and is a part of the Gateway mall.
This item was heard at 7:24 p.m.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that the entire Gateway project originally went through the planned development approval process, and the development was multiple phases. The proposal this evening is the final phase of that project and was originally approved as a hotel site. Mr. Dansie noted that the hotel market in Salt Lake has changed since the initial approval and the Applicant is requesting that this small parcel be completed as two retail bays on the first level and one on the second level. Mr. Dansie noted that this proposal has been to the Planned Development Subcommittee on two occasions. The Subcommittee indicated concern with the issue of activating the 500 West space along the back of the proposed structure. The Applicant has responded by carrying the City Creek fountain through the pedestrian space, and they have added a stair case on 500 West to allow the public to access the second level from there. They have also added retail windows along the back of the structure on 500 West. He noted that the “GMU” zone requires that 70 percent of new construction be brick or masonry. Minor materials can be used up to 30 percent. The original Gateway planned development approval received waiver to exceed the 30 percent of minor materials. To keep the current proposal constant with the original structures, the Applicant is also requesting the waiver of that requirement. Mr. Dansie stated that the Applicant is proceeding with the 2 retail bays at this time because they have negotiated lease agreements and would like to have the structures complete by June of 2005. Mr. Dansie referred to the requirement of 50 percent of the square foot along 500 West be housing. He stated that this phase will be tied to the adjacent housing which will exceed that requirement. Mr. Dansie stated that in light of the comments, analysis and findings noted in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested planned development subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Commissioner McDonough asked if the Police Department reviewed the proposal.
Mr. Dansie stated that the Police reviewed it and Staff received no response.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Commission needs to extend the waiver to this project.
Mr. Dansie replied that the Commission does need to extend it to this project and the rationale for that is that the proposal needs to be consistent with the original development.
Commissioner Muir referred to condition number 2 of the staff report. He asked if the conditional use is for the waiver of housing and the approval of the building materials as presented.
Mr. Dansie replied that is correct.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the upper level of the site plan. She asked if the Applicant would be willing to incorporate more glass into the upper level at the stairway. She indicated concern with that space being out of the way of the main traffic flow and a potential concern of the public safety.
Mr. Jake Boyer of the Boyer Company representing Gateway Retail Holding L.C. addressed the Commission. He said that he appreciated Commissioner McDonough’s comments, and they had not discussed that. Mr. Boyer said that they have found that it becomes challenging to wrap glass around a corner of a space in terms of the actual layout of the retail space.
Commissioner McDonough said that her comment relates more to the perception of surveillance. She suggested that the Applicant integrate that concept.
Chair Chambless asked for a description of the moving water fountain.
Mr. Boyer noted that the City Creek theme has been part of the Gateway Development, and they plan to redirect “City Creek” an build and extension through the pedestrian access to 500 West. He said that although the Creek will have the appearance of a running creek it will be circulated.
Chair Chambless asked how visible and how loud will the Creek be.
Mr. Boyer replied that it will be very similar to the existing Creek situation.
Commissioner Diamond encouraged the Applicant to add additional stone to the lower section of the structure.
Mr. Boyer replied that they plan to continue to use the stone along the base of the building that is constant with the existing Gateway. He said that they will work with Staff to accomplish that.
Commissioner Diamond added that he agrees with Commissioner McDonough’s comments. He also suggested that the Applicant use a mesh type of pattern on the stairway rail, which would help address the safety issues.
Mr. Boyer agreed with that suggestion.
Commissioner Scott asked regarding the total square footage of the Gateway with this addition. She asked what the originally projected square footage was for the entire Gateway.
Mr. Boyer stated that the addition is for 18,000 square feet of retail space. The current space is 620, 000 square feet, which will be a total of 638,000 square feet.
Commissioner Scott asked how many residential units are complete. She asked what the original projections were regarding housing.
Mr. Boyer replied that there are 500 residential units. He said that the original projections were 500 units.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-707
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-707, in light of the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, and the comments expressed this evening, that the Planning Commission approve the petition; as follows:
1. The planned development be approved.
2. The conditional use for housing and building material be approved.
3. The final design be approved by the Planning Director.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner McDonough asked to include a condition that the Applicant integrates less EIFS and alternate materials and more glass at the north façade of the upper level.
Commissioner Muir asked to also include a condition that the Applicant integrates an open railing on the stairway.
Commissioner Scott accepted the amendments.
Commissioner De Lay accepted that amendments as well.
Amended Motion for Petition No. 410-707
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-707, in light of the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, and the comments expressed this evening, that the Planning Commission approve the petition; as follows:
1. The planned development be approved.
2. The conditional use for housing and building material be approved.
3. The final design be approved by the Planning Director.
4. The Applicant shall integrate less EIFS and alternate materials and more glass at the north façade of the upper level.
5. The Applicant shall integrate an open railing on the stairway.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 410-697, 410-698, and 410-699, by Steven Heil, representing Little America/Sinclair Oil, requesting conditional use approval for three separate commercial parking lots in a “D-1” zoning district. The proposed parking lots are located 465 South Main (Petition 410-697, southwest corner of the block 39, plat A), 47 West 600 South (Petition 410-698, north half of the block 22, plat A) and 450 South Main (Petition 410-699, entire block 40, Plat A).
This item was heard at 7:56 p.m.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that these three petitions were tabled by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2004, with the direction that the Applicant work to address some of the concerns. Mr. Dansie stated that the Commission received the original plans as well as the modified plans. Mr. Dansie identified the modifications as noted in the proposed plans. He noted that the new renderings propose less parking and more landscaping.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the condition of the block 40 parking lot which stated that landscaping may be allowed in lieu of a structure separating the parking lot from the street. He said that if read literally one would think that parking would not be allowed within the 75 foot setback from the street. He noted that if a building were within the 75 foot setback there could be parking in front of the building.
Chair Chambless asked how permanent the parking lots will be. He asked how close the parking lot sites are to the Trax stops.
Mr. Dansie stated that there is the 500 South Trax stop immediately adjacent to block 40 and block 39. He noted that they have included a mid block cross walk to the Trax stops.
Commissioner Muir complimented the Applicant on behalf of the Commission for their investment to the Downtown Community.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Applicant will address the public safety issues associated with the pedestrian crossing in the final development. He specifically indicated concern with the issue of slowing traffic in the area.
Mr. Steve Holding, representative of Little America and Sinclair replied that that is correct.
Commissioner Muir asked the Applicant to give insight to the Commission and Staff as to why surface parking lots are the best use of central, critical real estate in Downtown.
Mr. Holding replied that they do not believe that surface parking lots are the best use; however, they are attempting to beautify and improve the sites. He stated that they view the surface parking lots as an interim solution.
Commissioner Muir asked if there is anything that the City can do to help improve the demand for more viable uses.
Mr. Steve Heil, representative of Little America and Sinclair replied that much of what Little America does is dependant upon the success of the Gateway.
Chair Chambless asked what the Applicant’s timeframe is to change the surface parking lots given that the market improves.
Mr. Heil replied that it is really hard to judge at this point, because of the different variables involved.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the amount of trees proposed in the plans, and asked whether or not is it a good representation of the final product.
Mr. Holding replied that they intend to plant at least 500 trees amongst the three lots.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the suggestion by City Councilmember Nancy Saxton to create a public space across from the Trax stop at one of the proposed sites. He stated that they discussed the liability issues associated with the public use of private property in the Subcommittee meetings. He asked if the Applicant has discussed any possibilities to answer that request.
Mr. Holding stated that there are obvious liability concerns and they have not come up with a way to accomplish that.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the Applicant consider a place for people to gather otherwise they may gather and walk around on the landscaping.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dansie stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the requests as newly submitted with the original conditions as noted in the staff reports.
Commissioner Diamond asked if it would be appropriate to request that the Applicant come back before the Commission to provide update within a certain timeline.
Mr. Wilde replied that the ordinance does not authorize temporary conditional uses. As long as the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval then the conditional use will run with the land.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that a better dialogue be created between the City and land owners to develop higher and better uses for land which enhance the City.
Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner Diamond. She referred to the concept of “pay or play” ordinances in other cities which does not allow for land-banking. Commissioner Noda indicated that she believes that Salt Lake City has a problem with land-banking. She noted concern that if the proposed sites are developed into parking lots then they will not be redeveloped in a long time.
Chair Chambless asked Mr. Dansie as a Planner, if square block parking lots contribute to the vitality of Downtown.
Mr. Dansie replied that obviously the preference of the City is to have buildings on every corner and utilize the space for high rises and mixed-use developments. He also noted that it is natural for cities to change and it is a balancing act. He said that one has to ask would we rather see the current scenario continue or a landscaped lot; because preferred dense development, is not an option.
Commissioner Scott asked if it is possible for Staff to establish historically how much land has been used for parking lots or land-banking within the blocks in question.
Mr. Dansie said that he did not know of a good method to determine the accurate count for that.
Commissioner McDonough asked Commissioner Muir to explain the line of reasoning that he expressed in the Subcommittee meetings regarding how this project may not set the precedence which the Commission is fearful of setting.
Commissioner Muir stated that he believes that the intent of the ordinance requirement of the 75 foot setback precludes the opportunity for an interim return on the property from a vacancy to a built infrastructure. He stated, based on that logic, provided that this scheme does not have any net parking gain over a strict interpretation of the Code, then it meets the intent of the ordinance, and perhaps exceeds it because it will create a better landscaped configuration distributed over the broad parking areas. He stated that the landscaping will help to break up the parking lots rather than concentrating them into a sea of asphalt. Commissioner Muir felt that if the Commission approved the requests with the stipulation that there was no net gain over a stick interpretation of the ordinance then the Commission would have an understanding of the action and could be consistent in going forward with other applications.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the Applicant is far exceeding the landscaping. She stated that she believed that there is a compelling need for the proposed parking lots with the potential of what will be happening with the courts buildings.
Commissioner Scott referred to the Trax line saying that she believed that Park and Ride lots are in place so that people would leave their cars out in the suburbs and rely on the public transportation. She indicated concern that if the proposed parking lots are approved then it would allow people to drive into Salt Lake City and park at the said lots then ride Trax free within the free ride zone. She indicated concern that the proposed parking lots will undermine the public transportation. She said that she agreed that the current scenario is an eyesore, and should be improved. Commissioner Scott stated that she did not believe that the Community is asking too much to request that the Applicant, as a cooperate citizen, clean up their blocks. She said that that the real question is, does the Commission really want to approve blocks for parking for an undetermined amount of time. She said that the community should require the real estate holders to step up and maintain their properties, particularly because we all coexist.
Commissioner Muir said that hopefully the Parking and Transportation Master Plans that UTA is leading will give direction to address Commissioner Scott’s concerns. He stated that the Applicant is invested in the process and he felt that to some degree the Commission needs to take a leap of faith and trust the Applicant that there is a need for the proposed parking.
Commissioner McDonough agreed with Commissioner Scott’s point. She stated that inevitably the value of blocks 39 and 40 will not holdout as the most lucrative option for the property holders. She said that she is confident that the City will eventually will grow and those sites will be transformed into other uses.
Commissioner Diamond referred to Main Street saying that there is a relationship between the ZCMI Center, Crossroads Mall and the Grand America. He said that through the transformation of the malls and the building that will come down off of South Temple, there will be a need for parking during that interim. He added that for the Grand America this is an opportunity to provide parking for people. Commissioner Diamond suggested that if the proposal is approved that the Applicant work for an accelerated process of the redevelopment of the sites into structures.
Commissioner Diamond asked Councilmember Saxton to speak regarding what she has seen based on her comments at the last hearing regarding the possibility of the park.
Councilmember Saxton addressed the Commission saying that her position is more general and theoretical. She agreed with Commissioner Diamond in that the City is making great headways on Main Street; however, there is a long way to go. Councilmember Saxton noted that Grand America and Little America are wonderful anchors at the end of Main Street; however, there is an abyss between 400 South and 500 South. She said that there are constant complaints of too many parking lots; however, we all drive too much, so parking is a necessity. Councilmember Saxton stated that there have been huge amounts of money in the City’s mass transportation and there is a Trax stop right at the door of the Applicant’s property. She stated that the type of landscaping that is proposed is admirable, but it is still a parking lot. She referred to her first suggestion of a park incorporated in to this plan, saying that perhaps the Applicant would rather add a pathway through the 75 foot setback area with historic information for people to walk through and enjoy. Councilmember Saxton said that she believes that Sinclair Oil has the ability to be creative. She said that the Applicant is coming before the Commission and asking for something and the Commission can encourage them to give something back. Councilmember Saxton said that the Commission has articulated both sides of the argument very well and she agrees with many of the point raised on both sides; however, whatever Sinclair Oil develops on the sites will be there for a long time. She encouraged the Commission to carefully consider their decision.
Chair Chambless indicated that perhaps block 40 be a simple park with mounds and landscaping.
Commissioner De Lay disagreed with the concept of adding another park. She noted that there has been a substantial amount of time spent trying to address the issues with the existing parks, specifically mentioning crime and people who gather at those locations.
Commissioner Scott indicated that the answer is not to eliminate parks but to provide other services to address those issues.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the Applicant explore other possibilities for block 40 to be developed into something other than parking lot, or that the north portion of the block be transformed into a park.
Commissioner Noda agreed with the comments that the proposed parking lots may undermine the mass transit. She said that she has noticed a change in the mentality of people in that they are looking to mass transit more because they realize that they may not be able to find a place to park their car. She said that the courts’ employees have been encouraged to utilize mass transit. She added that something like a park would be an amenity for the community and those that work Downtown.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scott asked how the Commission would integrate a coordination of the City and the Applicant to develop a park.
Commissioner Muir said that he believes that this property owner has every incentive to extend his proposal beyond parking. He said that he realizes that economic concerns are not relevant to land use, but if you consider the property values, and investment in landscaping, and asphalt they will be well over 20,000 dollars per parking stall. He stated that if they are lucky they may get a return of 50-60 dollars per stall per month. He said that he believed that the ground value of the property far exceeds any type of reasonable return on a parking lot. He believed that the astute business persons of Sinclair Oil will want to transform the sites into a more productive use.
Motion for Petition No. 410-697, 410-698, & 410-699
Commissioner Muir made a motion in light of the comments, analysis, and findings of fact, and the Staff recommendation noted in the staff reports, that the Planning Commission approve the requested conditional uses for parking lots related to Petition No. 410-697, located at 465 south Main Street (Block 39); Petition No. 410-698, located at 47 west 600 South (Block 22); and Petition No. 410-699, located at 450 South main Street on (Block 40) as newly proposed, and with the following conditions:
1. Landscape be allowed in lieu of a structure separating a parking lot from the street.
2. Approval of the final landscape plan is delegated to the Planning Director concerning Petition No. 410-697 and Petition No. 410-698.
3. Petition No. 410-697 and Petition No. 410-699 shall be approved by the Historic Landmark Staff.
Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Muir voted “Aye”. Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Four Commissioners voted in favor, and two Commissioners voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No.400-04-19, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting to alter the zoning text to decrease the minimum lot size required for a planned development in the “RMF-75” zoning district.
Petition No. 400-04-17, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting to amendment the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow single-family attached dwellings in the “RMF-75” zoning district.
This item was heard at 8:55 p.m.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the map of the areas zoned “RMF-75” which are typically located near high-rise developments. Mr. Dansie stated that the proposal is a request to allow single family attached homes to the land use chart which would give developers another alternative to high density high rise buildings or single family homes. He added that this proposal will allow the opportunity for infill development.
In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance to amend the zoning text to allow for single family attached homes within the RMF-75 zoning district. This action will require the amendment of the land use chart 21A24.190 to allow single-family attached dwellings as a permitted use and to amend the minimum lot area and width as illustrated by the attached draft ordinance.
Commissioner De Lay stated that town homes are very difficult to find and there is a great need. She asked what the petition included only the “RMF-75” zone.
Mr. Wilde noted that the “RMF-30”, “RMF-35”, and “RMF-45” all currently allow attached dwellings.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-17
Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance to amend the zoning text to allow for single family attached homes within the “RMF-75” zoning district. This action will require the amendment of the land use chart 21A24.190 to allow single-family attached dwellings as a permitted use and to amend the minimum lot area and width as illustrated by the attached draft ordinance.
Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-19
Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance to amend the zoning text to decrease the minimum size lot required for a planned development in the RMF-75 zoning district.
Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 410-705 by the Episcopal Diocese of Utah, represented by Tom Buese, architect, requesting approval for a planned development to construct a new Diocesan Center at approximately 47 South 200 East, which would allow parking within the front and corner yard setback and an accessory structure (food bank) to be located within the front yard setback of 100 South Street. The project also includes a request for conditional use approval to allow the principal building to be setback more than five feet from the property line and be built less than 100 feet high and be exempt from meeting the 40% glass requirement along 200 East. The majority of the property is zoned Downtown “D-1”; a small portion of the property is zoned Residential Mixed Use- “RMU”. The Applicant is also requesting a conditional use for a portion of the Place of Worship use to be located in the “RMU” zoning district.
This item was heard at 9:05 p.m.
Commissioner Muir recused himself. He stated that he would support the Commission moving the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures to a public hearing.
Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey presented the petition as written in the staff report. She noted that the site of the proposed project is on the City and National Register of Historic Places. She stated that the Diocese of Utah and the Cathedral of St. Mark would like to make this a campus for the Cathedral and the headquarters for the Episcopal Diocese of St. Mark. Ms. Coffey referred to the site plan and noted that the property that the Cathedral sits on is the Landmark site, which is under the preview of the Historic landmark Commission. She stated that the project went before the Historic Landmark Commission on November 3, 2004, at which time they recommended the conceptual approval of the new addition and the architectural design of the food bank.
Ms. Coffey noted that the goal of the project is to make the Cathedral Church of Saint Mark the focal point of the property. In doing so they are requesting the following Planning Commission approvals:
• Conditional Use to modify the Maximum Setback Requirement in the “D-1” zoning district- Structures built within 165 feet of block corners must be setback no more than 5 feet.
• Conditional Use to modify the Minimum Height Requirement in the “D-1” zoning district. Buildings within 165 feet of the block corner must be no less than 100 feet tall.
• Conditional Use to expand a Place of Worship in the “RMU” zoning district. The proposed food bank is shown on property that is currently located within the “RMU” zoning district. Places of Worship are a conditional use in the “RMU” zoning district.
• Planned Development approval to allow parking on block corners. The parking lot or structure must be 75 feet from the front or corner side yard setback.
• Planned Development approval to allow accessory structures in the front yard. Accessory Structures (food bank) must be located in the rear yard.
• Planned Development approval to modify landscaping requirements. Modifications to the required Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping are being requested.
Ms. Coffey noted that there are currently five parcels that are included in the property for the proposed Episcopal Church Campus. The Applicant’s are proposing to combine the property parcels and will be required to go through a subdivision process. They have stated that in the end, there will be two parcels: one owned by the Episcopal Diocese of Utah where the Diocesan Center will be located and one owned by the Cathedral Church of Saint Mark where the Cathedral, Parish Hall addition and food pantry will be located. The northernmost parcel has two zoning classifications: “D-1” on the west and “RMU” on the east with frontage on 300 East. The eastern part of the parcel will be subdivided off, creating a new parcel for future development. The Subdivision process will occur after the Planning Commission’s review of the Planned Development and Conditional Use portions of the project. The Applicant wants to know whether the proposed site layout is acceptable before finalizing the preliminary subdivision plat.
The Applicant desires to leave the southwest corner of property as open space rather than placing a tall building at this corner because they are of the view that it would take away from the Cathedral being the focal point on the site. In addition, the proposed placement mirrors the proposed Parish Hall addition to the Cathedral, which has been conceptually approved by the Historic Landmark Commission.
The proposal is for the construction of a Diocesan Center for the Episcopal Diocese of Utah. The structure will house offices, meeting rooms, a bookstore/ coffee shop, overnight stay rooms and accessory accommodations. The Diocesan Center is proposed to mainly operate during regular business hours although there will be evening activities and some overnight stay.
The food bank will be designed to minimize its appearance east of the Cathedral. The Applicant is requesting approval of this location for the accessory structure to the Cathedral to ensure this aspect of the Church ministry is visible to the public and to minimize the need for food bank patrons to walk to the back of the property to receive their goods.
Ms. Coffey stated that based on the findings of fact, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the request as the Staff recommendation indicates in the staff report page 16.
Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Coffey regarding the purpose of the parking lot to west of the Cathedral.
Ms. Coffey said that the Applicant’s have indicated that the small parking lot will allow access for those who have difficulty walking to park close to the main entrance.
Mr. Kenton Peters, and Mr. Tom Buese, with Buese and Peters Architects addressed the Commission. Mr. Buese stated that they are the architects for the Diocese portion of the project which is the west side of the block.
Mr. Peters referred to the site plan noting that the Subcommittee had concerns with recessing the building from the corner of the lot. He said that with the proposed plan they tried to balance the ordinance requirements while balancing two building subordinate to the Cathedral and maintaining view corridors. He referred to the site plan and identified elevation changes and architectural elements in the building. Mr. Peters described the proposed landscaping and the water feature which will allow for a welcoming space within the project. He referred to the parking stating that they are proposing to extend the paving pattern thereby reducing the effect of asphalt while acknowledging the parking area. Mr. Peters noted the significant grade change which they have mitigated by allowing an ADA Access as well as a drop off area.
Mr. Dwight Nicholson, with Eldridge and Nicholson Architects addressed the Commission. Mr. Nicholson stated that they are the architects for the parish hall and the food bank. He gave a brief history of the food bank, saying that it was originally located in Spalding Hall, and then moved to the Jubilee Center. He stated that because it is an outreach program for the parishioners they would like to relocate the food bank to the parish. He also noted that at the proposed location the parish Sexton could monitor the facility.
Commissioner McDonough asked how the facility will accommodate lines. She specifically asked how a crowd will be mitigated in front of the building from encroaching in the public way.
Mr. Nicholson replied that the people who will utilize this service will typically pick up bags of food and leave the site.
Commissioner McDonough noted that her intent behind that question is regarding the flow of traffic and congestion in the public way.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scott Rosevear, with the Law Firm of Snell and Wilmer, representing Cummings Investment Corp. addressed the Commission. He noted that Cummings owns the adjacent property and have encouraged the proposed development. He stated that often people come to the food bank early and form a line. He said that Cummings is concerned that the line may affect the ingress and egress to the Cummings property.
Commissioner Diamond agreed that that is a functional issue and a valid concern.
Mr. Wilde suggested that fairly simple signage may help to direct people appropriately.
Mr. Peters replied that the signs would help, as well as the distance that separates the two properties.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McDonough commended the work done on the plaza corner. She said that she believed that one of the keys to the success of this project is the fact that the parking is not asphalt. She suggested including the paving pattern for the parking area as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner McDonough, that the parking should be paved. She appreciated the detail of the rendering proposed this evening.
Commissioner Diamond stated that from a land use planning stand point, the buildings do not respond to the zone. He argued that the buildings should be moved to the corner and that middle part of the labyrinth should respond more to the corner. He added that the parking on the north side of the structure rather than the front, will not allow for a good experience for the parishioners. Commissioner Diamond stated that the gable end is almost more dominant then the front of the church. He referred to the food bank, saying that he believes that it would be more appropriate if it were integrated on the west side of the property.
Commissioner Scott stated that she liked the plan a great deal, and the balance of form and function worship as well as out reach is very evangelizing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-705
Commissioner Scott made a motion based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission approve the proposed request which is Petition No. 410-705 of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah with the conditions as follows:
1. Grant Conditional Use approval to waive the maximum setback requirement for block corners in the “D-1” zoning district;
2. Grant Conditional Use approval to waive the minimum height requirement for buildings within 165 feet of block corners in the “D-1” zoning district;
3. Grant Conditional Use approval to allow the expansion of the Place of Worship use in the “RMU” zoning district;
4. Modify the “D-1” zoning district regulation to allow parking within 75 feet of the block corner;
5. Modify the “RMU” zoning requirement to allow an accessory building (food bank) in the front yard;
6. Modify the perimeter parking lot landscaping requirement from 7 feet to 5 feet on the north and 4 feet on the east;
7. Waive the perimeter parking lot landscaping requirement in the northern section of the proposed parking lot where a future parcel line will be drawn;
8. Require cross access easements for internal circulation to be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit;
9. Require cross easements for drainage across property lines to be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit;
10. Require subdivision approval prior to the issuance of a building permit;
11. Prohibit the use of standing seam metal roof on the Diocesan Center;
12. Delegate final architectural approval of the Diocesan Center for the Planning Director with input from the Historic Landmark Commission to ensure compatibility with the Cathedral;
13. Delegate final landscaping plan authority to the Planning Director including location of 5% interior parking lot landscaping and plaza design.
Therefore, that the Planning Commission grant Conditional Use approval for a modification to the maximum front yard setback and minimum height for buildings on the block corner in the “D-1” zoning district and expansion of the Place of Worship Use in the “RMU” zoning district. Staff further recommends the Planning Commission, through the Planned Development process, modify the underlying regulations in the “D-1” and “RMU” zoning districts to allow parking closer than 75 feet of the front property line in the “D-1” zoning district and to allow an accessory structure (food bank) in the front yard in the “RMU” zoning district.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Mr. Wilde asked if the Commission would include the authorization of the grade change as part of the planned development approval.
Commissioner McDonough asked to add a condition that the parking lot off of 100 South, the turn around and parking spaces be paved with alternate paving material preferably an extension of the plaza material. She also asked to include a condition that signage be posted at the food bank to direct lines.
Commissioner Scott accepted the amendments.
Commissioner Noda accepted the amendments as well.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond voted “Nay”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Four Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Review and discussion of the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures.
This item was heard at 9:53 p.m.
Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde referred to the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures. He noted that the policies and procedures document has been reviewed by the Subcommittee and the Commission received copies of the modifications discussed and made at the Subcommittee meeting.
Chair Chambless suggested that due to the number of Commissioners absent this evening that perhaps the Commission should table the item to a subsequent meeting.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion to review the Policies and Procedures at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Commissioner Diamond referred to conditional use cases asking Staff if they could require the Applicants to include a site plan or map which would show the boundaries and all of the limitations of the zoning. He said that that would help the Commission to visualize what the Applicant’s are actually asking for beyond the zone.
Commissioner Scott noted that the North Salt Lake City petition will go before the City Council Tuesday, December 14, 2004. She indicated that she felt that a member of the Commission should go to that meeting and represent the intent behind the Commission’s decision regarding the North Salt Lake City Boundary Adjustment request.
The Commission discussed the need of greater communication between the Planning Commission and City Council.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m.