SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Craig Mariger, Vice-Chairperson Max Smith and Mike Steed. Arla Funk, Diana Kirk and Stephen Snelgrove were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Cheri Coffey, Margaret Pahl, Doug Dansie, Bill Allayaud and Ray McCandless.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
Ms. Short welcomed Jeff Jonas as a new member of the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Daniels moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, November 18, 1999 subject to the discussed corrections being made. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, December 2, 1999 subject to the discussed correction being made. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUE
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION AND FINAL DECISION – Petition No. 400-99-34 by Moyle Petroleum Company to rezone the northeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from Residential "R-1/5,000" to Community Business "CB" which requires the demolition of three homes located at 726 & 714 North Redwood Road and 1654 West 700 North. The proposed demolitions require the Planning Commission to also consider the adequacy of the Housing Loss Mitigation Plan that has been submitted by the applicant. The Planning Commission will make a final decision on the
appropriateness of the submitted Housing Loss Mitigation Plan regarding the demolition of the homes.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. She then stated that at the November 18, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commission requested staff to request the City Attorney's Office to render a legal interpretation of the term "predecessor in interest". The Planning Commission believed that staff was incorrectly interpreting the phrase and that the interpretation could impact the type of remedy necessary to mitigate the housing loss. In light of the City Attorney's legal interpretation, the applicant has revised the Housing Impact Statement and has chosen an option which bases the fee on the difference between the housing value in its current state and the replacement cost. Ms. Coffey then stated that the total proposed fees for mitigating the loss of the three residential units went from $10,386 to $40,290.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Coffey relating to the petition.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-34:
Mr. Mariger moved to approve the Housing Mitigation Plan as submitted. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Barrows then asked about Ms. Funk's request that staff reconsider the housing mitigation process. Mr. Wright stated that the housing mitigation process is not included in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, he feels that the Planning Commission should not initiate a petition. Instead, staff will reaffirm the acknowledgement that they have gone through the Zoning Ordinance which triggered items that need some work such as the housing mitigation process. Staff agrees with the Planning Commission that the housing mitigation process is a difficult ordinance the way it is structured.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-390 by Gary Bliss requesting a conditional use for an 11 unit residential planned development subdivision located at 713 South 200 East in a Residential "RMF-45" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Pahl relating to the case.
Mr. Mariger spoke concerning the proposed project being next to a power substation. He then asked if there was any scientific evidence that it is hazardous to live within close proximity to electrical substations.
Ms. Pahl stated that when this substation came before the Planning Commission for an expansion, some of the neighbors were concerned about living next to a power substation. Utah Power argued that point by stating that it is not hazardous.
Ms. Laura Kirwan, representing the Redevelopment Agency, stated that her predecessor, Ms. Lois Cortell, did some extensive research concerning a residential development next to a power substation and found that the evidence was inconclusive.
Mr. Gary Bliss representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Bliss relating to the case.
Mr. Jonas asked about the proposed landscaping. Ms. Pahl then reviewed the landscape plan with the Planning Commission. After which, the Planning Commission agreed that the submitted landscaping plans were very well done.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Matt Wolverton, Vice-Chair for Central City Neighborhood Council, stated that the Council voted unanimously to encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed project.
Ms. Lois Brown, Chair of the Block 18 Association, stated that the Block 18 Association has seen the proposed project and voted to support and recommend approval of the plans for the housing development. Ms. Brown submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirwan then spoke concerning the block wall between the Utah Power Substation and the proposed development. She stated that she has spoken with Utah Power and they are ready to proceed with the wall as soon as they receive a letter from either the Redevelopment Agency or the Planning Director. Ms. Kirwan then stated that Utah Power was originally planning to build a brick wall with wrought iron, however, it has been brought to their attention that a solid wall is more appropriate.
Motion for Case No. 410-390:
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant conditional use approval of Case No. 410-390 for the planned development subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. Modifications to the standards established in the Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report.
2. Planning Director approval of the final subdivision plat.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion relating to Case No. 410-390:
Mr. Smith moved to make it known to Utah Power that it is desirous of the Planning Commission that the brick wall be a continuous wall without including the wrought iron. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-329 by H. Roger Boyer, representing Gateway Associates, requesting final design approval for a mixed-use planned development on approximately 26 acres located between North Temple & 200 South and 400 West & 500 West in a Gateway Mixed-Use "GMU" zoning district. The project has previously received final site plan and land use approval from the Planning Commission. The project has also received final design approval for the retail, office and housing portions of the development. The petitioner is presently requesting final design approval for the hotel and Union Pacific Depot restoration/addition portions of the development.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie then stated that the Union Pacific Depot will retain a public access easement through the lobby. The plaza space and area through the hotel is also included in the easement. The lower two floors of the hotel building are open to the air at 500 West to allow free passage through the block. Mr. Dansie then noted that the hotel does have parking beneath the easement. The parking is only one level instead of two levels common to other portions of the project. It was perceived that in the long run an underground connection could be made from 500 West to the Union Pacific Depot. The existing of underground parking complicates, but does not necessarily eliminate, passage.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Dansie relating to the case.
Mr. Doug Thimm, the architect for the project, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Thimm then used presentation boards to explain the architectural features of Building D (hotel), Building F1 (Union Pacific Depot) and Building F2 (retail building) of the Gateway project. Mr. Thimm stated that there would be a paved pedestrian corridor that will run through the project from 500 West to 400 West.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Thimm relating to the architectural features of the buildings.
Mr. Daniels spoke concerning the pedestrian corridor and asked how accessible it will be to those with disabilities. Mr. Thimm responded by stating that due to the change in elevation, pedestrians will have the choice between stairs and an elevator.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Ann Floor, representing the Future Moves Coalition, spoke concerning the pedestrian access from 500 West to 400 West from the depot to a future train system. She stated that the route should be more direct so that pedestrians do not have to walk around buildings or plazas to get from 500 West to 400 West. Ms. Floor then stated that she does not think that people will use the transit systems unless it is convenient.
Mr. Roger Borgenicht, representing the Future Moves Coalition and ASSIST, reiterated that he does not believe that the Gateway Development meets the requirements that the Planning Commission or the City Council put on it. Specifically, the Planning Commission has previously stated that a viable pedestrian corridor, preferably internal to the buildings, be fully integrated into the development. Mr. Borgenicht then stated that he feels that the pedestrian corridor is not designed as a feature to maintain the future possibilities for a regional rail stop at 500 West and South Temple and give an attractive, convenient and direct route to the Union Pacific Depot. Mr. Borgenicht also spoke concerning a blocked view corridor to the depot. He then asked the Planning Commission to require the Boyer Company to follow the mandate of the Planning Commission and the City Council of last year and maintain future options so that there will be a convenient and reliable transit connection between the back of 500 West and the depot. Mr. Borgenicht then stated that he feels that it is not too late to reorient the hotel to make, and embrace, a pedestrian corridor as a major design feature.
Mr. Robert Bliss, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that having an underground pedestrian easement is an unpleasant way to enter a city. Mr. Bliss also feels that the Gateway project is going to set architecture back 100 years in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Otto Mileti, a nearby property owner, stated that he is not in favor of underground pedestrian easements because he feels that they are not successful. Surface
pedestrian easements are successful because they are more convenient. Mr. Mileti then stated that he agrees with Mr. Borgenicht's statement concerning a blocked view corridor of the depot. He feels that if the depot were more visible, people would be drawn to it. Mr. Mileti is, however, in favor of the project.
Mr. Milton Braselton, a concerned citizen, stated that he is a railroad track worker. Mr. Braselton then stated that if regional rail is going to happen in the future, the best place to have a station to get the passengers on the commuter trains is as close into downtown as possible, which seems to be 500 West. Regional rail also needs to be convenient for the passengers to move quickly from one destination to another. Mr. Braselton then spoke concerning putting a regional rail station underground and stated that having it underground will be very expensive and it would not be as convenient for the pedestrians.
Mr. David Alston, a concerned citizen, asked for some clarifications regarding the drawing used by Mr. Thimm during his presentation.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows spoke concerning a blocked view corridor of the depot from 500 West. Mr. Steed stated that he does not feel that a blocked view of the depot is an issue. He feels that most people on 500 West will recognize the pedestrian corridor and will realize that is how they will get from 500 West to 400 West.
The Planning Commissioners discussed having the architects consider the future by looking closer at a covered surface pedestrian corridor that would be more direct and convenient to accommodate regional rail if it becomes a reality. The Planning Commissioners also discussed the possibility of having a subsurface pedestrian corridor and whether or not it would be better than a surface pedestrian corridor.
The Planning Commissioners expressed some concerns about the grade change from 500 West to 400 West and wondered if there was a better solution than an elevator for a disabled person to make the transition. The idea of an escalator was mentioned.
Mr. Thimm noted that there would be a known path across the lawn of the plaza that could be used and be a more direct path.
Mr. Daniels spoke concerning the only direct path being on the lawn because it could be an obstacle to a lot of the citizens of Salt Lake City. Mr. Daniels then stated that a grassy area could be an obstacle to someone in a wheelchair, using a cane or pushing a baby carriage. He then stated that a lot of the people just want to move through the
corridor and they are not interested in sightseeing. Therefore, he feels that a paved, direct path needs to be considered so that the citizens of Salt Lake City can walk through the plaza with comfort and without obstacles.
Motion for Case No. 410-329:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-329 for final design of Building D (hotel), Building F1 (Union Pacific) and Building F2 (retail) subject to the following conditions (underlined portions added by the Planning Commission):
1. Final recommendation by Salt Lake City's Historic Landmark Commission and Salt Lake City's Transportation Division.
2. Final design approval be delegated to the Planning Director.
3. Prior to a building permit on Building D (hotel), an overlay plan be reviewed by the Subcommittee for final approval of a surface pedestrian corridor for regional rail between 500 West and 400 West.
4. Prior to a building permit on Building D (hotel), a subsurface easement be given for an underground pedestrian corridor between 500 West and 400 West and reviewed by the Subcommittee.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels voted "Nay". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-56 by Petty Investment Company and McDonald’s Corporation to rezone the property located at 945 East 2100 South from Commercial Corridor "CC" to Commercial Sugar House Business District "C-SHBD" zoning district;
AND, Petition No. 400-99-59 by Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the property located at 901 East 2100 South from Commercial Corridor "CC" to Commercial Sugar House Business District "C-SHBD" zoning district;
AND, Case No. 410-409 by Petty Investment Company requesting a conditional use for a Planned Development to add an addition to the McDonald’s Restaurant located at 945 East 2100 South.
Petition Nos. 400-99-56 and 400-99-59:
Mr. Bill Allayaud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of Petition No. 400-99-56 and Petition No. 400-99-59, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Allayaud then gave a brief background of the two petitions. He stated that the property owner of 945 East 2100 South filed Petition No. 400-99-56 in order to facilitate a request to the Planning Commission to approve a addition to the McDonald's restaurant. The rezoning is necessary because the proposed addition to the McDonald's is not allowed in the front yard setback area under the current zoning. A change to the "C-SHBD" zone would allow that addition to be approved because that zone district allows structures to be built up to the property line. Since the "C-SHBD" requires that all new significant development be processed as a planned development, the applicant has filed Case No. 410-409 for a planned development. Mr. Allayaud continued by stating that Petition No. 400-99-59, located at 901 East 2100 South, was initiated by the City through an action by the Planning Commission at their October 21, 1999 meeting. When the petition for the McDonald's property was advanced, staff advised the Planning Commission that it would be a logical time to rezone both parcels, thereby extending the "C-SHBD" zone to 900 East. In addition, staff was aware that this property was being seriously considered by Walgreen's Drugs Corporation as a site for one of their stores. The "C-SHBD" zone would allow Planning Staff and the Planning Commission to review the proposed store through the planned development process, whereas, the existing zone would allow a building to be constructed with only an over-the-counter building permit.
Mr. Allayaud then stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning for both parcels in order to help bring the land use pattern and zoning into greater compliance with the Sugar House Business District Master Plan and the overall character of the business district.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Allayaud relating to the petitions.
Mr. Bruce Baird, attorney for the perspective developer of the corner parcel (901 East 2100 South), began by stating that since the history of zoning in the Country, this corner parcel has been zoned to allow the precise use that Walgreen's wants to put on it. Mr. Baird then stated that he believes that during the 1995 City-wide rezoning, Planning Staff made a ration decision to zone the parcel Commercial Corridor "CC". Mr. Baird then gave a brief history about the corner parcel. He stated that in July, Walgreen's came in and asked for the zoning of the parcel, plans were then drawn up. Since July, they have been involved with negotiations with the property owner. In late October, Planning Staff asked the Planning Commission to initiate a Petition to rezone the corner parcel. Nothing happened from that point until approximately November 22nd when the Petition was filed. The next day, Walgreen's came to the City's Building Permit Office to submit plans and was told that if the plans were to be submitted, it would trigger a moratorium. On November 24th, fully compliant plans were submitted by Walgreen's and the City then attempts to put an administrative moratorium on Walgreen's later that
afternoon. Mr. Baird then spoke concerning Mr. Allayaud's comments regarding the pedestrian friendly, street frontage in the area. He stated that there is street frontage, however, Mr. Baird feels that there is virtually nothing that will connect a pedestrian unit which will draw pedestrians to the corner parcel. If the corner parcel is rezoned, Mr. Baird feels that an isolated street frontage will be created. He believes that rezoning the corner parcel is a bad exercise in planning and inappropriate. Therefore, if the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council to rezone the corner parcel, it leaves his client no choice but to initiate litigation to protect their vested rights. Mr. Baird continued by stating that he and his client believe that they have a right to develop the corner parcel and that it is appropriate to develop it the way that his client wants to develop it. Mr. Baird then spoke in favor of the McDonald's property being rezoned because it is needed to allow for their proposed development.
Mr. Newman Petty, representing Petty Investment Company, believes that having Walgreen's build on the corner parcel will be a great improvement to the area. Mr. Petty then stated that it has been made clear to him, however, that Walgreen's will not finish the negotiations if they are forced to build to the property line. Mr. Petty feels that losing Walgreen's will be a detriment to the City, to the Sugar House area and to he and his family. He is pleased with McDonald's as a tenant and asked the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning for that parcel.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ty McCartney, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, spoke in favor of rezoning the two parcels. The Community Council feels that it would be in the best interest of the community if both parcels are rezoned at the same time. Mr. McCartney then pointed out that discussions regarding zoning issues, along the 2100 South corridor, have been going on for several months.
Ms. Dorothy Slaugh, a nearby resident on Hollywood Avenue, spoke concerning traffic issues. She stated that there is currently a high volume of business traffic, including semi trucks, using Hollywood Avenue. She is concerned that the traffic will increase if Walgreen's is built on the corner parcel, therefore, she is opposed to any new commercial development in the area. She is also opposed to McDonald's request to add a playland because she feels that it will also increase traffic. Ms. Slaugh then stated that she and her neighbors have been meeting for approximately the last 18 months to discuss traffic calming issues in the area. The community loves their neighborhood and they want to have less traffic which will help beautify their community. Ms. Slaugh then asked the Planning Commission to not approve the rezoning requests tonight so that the neighborhood can have an opportunity to input.
Mr. Jeff Laver, a nearby resident on Hollywood Avenue, stated that he would not object to the properties being rezoned if the City would be willing to do something to help with the traffic problems.
Mr. Richard Graham, representing McDonald's Corporation, asked the Planning Commission to consider the rezoning for the two parcels separately so that McDonald's plans can move forward if there are concerns about the corner parcel.
Ms. Short noted that the two parcels are separate petitions, therefore, they will be handled separately.
Mr. Mark McKay, owner of McDonald's, spoke in favor of rezoning the McDonald's parcel.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, spoke concerning who can file a rezoning petition because, as a citizen, she would like to be able to file a rezoning petition. She then spoke concerning the Planning Commission's request to rezone a single parcel. Ms. Cromer then stated that she is concerned about the Planning Commission using its authority to initiate a rezone on a single, individual parcel. She would much prefer to see the Planning Commission's authority used on multiple parcels. Therefore, if the Planning Commission is asked to initiate a rezone petition on a single parcel, please consider if the petition can be made more comprehensive.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows stated that she feels that rezoning the proposed two parcels to "C-SHBD" is something that has been long needed.
Mr. Jonas stated that it is unfortunate that the rezoning was not done a long time ago because this type of situation could have been avoided. Mr. Jonas feels that knowing whether or not there are plans to rezone properties west of 900 East, would have a significant impact. If the "C-SHBD" zoning district does not extend west of 900 East, he does not know how much will be accomplished by rezoning the corner parcel.
Mr. Wright stated that the master plan identifies the Sugar House Business District as the area between 900 East & 1300 East and 2000 South & I-80.
Mr. Jonas then asked of the petitioner if there is any bend on the part of Walgreen's to work with staff and meet the goals of the master plan. Mr. Baird stated that he has been told unequivocally that the answer is 'no'. Mr. Baird continued by stating that Walgreen's does not want to get into a potentially endless process of everyone micro-managing their design because they have a store design and requirements that they believe works for the property as it is currently zoned.
Mr. Petty then stated that Walgreen's negotiations hinges on some give by the City's Planning Staff.
Mr. Allayaud stated that he has been in contact with Walgreen's and has discovered that they have plans, that have been used on occasion, for building to the property line. However, they prefer having the building in the middle of the property.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-56:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition No. 400-99-56 to rezone 945 East 2100 South from Commercial Corridor "CC" to Commercial Sugar House Business District "C-SHBD". Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-59:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition No. 400-99-59 to rezone 901 East 2100 South from Commercial Corridor "CC" to Commercial Sugar House Business District "C-SHBD". Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Jonas voted "Nay". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 410-409:
Mr. Allayaud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of Case No. 410-409, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Allayaud then stated that the petitioner is requesting to construct a 1,053 square foot addition to a McDonald's Restaurant in Sugar House. The proposed addition is for a "Play Place" which is an enclosed structure with play equipment and limited tables for seating.
Mr. Richard Graham, representing McDonald's Corporation, described the architecture features of the proposed addition to the Planning Commission members. Mr. Graham stated that when the plans were submitted to the Sugar House Community Council, it resulted in a few reviews and some changes to the original plan.
Mr. McKay, spoke in favor of the plan, and stated that since he will be paying for the addition it is important to him that it be done as efficient as possible.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. McCartney, stated that the Community Council voted in favor of the project and the design with a stipulation that the new addition be more congruent, however, the Community Council did not give any direction for the final design.
Ms. Slaugh, spoke again concerning traffic issues and the City's unwillingness to help calm the traffic.
Mr. Wright stated that he too is bewildered about the City's unwillingness to calm the traffic in this area. He then stated that he will discuss the traffic concerns of the community with Mr. Tim Harpst, Transportation Director.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith expressed his concern about the Community Council "designing" projects. He then stated that when community council's design buildings, they are exceeding their authority and power by not giving approval until they see what they like. He feels that the original plan was better architecturally and well studied.
Mr. Mariger stated that the problem is not with the community council's. The problem is with the petitioner's perception that only with the community council's approval will the Planning Commission give their approval.
The Planning Commission members discussed not approving the revised plans as directed by the Community Council. Mr. Wright stated that the original plans were not part of the application being considered by the Planning Commission at this time. Therefore, if the Planning Commission wishes to approve the original plans, the case will need to be tabled tonight to give the Planning Commission time to review it.
After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the revised plans should be considered for Planning Commission approval so that the petitioner can move ahead with their project.
Motion for Case No. 410-409:
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-409 for a planned development subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. This planned development shall not be valid unless and until the subject site (Sidwell parcel 16-20-127-010) is rezoned to Commercial Sugar House Business District "C-SHBD" by action of the City Council.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence that City Engineering has reviewed and approved changes to the westernmost driveway on 2100 South, to be paid for by the applicant and installed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the new addition.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Planning Director revised elevations which indicate the addition of
architectural details that integrate the two structures (existing and proposed) and make design more congruent.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping plan for review and approval of the Planning Director.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-381 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 926 E. Lowell Avenue in a Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential "RMF-35" zoning district;
AND, Case No. 410-384 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 255 South 600 East in a Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential "RMF-35" zoning district;
AND, Case No. 410-392 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 34 South 500 East in a Residential/Mixed Use "R-MU" zoning district;
AND, Case No. 410-393 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 1030 West 1700 South in a Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential "RMF-35" zoning district;
AND, Case No. 410-400 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 350 West 300 South in a Downtown Warehouse/Residential "D-3" zoning district.
Ms. Short noted that Case No. 410-381 has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of each case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Larry Cox, representing AT&T, was present for this portion of the meeting to answer questions and address concerns.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. McCandless and Mr. Cox relating to the cases.
Mr. Cox noted that a fact sheet is being prepared that can be distributed to the neighbors to address the most common questions and concerns. The fact sheet should be ready by the first Planning Commission meeting in January.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
A brief discussion followed concerning how AT&T chooses a site for the boxes and creative ways of how to make the boxes not look so unsightly. It was also discussed to change general condition #6 to read:
TCI shall not be required to retrofit any equipment before the expiration of 5 years of the date of its installation approval.
Motion for Case No 410-384:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-384 to install a ground mounted electrical cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at 255 South 600 East subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. No propane tanks be used.
2. All City departmental requirements be met including obtaining the applicable building permits from the City's Building Services and Licensing Division, public way permits from the City's Engineering Division or revocable permits from the Property Management Division and resolving any franchise agreement issues with the City Attorney's Office.
3. The cabinets, including the cement pad, be removed within 90 days if they no longer are needed or used and any lease with property owner terminated.
4. A surety bond or cash bond be posted assuring removal of the equipment and pad.
5. All utilities and cables be placed underground.
6. If TCI or its related entities install cabinets underground, or partially underground, in other community, TCI will retrofit this equipment within one year of availability of this technology, provided, TCI shall not be required to retrofit any equipment before the expiration of five years of the date of its approval. When new technology becomes available, the Planning Commission will no longer accept and/or approve above ground cabinets.
7. All lease agreements with property owners shall contain a 'hold harmless' language to sufficiently protect the property owner from liability.
8. As this is a private access easement, owned by multiple property owners, the applicant will need to secure an easement with all owners having an interest in the property. This site is also located in the Central City Historic District, therefore, approval is required by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for Case Nos. 410-392, 410-393 and 410-400:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-392 to install a ground mounted electrical cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at 34 South 500 East.
Mr. Steed further moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-393 to install a ground mounted electrical cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at 1030 West 1700 South.
Mr. Steed further moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-400 to install a ground mounted electrical cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at 350 West 300 South.
All three cases are subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. No propane tanks be used.
2. All City departmental requirements be met including obtaining the applicable building permits from the City's Building Services and Licensing Division, public way permits from the City's Engineering Division or revocable permits from the Property Management Division and resolving any franchise agreement issues with the City Attorney's Office.
3. The cabinets, including the cement pad, be removed within 90 days if they no longer are needed or used and any lease with property owner terminated.
4. A surety bond or cash bond be posted assuring removal of the equipment and pad.
5. All utilities and cables be placed underground.
6. If TCI or its related entities install cabinets underground, or partially underground, in other community, TCI will retrofit this equipment within one year of availability of this technology, provided, TCI shall not be required to retrofit any equipment before the expiration of five years of the date of its approval. When new technology becomes available, the Planning Commission will no longer accept and/or approve above ground cabinets.
7. All lease agreements with property owners shall contain a 'hold harmless' language to sufficiently protect the property owner from liability.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.