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 Jeff Jonas, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Ray McCandless, Marilynn Lewis, and Doug Dansie.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM January 22, 2003
Ms. Seelig referred to page 2 regarding her inquiry of Public Utilities. She requested that the minutes reflect that she also submitted a copy of the E-mail correspondence that transpired.
Mr. Muir referred to page 19, second paragraph, second sentence, and asked that the word would be replaced with could. The sentence would read, “The Commission could insist that the property be re-platted as part of the rezone to compensate for the land-locked configuration.”
Mr. Diamond referred to page 10, second paragraph, last sentence, and requested that the phrase “the design should support the environment” be changed to read “the design should be subordinate to the environment.” Referring to page 17, second paragraph, he felt it would be helpful to define what FEMA stands for. On page 18, last paragraph, he requested that the first sentence read, “Mr. Diamond asked if other properties exist that share the same zoning issues.”
Chair Jonas referred to page 3, last paragraph, and requested that the second sentence read, “Chair Jonas was not certain that the applicant had made that request during the meeting, but this has led to the policy of providing applicants an opportunity to rebut at the end of the public hearing.”
Mr. Diamond referred to page 33, last paragraph, third sentence, and requested that the sentence be revised to read, “He asked if R-1/5000 is the only option for a rezone.”
Chair Jonas referred to page 21, last paragraph, fourth line, and requested that the word regulation be replaced with change. The corrected sentence would read, “The Community Council decided to oppose the zoning change based on policies that have been articulated in the Sugar House Community Master Plan . . . .” Referring to page 33, third paragraph, first sentence, he asked that the word personal be added to his comment to read, “Chair Jonas expressed his personal wish for the Knowltons to sell their property as an existing home with a large lot . . . .” He referred to the last line of the same paragraph and asked that the wording be changed to read, “He discussed noticing requirements and commented that the average person might not know that something was happening that could affect them if they are not involved in the City’s processes.” He asked that the last two sentences on page 34 be revised to read, “Mr. Muir suggested that they preclude a consolidation by having three different zones. The only way to consolidate the three parcels would be to use a zone similar to Parcel 1, which is R-1/5000.” Mr. Muir agreed with the revision.
Chair Jonas believed the motion for Petition 400-02-35 was confusing as written. The motion was made with exceptions and findings, and after the motion was seconded, additional amendments were made. For clarity, he suggested restating the final approval so anyone reading the minutes would not have to look back through the minutes to find out what was actually approved.
Motion
Laurie Noda moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Jennifer Seelig seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig vote “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough abstained since they did not attend the January 22 meeting. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA - Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
a. Salt Lake City School District and Salt Lake City Corporation - Accept real property dedication for public sidewalk relocation to accommodate a 10 foot wide school bus drop off area along 2500 East Street for the Beacon Heights Elementary School at 1850 South 2500 East in Salt Lake City.
b. UDOT and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Proposed sale of 129.0 acres of City owned land to UDOT for use as part of a wetlands mitigation site along the Jordan River in Davis County, located at approximately 300 North and 1500 West in the City of North Salt Lake.
c. West Jordan City and Salt Lake City Corp. (Airports) - Proposed sale of 0.903 acres of real property from Salt Lake City to the City of West Jordan, to be used by West Jordan for storm water detention ponds expansion, located at 7800 South and Jordan Landing Blvd. (4000 West), in the vicinity of Salt Lake City Airport #2.
d. Utah Power and Salt Lake City-County Landfill Board - Proposed acquisition of real property from Utah Power by the Landfill Board and exchange of easements for electric utility lines relocation on property located east of the current landfill operation at approximately 5800 West and 1300 South in Salt Lake City.
e. Kent Fetzer, Kathryn Fetzer and Salt Lake City Corp. (Public Services) - Requesting an exchange of quit claim deeds to resolve certain encroachment issues associated with the Gilgal Garden Park acquisition by the City, located at approximately 753 East 500 South Street in Salt Lake City.
f. Janet E. Haskell Trust and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Granting an easement to the Haskell Trust for an existing private water line encroachment on Public Utilities owned property in Emigration Canyon, at approximately 7108 East Killyons Canyon, in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
g. K and M Investments and Salt Lake County - A proposed exchange of real property and rights of way between the parties, to resolve certain encroachment, easement, and right of way conflicts arising from the construction of the Rose Wagner Center for the Performing Arts, located at 138 West 300 South in Salt Lake City.
h. Salt Lake County and Salt Lake Public Utilities - License agreement to allow the construction of a 12" water line extension along Gregson Avenue (3000 South) between 2420 East and 2700 East on land owned by Salt Lake City Public Utilities.
i. Easter A. and Jeffery B. Phillips and Salt Lake County - Sale of County owned land by tax deed to abutting property owners for 90 square feet of property located at 1163 South Blair Street (345 East) in Salt Lake City.,
j. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Granting a conservation easement to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy for wetland mitigation purposes on Parley’s Creek, arising from the construction of Little Dell Reservoir, on City Public Utilities watershed lands located at approximately 7971 East Parley’s Canyon (I-80 Freeway) in un-incorporated Salt Lake County jurisdiction.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that an amended agenda was distributed to the Commissioners this evening with a wording change to Item j. The mailed agenda indicated that the easement was for the Corps of Engineers, which was incorrect. The Corps of Engineers required the easement, but the easement will go to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the amended agenda was posted and distributed.
Mr. Muir recused himself from Item g. due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Seelig reported that she had E-Mail correspondence with the Public Utilities and Planning Division on Item e., and her questions were answered satisfactorily. The Commissioners received a copy of the E-Mail, and she submitted one for the public record.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to approve the property conveyance matters a.-j. as outlined in the agenda and the staff report. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No. 400-03-03, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Prescott Muir) to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating a zoning overlay district (text amendment) that increases the maximum allowable building height from 65 to 85 feet in the M-1 zoning district and applying the zoning overlay district (map amendment) to property located between 5200 West and 5500 West, between 1730 South and 2100 South.
Mr. Muir stated that he was approached by the City Council on the importance of this issue and took the initiative to start this petition. He was subsequently contacted by one of the parties, which now makes it necessary for him to recuse himself from this matter. Mr. Muir left the room.
Planner Ray McCandless presented the staff report and stated that in January 2003 the Planning Commission initiated a petition to look at accommodating taller buildings in the M-1 Zoning District. The M-1 Zoning District currently allows buildings to be constructed to a maximum height of 65 feet, but the need to increase that height became apparent in order to accommodate industrial buildings with special height needs. Mr. McCandless explained that the Newspaper Agency Corporation will publish both the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune for morning distribution and plans to purchase a new printing press to accommodate the new distribution schedule. The Newspaper Agency Corporation will need a building that is between 80 and 85 feet high as the press is 65 feet high, and they need additional space above that for work crew access. The Newspaper Agency Corporation is hoping to occupy the vacant Gateway Computers building and would like to put an addition on the west side of the building to house the new press. Mr. McCandless noted that the building is located near the intersection of 2100 South and 5600 West, both of which are major arterial streets. The area is considered the southwest gateway to the City and has high visibility. The City needs a place where tall buildings can be accommodated, and Mr. McCandless indicated on the zoning map that this area would be a good location for taller buildings. In response to a question regarding the airport, Mr. McCandless explained that the height increase would not be an issue for the Airport. He explained that, rather than increasing overall height in the M-1 District to 85 feet, the Staff felt it would be best to create an overlay district for application to a specific area. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to create the zoning overlay district and amend the zoning map to apply the district to the proposed location.
Chair Jonas asked how the Staff determined the size of the overlay district. Mr. McCandless replied that it follows existing street patterns, and there was no reason to go beyond that. Mr. Wheelwright explained that one selection criterion was to make the overlay district larger than just one specific property. It could have included the entire subdivision, but they felt that was premature. If the Planning Commission agrees to create the district, it would be created in the menu of zones and be applied on an as-needed basis in the future.
Ms. Seelig referred to a separate handout included in the packet indicating that the northwest quadrant master plan may or may not be adopted between 2003 and 2005 and asked if that was still the estimate. She was disturbed about making decisions without a master plan, but she stated that would not affect her decision on this matter because the petition makes sense with the surrounding uses.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition 400-03-03
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 400-03-03 to amend the Salt Lake Zoning Ordinance by creating the overlay district as outlined in the staff report with the findings of fact contained in the staff report and the recommendations listed on page 7, 1) the zoning ordinance text amendment, and 2) the map amendment. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area, the proposed overlay district is consistent with other existing land uses in the area.
B. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
D. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the airport overlay district.
E. Public facilities are adequate for the proposed overlay district.
Recommendations
1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Amending Section 21A.34 Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 21A.34.100 M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District as discussed in this report.
2. Zoning Map Amendment: Implementation of the M-1H Overlay District on property located between 5300 West and 5500 West and between 1730 South and 2100 South Streets.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Muir was recused and not present. Chair Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Muir returned to the meeting.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Chair Jonas called for comments on the summary of the Planning Commission retreat contained in the staff report. Ms. Seelig noted that the Staff had asked for feedback on the retreat from the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilde asked if the Planning Commission would consider a lunch meeting with Lynn Pace to discuss policy and procedures and the retreat issues at the same time. Chair Jonas favored discussing the retreat summary at a lunch meeting rather than this evening. He commended whomever was responsible for having Lynn Pace attend the last meeting. He stated that Mr. Pace’s presence was helpful, and he would like him to attend future meetings as often as possible. The Commissioners concurred with having a lunch meeting. Mr. Wilde offered to coordinate a date and place. Mr. Daniels suggested that the Commissioners consider meeting mid-morning on a Saturday. The Commissioners did not favor a Saturday meeting and preferred to meet for lunch.
Planning Director Louis Zunguze announced that the City Council has retained Frank Gray to work with the City on the walkable communities ordinance. Mr. Gray will be in town March 25, 26, and 27 and he would like to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss their concerns and hear their feedback. Mr. Zunguze suggested a lunch meeting on March 25 or March 26.
Mr. Zunguze noted that the City is receiving an increasing number of requests for street banners. In the past, the administration, through the Mayor, executed executive orders authorizing street banners. Mr. Zunguze suggested considering a more holistic approach. He noted that a section in the zoning ordinance addresses banners but is not comprehensive. He requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition for the staff to study this issue and initiate proper changes to the ordinance. Chair Jonas agreed to initiate the petition requested by Mr. Zunguze.
Mr. Wilde noted that on December 5 the Planning Commission initiated a petition to consider modifying the sign ordinance to look at off-premise and animated signs downtown and along Main Street. KUTV Channel 2 is one of the parties interested in such an animated sign, and as staff puts this together, he suggested that they consider the option to allow the sign amendments in all districts that allow for television stations. The Commission agreed to broaden the scope of analysis as requested by Mr. Wilde.
Cheri Coffey commented on the Envision Utah Salt Lake County Shorelands Plan. She stated that there are many stakeholders involved, and representatives from the airport and Planning Division attend the meetings to listen to what is being discussed. A lot of environmental research is being done, and the Staff hopes to use much of that background data to reduce costs for the proposed Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. The draft regional master plan should be completed by June, followed by a specific area management plan focusing on what the Shorelands Plan looks at in terms of developable area. Additional environmental research will be needed to get a general permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. Coffey remarked that the City Administration and the City Council want to complete their own plan taking into consideration the interests of Salt Lake City. She hoped funding would be allocated so Salt Lake City could to use the information from the Shorelands Plan and move forward with a Northwest Quadrant Plan.
Ms. Coffey commented on the Performance Zoning Information Study. She stated that a grant was received from the Quality Growth Commission, and the City must produce a draft ordinance for them by the end of February. They have worked with a consultant and have a draft zone that can be presented to the Quality Growth Commission. Whether Salt Lake City will adopt performance zoning is still unknown. After the draft zone is presented to the Quality Growth Commission, the staff will present the information to the Planning Commission and City Council to determine whether performance zoning is a feasible tool for the City.
Ms. Coffey noted that the remainder of the long range planning projects are master plans that are currently in process.
Ms. Arnold asked about the Yalecrest neighborhood compatibility study and whether any deadlines had been set. Ms. Coffey replied that Joel Patterson has been working with the neighborhood, and they are still in the process of deciding what they want the regulations for neighborhood to be. Ms. Arnold stressed the importance of setting a deadline. Mr. Zunguze offered to meet with the Staff to see if there is some consensus and enough information to move forward.
Mr. Daniels asked Ms. Coffey for her viewpoint on working with community councils and their feedback on processes. Ms. Coffey replied that the Staff is working on a community council education document, but the information has not been given to the community councils. Some issues include scheduling of projects for review and different policies and processes for different councils. Ms. Funk believed one problem is that each community council is run differently; therefore, each vote has a different weight within the community. She suggested that the City standardize the procedure by which community councils handle their matters rather than have individual charters. Mr. Zunguze stated that he had preliminary discussions with David Nimkin (Chief of Staff) on this issue, and he intends to be heavily involved with this issue. Mr. Zunguze agreed with the need for more standardization of community councils and he believed it would benefit the community councils and those wanting to develop in the community. The process will involve education for the councils and will be a work in process for a while. Ms. Funk believed the powers of each community council should be clearly outlined and parameters set on their ability to govern a project.
Mr. Muir commented that the City is conducting specific, fine-grain area plans for neighborhoods on the east side, but on the west side some large areas do not even have a master plan. He asked if this was a product of east-side neighborhoods being more proactive. Ms. Coffey replied that she did not believe so. She stated that the council member in the northwest area initiated requests for some small-area plans in the Rose Park and Northpoint area. Another small-area plan was initiated for the Poplar Grove/Glendale area, but that plan was on hold until a decision is made relating to the 900 South rail line. Since the trains are still there, that plan has been put on hold. Ms. Coffey stated that the Sugar House master plan calls for doing small studies, and being in an RDA area helped get the plans started. She explained that plans are driven by funding sources.
Chair Jonas referred to text amendments for planned developments and reported that, at the request of the Sugar House Community Council, the Planning Commission convened the Planned Development Subcommittee on Tuesday to address certain concerns they had and additional issues they want added to the planned development ordinance. Those issues were forwarded to and adopted by the City Council. The subcommittee decided not to bring these items back to the Planning Commission because the issues had already been addressed.
Ms. Seelig requested that the Planning Commission have an in-depth discussion of master plans at their scheduled lunch meeting. There did not appear to be a regular cycle for evaluation of master plans, and she did not have the professional planning expertise to know an appropriate recommended review time. She commented that the Planning Commission keeps coming up against issues where there is not a master plan or the master plan is outdated, which is problematic. She understood that many government entities are involved in reviewing a master plan as well as neighborhood participation. Chair Jonas explained that previous Planning Commissioners expressed concern that there was not a timetable, and the result of that concern is the document presented this evening. Ms. Coffey stated that the 1992 Strategic Plan for the City recommends that general community plans be updated every 10 years, but the update process for each plan can take several years.
Mr. Daniels asked if the retreat for this year had been planned. Mr. Zunguze replied that he was in the process of reviewing all operations of the Planning Division, and the Planning Commission will see some changes emerge from that effort. A retreat would be an appropriate forum for some of the discussions he would like to have. He stated that he would start to plan the retreat and provide the Planning Commission with updates.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-25, by Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting an amendment to the West Salt Lake Zoning Map at 402 South 900 West Street. The proposal includes rezoning the property from RMF 35 (moderate density multifamily residential district) to CN (neighborhood commercial district). The purpose for the change is to zone the existing parking lot (currently zoned RMF-35) the same as the rest of the property (CN).
Planner Marilynn Lewis reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. The purpose of the zoning map amendment is to request a rezone for the parking lot zoned RMF-35 instead of CN, which happened during the 1995 rezoning. With the parking lot in a residential zone, it would be difficult to utilize all the structures on the site for more than one business because the parking could not be counted toward the required off-street parking. Ms. Lewis reported that neighborhood support is reflected in a letter contained in the staff report. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council based on the findings of fact.
Chair Jonas asked about the property size. Ms. Lewis replied that the site is .6 acre. It is the old Neff Floral complex consisting of three attached buildings and the parking lot.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Mildred Dahm stated that she has rental property in that block and wanted to know what the proposed change would represent in terms of zoning. Chair Jonas explained that most of the parcel is zoned CN, and this request would make the zoning consistent for the entire ownership parcel, including the parking lot. Ms. Dahm verified with the Staff and Planning Commission that this change would not affect anything else being zoned commercial on that block.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition 400-02-25
Arla Funk moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council on Petition 400-02-25 to amend the West Salt Lake Zoning Map at 402 South 900 West based on the findings of fact in the staff report in order to make this property in full compliance with City standards. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
a. The West Salt Lake Future Land Use Map designates this property for neighborhood commercial development. Rezoning the subject portion of the property from RMF-35 to CN legally incorporates this parking area into the remainder of the commercial property. The subsequent ability to fully utilize the property for commercial ventures supports the efforts to create a more pronounced identity for this Poplar Grove community in compliance with the goals of the Futures Commission Report and Strategic Plan.
b. The West Salt Lake Zoning map identifies the southwest corner of the 900 West 400 South Street intersection as Neighborhood Commercial. The lot used for parking is integral to the operation of a business on this site. The parking lot should have been labeled the same as the portion of the lot containing the commercial structures.
c. Rezoning the parking lot will create the potential for more viable business and encourage greater upkeep of the property, which will have less adverse effect on the area. The adverse effects may be created by not proposing the amendment but by a lack of parking for the commercial uses. The businesses on this site cannot operate in a manner conforming to the zoning ordinance without the inclusion of the parking lot in the CN zone.
d. With the exception of height restriction, this zone uses the same underlying City land use zones. The proposed amendment will nave no effect on height.
e. The rezoning of the subject property will not increase the demand for services to the property. The property is in a built environment where existing facilities and services are adequate.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-36, a request by the ARX Group for a map amendment to change the zoning of the property generally located at 1426 South West Temple from Moderate Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-35) and General Commercial (CG) to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU).
Petition 400-02-37, a request by the ARX Group to close Front Street, adjacent to property generally located at 1436 South West Temple. Front Street is a dead end street. A portion of Front Street has already been sold.
Petition 410-615, a request by the ARX Group, for a Planned Development generally located at 1436 South West Temple, in a (proposed) Residential Mixed-Use R-MU zoning district. The total project will have approximately 384 residential units and 24 commercial units in 17 buildings.
Planner Doug Dansie reviewed the petitions as written in the staff report. He explained that the project is generally located southwest of Franklin Quest Field and is the old Fetzer woodworking site. The property contains approximately 9.34 acres. The public utilities shop is south of the site. The location is between a single family neighborhood to the east and commercial/industrial to the west. Mr. Dansie reported that the proposal came in last August as a planned development in a CG zone. (After being reviewed by the Development Review Team,) the Staff decided to use this as an opportunity to resolve other outstanding issues on the site. The community council voted to support the project as a planned development. The majority of the site is zoned CG; however, a portion of the front is zoned RMF-35. Although the developer could build the multi-family portion in the RMF-35 zoning district, they wanted to create a village concept with commercial units, which is not allowed in that zone. Mr. Dansie commented that part of Front Street has been vacated and closed, and completely closing it would make a cleaner project.
Mr. Dansie reviewed a general layout of the project and explained that 17 buildings are proposed for the site in the range of 400 units. The developer would like to have commercial units on the ground level facing West Temple. Mr. Dansie presented a rendering of the project and a general concept rendering of the streetscape. Some of the parking will be under ground, and the bottom units on West Temple will be at ground level. The water table on 200 West is very shallow, raising the parking level above ground on that side. Mr. Dansie explained that multiple buildings on the same lot are considered a planned development, and housing in the CG zone is a conditional use. The RMU zoning district allows for a height of 75 feet, but the existing CG zone allows for a height of 80 feet. RMU allows three-story, non-residential buildings, and the developer is proposing one floor of non-residential and three stories of residential. Mr. Dansie noted that the RMU zoning district only requires a half stall per unit, but the developer is providing over two stalls per unit based on the market. These are not subsidized units, and they will be sold as owner/occupied condominiums. The site is within walking distance of the Ballpark Light Rail stop, and the Staff has discussed access to that stop with the developer. The site plan shows a sliver of City-owned land along the 200 West LRT line which would provide access to the stop. However, because there is not a crosswalk at 1300 South, they do not want to make improvements at this time because they do not want to encourage people to walk along that right of way if they cannot cross at 1300 South street. Development is planned west of that Light Rail Transit stop which might be a reason for future improvement. The developer is willing to work with the City to improve the strip of land with walkway and lighting.
Mr. Chambless asked how many parking spaces would be below ground. Mr. Dansie replied that there are 408 underground parking spaces and 360 surface parking stalls.
Chair Jonas asked if all the buildings would be the same height. Mr. Dansie replied that they would not be due to the water table causing the height of the bottom floor to change. He noted that the rendering is a conceptual drawing and is not accurate. Chair Jonas asked Mr. Dansie to address setbacks. Mr. Dansie explained that the existing RMF-35 has a 15-foot landscape setback. Most single-family homes across the street also have a 15-foot setback. The existing CG zone only has a 10-foot landscape setback, and the RMU zoning district has a zero landscape setback requirement. The only landscape setback required in the RMU is for a rear yard. The rear yard requirement is 25% of the lot area or a maximum of 30 feet. A side yard setback is not required in the CG or RMU zones but is required in the RMF-35 zone. The Staff raised the issue of whether 15 feet in the front yard would work since much of the neighborhood has a 15-foot setback. The developer was willing to look at a 15-foot setback but was hesitant due to commercial development on West Temple and pushing the building back would push back the front four buildings which offset the project from Jefferson Street. Chair Jonas stated that he understood the area between the curb and buildings would be landscaped, but the conceptual drawing shows all sidewalk. Mr. Dansie stated that the developer has not submitted a final landscape plan for the project. The drawing indicates how it would look in terms of an urban form along the extension of Merrimac Street. Since there are commercial units along the front of the buildings, the developer wanted urban frontage onto the private street. The landscape setback requirements do not require 100% landscaping, and sidewalks are allowed in the front yards. The zoning ordinance was recently changed to allow outdoor dining in many other zoning districts.
Ms. Arnold referred to Building 17, which faces West Temple, and expressed concern about the safety of people who may try to cut through by walking the tracks. She asked what kind of barrier was proposed between this project and Trax. Mr. Dansie replied that the petitioners have indicated that the south and rear and abutting property lines on the north will be fenced with vinyl fencing.
Chair Jonas noted that the staff report discusses the possibility of bringing the 200 West connection all the way to the Trax Station, but the Transportation Department did not favor this suggestion. Kevin Young, representing the Transportation Department, stated that a crosswalk on 1300 South is not a good situation. It would require huge costs to develop something that would tie into the Trax train crossing. The best solution is for pedestrians to cross at West Temple where there is a signal light. Mr. Muir felt the problem needed to be solved because people would cross without a crosswalk out of convenience. He felt that those who create transit-oriented development should participate in the solution. To expect people not to take a shortcut would be shortsighted. Mr. Young explained that the City does not have a mechanism for impact fees, which is another issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Muir suggested that a mechanism be tied to the TOD ordinance to upgrade the infrastructure to accommodate this type of density. Mr. Zunguze believed the community had alluded to the problem by suggesting impact fees. He understood that the City had a vehicle for addressing such issues through development agreements, and the Planning Commission could make a condition that this development be tied to an agreement that addresses pedestrian concerns. Mr. Dansie reiterated that the petitioner is willing to improve the walkway to 1300 South. The question is whether or not they want to lead people to that location if they cannot get across the street. Chair Jonas noted that the Transportation Department has requested new signaling on 1300 South and West Temple. Mr. Young explained that the recommendation is that a protected permitted left turn phase be added for the northbound to westbound movement as part of this development.
Ms. Seelig asked which part of Merrimac was private. Mr. Dansie explained that Merrimac is public going east, and everything shown is on the applicant’s property. The developer has lined up the driveway with the street to insure that it is not a bad intersection. Ms. Seelig asked about snow removal and maintenance. Mr. Dansie replied that the developer is responsible for maintenance and snow removal.
Mike Miller, representing the ARX Group, commented on the pedestrian walkway along the Trax line and noted that was originally their idea to facilitate the residents getting to the Trax station. After meeting with UTA, it was evident that there was no way to cross the street, and at that stage, they let the City know they would be interested in making the improvements when the time comes for a pedestrian crossing. Until then, they will close off the area entirely with fencing or a barrier. He explained that ARX has tried to meet as many goals of transit-oriented development as possible. They want to increase the density, move intense manufacturing and commercial out of the area, and provide more home ownership. They want to create a village feel, but the shops will be limited because they do not think the project will have enough residents to support 12,000 square feet of commercial. They envisioned possibly a small convenience market, hair salon, small insurance office, etc. The largest commercial space they could offer would be 1,200 feet. Mr. Miller reviewed the plans and renderings presented by Mr. Dansie. He noted that the residential mix is one-third two-bedroom units approximately 900 square feet in size and two-thirds three-bedroom units approximately 1,200 square feet in size, and they will be for-sale units. The commercial space will be leased and maintained by one organization. The building height is 45 feet to 55 feet. The skeletons are identical, and the facades are changed as they move through the project. Mr. Miller believed ARX had met the majority of the goals and understood they would change the face of the area. The project would meet the master planning goals and goals of the transit-oriented district and promote more pride of ownership in the area.
Ms. Arnold asked if ARX had explored the possibility of a bridge over 1300 South as an answer to the Trax station problem. Mr. Miller replied that ARX would be willing to pay a portion of a bridge, but UTA is not willing to consider any type of pedestrian crossing at this time. He explained that the project is phased over a three- to four-year buildout. The main constraint is the absorption rate of this unit type in the area. He commented on the importance of a crosswalk to the Trax station to make the project viable. He referred to the number of proposed parking stalls and expressed a willingness to reduce some of it but was unwilling to go as low as half a stall per unit.
Mr. Daniels asked about handicapped accessibility. Mr. Miller replied that each building contains 24 units with six units per floor consisting of two 2-bedroom units and four 3-bedroom units. Two Type A units are proposed per building; one 2-bedroom and one 3-bedroom on the main floor. Every other unit in the building is a Type B accessible unit, meaning that the blocking is all in the walls, the door widths are accessible, and the sink front is removable. Type A units have light switches and stove controls at low levels, removable sink fronts, etc. Type B units are handicap adaptable.
Mr. Chambless asked if Mr. Miller considered this project to be low-cost or affordable housing. Mr. Miller replied that the 2-bedroom units will begin at $109,000. They have met the RDA affordability limits in that area. The 3-bedroom units will begin at $129,000, which also falls within the affordability limits.
Mr. Muir suggested that Mr. Miller reconsider the number of adaptable units. He hoped this project could accommodate a considerable number of ambulatory people in the community. He complimented Mr. Miller and the ARX Group for taking on this type of project and hoped they would view the input provided this evening as encouraging comment. He felt that the City needed this project to be successful in the marketplace, and their input was a means of helping ARX achieve that success. Mr. Muir felt they should re-address the curb frontage on West Temple as it would not be conducive to the commercial and suggested that the City help the applicant address that issue. He commented on problems experienced in other neighborhoods with Homeowner Associations and stated that he believed the success and durability of this project would depend on the capability of the Homeowners Association, especially with the commercial sector. He felt that the City should help the applicant anticipate this unique dilemma that they probably do not experience in other parts of the state. Mr. Muir asked Mr. Miller to explain the elevation drawings. He asked Mr. Miller to understand the Planning Commission’s dilemma in trying to understand the elevations at such a preliminary level.
Mr. Diamond commented on the planning of the site and how the layout of the buildings was addressed. He referred to the space between the buildings and felt the concept was short sighted. He believed the units at the ends of the buildings might not sell because they look across to another unit. He suggested that offsetting the buildings would help the corner units achieve light and views, and more articulation between buildings could be seen coming down the street. He suggested that the applicant work with the Staff to find design alternatives. Mr. Diamond suggested that Mr. Miller reduce the amount of surface parking and introduce more landscaping.
Ms. McDonough asked about the front and back of the buildings and what units address the new streetscape. She asked if every unit on the ground floor of each building would be retail. Mr. Miller replied that the plan is to have retail on the east side of Building 17, the north side of Buildings 2 and 4, and the south side of Buildings 1 and 3. The retail would only be around Merrimac and curve to the north. The back buildings would have no retail space. Ms. McDonough felt that it was hard to judge the street character and analyze whether it supports the intent of creating a retail streetscape and a viable village concept. She felt it would be useful to go through ground floor scenarios looking at the whole plan in terms of where the retail would have the most impact and the street atmosphere they plan to create further into the project as opposed to only at the street. Mr. Miller asked if Ms. McDonough would prefer more landscaping for the residential to indicate a break from where the residential ends and the commercial begins. Ms. McDonough suggested placing retail geared strictly to residents further into the project.
Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Miller to explain the phasing plan. Mr. Miller replied that the plan is to begin construction on the east side of the project consisting of Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 16 , and 17 and the infrastructure, working on three buildings at a time. While constructing the first few phases, Fetzer’s Woodworking will be under construction at their new facility elsewhere in the valley, and once they have completed their move, the project will begin working west. Mr. Diamond referred to Buildings 10, 11, and 12 and the appearance of a connector at the ground floor which suggests that the parking continues through. Mr. Miller replied that this is a dead end, and there is no connection between Buildings 12 and 13 to exit.
Chair Jonas asked if Mr. Miller has previously built transit-oriented developments and what he found in terms of necessary parking ratios. Mr. Miller replied that he has not done transit-oriented developments but has done condos, and they typically provide two parking spaces per unit. The residents use 60% of the stalls, and the remainder are for visitor parking. Chair Jonas asked for an estimated population at project buildout. Mr. Miller estimated two per unit and anticipated that they would be young families, young married couples, and single professionals. Chair Jonas asked if the amenities provided in the project would be adequate for the number of people anticipated. Mr. Miller stated that hot tubs are essential, and pools are an attraction for real estate agents. If he did anything more, he would add another hot tub, but he believed the proposed amenities would be adequate.
Mr. Muir asked about the banks’ response to this project in terms of the residential and commercial mix. Mr. Miller replied that the take-outs are the issue, and construction has not been a problem. Fannie Mae had no problem with insuring a mortgage in a mixed-use development with a commercial interface. Mr. Muir believed the City would like to have a base commitment on the commercial rather than a swing space that responds to the market. Mr. Miller stated that he would be willing to come back to the Planning Commission at the beginning of each phase to present their plans and report on what they have found in the market.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Brad Knaphus, 1410 Jefferson Street, immediately north of the proposed project, asked about traffic flow down Jefferson Street, fencing, and boundary issues. He stated that he had security issues with his building and commented that his yard was broken into last week.
Chair Jonas asked about a traffic analysis. Kevin Young stated that a traffic impact study was required as part of the project. Ryan Hale, representing the firm which conducted the study for ARX Group, stated that during the peak period of 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., 17 vehicles exit Jefferson going out of the site and 22 vehicles come into the site, for a total of 39 trips up and down Jefferson. He explained the study process and how they weigh the options of looking at a.m. versus p.m. hours. The combination of site traffic and traffic occurring on the roadway system during the evening period was the highest traffic volume anticipated on the roadway system during one given hour during the day. He stated that they will evaluate surrounding conditions in evaluating Jefferson Street in particular. Mr. Jonas questioned the reliability of these figures.
Shawn Deniston, a property owner at 1449 South West Temple, directly across from Building 2, stated that he was unsure what the transportation study proved. He stated that they talk about making a transition from residential to commercial, yet they want to put up a vinyl fence, and in his opinion, that would section off rather than create a transition. He asked if something in the covenants would prevent this project from turning into a 400-unit apartment complex rather than owner-occupied units. He asked about putting a traffic light at Merrimac and West Temple to handle the dramatic increase in traffic. He commented that, currently, a resident sticker permit is required for single-family home duplexes on the east side of West Temple, and he asked how this project would affect their parking and parking for a ball game or fireworks.
Reed Sherman, a resident at 22 West Boulevard Gardens and a property owner at 1394 South West Temple, stated that he was excited about having this project in the community. He has lived in the area for 10 years and believed this was a great opportunity. He asked if the project proposed playground areas for young families. He believed retail frontage on West Temple would tie more into the community and be more inviting to the residents. He suggested that all of Building 17 and the east side of Buildings 1 and 2 be frontage for retail with sidewalk cafes, etc. He referred to the four-story buildings and asked if it would be possible to mix the heights for variation. Mr. Sherman commented on a kink halfway down Jefferson Street and suggested that improvements be made to the road.
Mr. Miller commented on safety and stated that he believed this project would put more eyes on the street, which should deter problems. He explained that they do not intend to put a vinyl fence on West Temple, and the plan is to integrate the development into the community as much as possible. A fence would only delineate a property line between them, Public Utilities, the Trax line, and uses to the north. Mr. Miller explained that the developer remains the declarant of the condo association until one year after the project is completed. Then it would be turned over to the owners. The developer would maintain the retail shops and be a member of the Homeowners Association Committee. Fannie Mae requires that 51% of the units remain owner occupied. Mr. Miller pointed out that purchasing a unit at $109,000 and collecting $800 per month would be a poor investment, and he did not anticipate many people renting their units. He believed Mr. Deniston’s comments about parking would support their request for 1-1/2 to 2 stalls per unit. He noted that playgrounds are not shown on the plan, but there would be a minimum of two outdoor play lands. He noted that the developer is paying for the closure of Front Street and will ask the City Council to take the funds from Front Street and allocate them to Jefferson Street to alleviate the jog in that Street.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Daniels commented on the jog in Jefferson Street and noted that in many places that type of jog is a traffic calming device which prevents people from speeding. He felt that should be weighed against concerns about a crooked street.
Ms. Arnold agreed with the neighbor who suggested integrating the commercial into West Temple. She expressed concern about what they are not seeing because this is a preliminary plan. The heights are not reflected on the plan, the playgrounds are not shown, and there are a number of loose ends. She favored the project and believed it could work but felt the Planning Commission needed more time to look at the details. Chair Jonas agreed and felt it would set a bad precedent to approve a project with so many loose ends.
Mr. Muir asked about forwarding the first two petitions and remanding the third petition to the subcommittee to work through the details. He requested a phasing plan to look at the more remote phases to see the relationship between the building pad and the street and the parking mix to unit. He stressed the need for variability in the units which he believed was important to the success of the project.
Chair Jonas favored forwarding the first two petitions and recommended that the applicant meet with the subcommittee. He felt that the Planning Commission would like the applicants to bring them conceptual plans in order to get the opinion and direction from the subcommittee. Ms. Arnold asked if the petition could be left open so the applicant would not have to go through another public hearing. Mr. Diamond believed another public hearing would be necessary in order for the public to understand and comment on what is happening with the project.
Ms. Funk commented on the percentage of owner-occupied units and asked if information was available showing at what percentage rental units become a problem. She believed 51% was a low number, and she was concerned with having nearly half of the units not owner occupied. Chair Jonas was unsure whether that is within the Planning Commission’s purview. Ms. Funk stated that this information has been requested in the past and is within their purview. Ms. Arnold did not see how this could be controlled once the units are resold. However, the lender would put their own number on it, and it could be controlled that way. She commented that lenders share this concern, because less owner-occupied units create more problems in a complex. After further discussion, Chair Jonas requested that the City Attorney provide an opinion on whether the Planning Commission can set those kinds of standards.
Mr. Zunguze felt it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to establish a number, and he was concerned that establishing an arbitrary number would potentially set the project up for failure. The more flexibility the developer has, the better it is for the project. Mr. Zunguze felt the Planning Commission should be more concerned with the land use issues that might emerge if the units are rented and set conditions to address those issues.
Motion for Petition 400-02-36
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone property at 1436 South West Temple from CG and RMF-35 to RMU to take effect upon the issuance of a building permit for the specific project associated with Petition 410-615. Arla Funk seconded the motion.
Findings
A. The project is consistent with various City master plans, including the Central City Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Futures Commission report.
B. Mixed-use and higher densities are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The mixed-use zoning provides a transition between the single family/duplex residential area and commercial/industrial uses.
C. The proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
D. Public facilities and services are adequate for the zoning district, although minor changes will be necessary to accommodate any specific development (as outlined in Petition 410-615).
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 400-02-37
Arla Funk moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on Petition 400-02-37 for the closure of Front Street at approximately 1436 South West Temple and sold through the City process upon issuance of the building permit associated with Petition 410-615 based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Mr. Daniels referred to a comment made by Mr. Miller about using the money from Front Street to improve Jefferson Street and explained that is not within the Planning Commission’s purview.
Findings of Fact - Master Plans
Sale of this land would facilitate the development of a mixed-use development in accordance with the policies of applicable master plans without compromising the overall transportation system.
Findings of Fact - Street Closure
1. There are two separate portions of Front Street. One is entirely surrounded by the applicant’s property. The other portion is abutted on three sides by land owned by the applicant. The fourth side (north) intersects with 1400 South. Other property would not be denied access by closure of Front Street.
2. The property would be acquired by the applicant for mixed-use development purposes. The primary use is residential, but there are commercial units within the overall proposed planned development. City policy is to sell land when it is abutted by commercial land or high-density residential and to vacate when abutted by single-family or duplex residential land uses. The adjacent land is presently zoned General Commercial CG but is proposed to be rezoned Residential Mixed-Use RMU.
3. Closing the subject property will accommodate a high-density mixed-use project, which will help implement policies of Salt Lake City relating to housing and promoting transit-oriented development adjacent to light rail lines. The street provides no viable transportation purpose.
4. Public policy supports the mixed-use development. The street is unnecessary to the transportation system. The alternative to closure is to leave it as it is, which does not presently function as a street. This would negatively impact the layout of the proposed mixed-use development.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Zunguze suggested that the Planning Commission approve Petition 410-615 subject to the applicant providing the Commission with actual drawings for every phase. This would allow the applicant to begin the process of finalizing his project finances as he would know he is on the right track in terms of spending the necessary money on detailed renderings and materials for review.
Chair Jonas stated that he was not ready to proceed with an approval as suggested by Mr. Zunguze. He believed there were too many questions that needed to be answered in greater detail. The Planning Commission would like to indicate support to the applicant, but the details would make or break the project. The Commissioners concurred. The Commissioners discussed the level of detail and type of drawings the applicant should provide. Mr. Muir preferred to see the streets linked without dead end streets to create a sense of neighborhood. He felt it was important to create good, solid pedestrian linkage. He believed the relationship between West Temple and the commercial would be crucial along the sidewalk edge and suggested the possibility of curb-side parking. He also felt that one or two more building types should be added. Building 7 where it meets Building 9 is problematic, and the relationship between Building 2 and the end of Building 17 is also problematic. He suggested asking the City to move concurrently with solving some of the problems such as the transit pedestrian crossing. Mr. Muir agreed with Ms. McDonough’s comments regarding differentiation in the plan. He shared Ms. Funk’s concerns about the homeowners association and the percentage of owner-occupied units and agreed that they should look at numbers from existing projects. Mr. Diamond suggested that the applicant take advantage of the west side and promote more activity on the street. Chair Jonas offered suggestions on changing the space between buildings, the number of buildings, and the height.
Motion for Petition 410-615
Robert “Bip” Daniels expressed strong support for the project and moved to table the petition and send it to the subcommittee to work with the applicant and return to the Planning Commission as a public hearing. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Wilde referred to a draft statement distributed to the Planning Commission this evening addressing Planning Commission authority for evaluating petitions before or after making a motion. He asked the Commissioners to review the language and provide suggestions or comment at a future time.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.