SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Andrea Barrows, Aria Funk, Fred Fife, Judi Short, Jim McRea, Craig Mariger, Gilbert lker and Mike Steed. Diana Kirk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Craig Hinckley, Ray McCandless, Margaret Pahl, Jackie Gasparik and Doug Wheelwright.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
Mr. Smith welcomed Mike Steed as a new member of the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, February 5, 1998. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
Staff briefing and discussion of the Model Drinking Water Source Protection Ordinance
Ms. Florence Reynolds, Water Quality Administrator for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, led the discussion on the Model Drinking Water Source Protection Ordinance. Ms. Reynolds stated that the Salt Lake Valley Groundwater Protection Coalition is made up of public water providers across the Salt Lake Valley. The mission of this Coalition is to encourage the support of communities, businesses and individuals to work together to take comprehensive steps to reduce the risk of polluting groundwater for the purpose of preserving an adequate supply of clean, safe drinking water for generations to come. Ms Reynolds continued by stating that as of July 26, 1993, all public water systems in the State of Utah are required to comply with the Drinking Water Source Protection Rule for all groundwater and spring sources that are used for public drinking water. To comply with this Rule, the Coalition has initiated a cooperative and comprehensive approach to protect, preserve and maintain existing and potential drinking water sources from contamination in order to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare of Salt Lake Valley's residents and visitors.
Ms. Reynolds then explained that the purpose of the ordinance is not to limit growth in Salt Lake County, but to protect groundwater by:
1. Limiting regulated substances in designated protection zones or recharge areas.
2. Establishing appropriate land uses within the protection zones or recharge areas.
3. Encouraging the use of Best Management Practices.
Ms. Reynolds continued by stating that the ordinance applies to new development and the handling, shipping and storing of potentially hazardous substances. The ordinance establishes criteria for regulating toxic substances within areas where groundwater could be affected by potential contamination sources. The ordinance also identifies property uses that have the potential to contaminate groundwater sources. These uses have been classified according to the level of the risk of contamination and are either permitted, prohibited or permitted conditionally. Permitted Use an activity that has a low risk of potential contamination in the specified zone if current regulatory requirements and Best Management Practices are used. Prohibited Use an activity with a very high risk of groundwater contamination and is not permitted in the protection zone(s).
Conditional Use an activity with a moderate risk of groundwater contamination. A conditional use requires implementation of Best Management Practices and compliance with other reasonable conditions which are approved by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Reynolds then stated that the ordinance identifies that the plan reviews and approvals would be handled by City Planning Commission's and City Council's and that the enforcement and compliance issues would be handled by Salt Lake City/County Health Department.
After hearing the presentation by Ms. Reynolds, the Planning Commission members expressed some of their thoughts and concerns regarding the ordinance. Mr. Mariger stated that his concern is that City Planning could become inundated with conditional use applications for nearly every business. Mr. Mariger then stated that the Planning Commission does not have the expertise to try to impose the conditions being proposed in the ordinance. Ms. Barrows also noted that the Planning Commission would need written guidelines to help identify if a use should or should not be permitted.
Mr. Wright stated that during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite a chapter was created entitled "Aquifer Recharge Protection Overlay District" which is mapped along the East and North Benches. There was a similar discussion at that time that certain uses might be conditional uses. Mr. Wright continued by stating that the discussion then addressed the fact that the Planning Commission members would not have the expertise to know if the use would be a violation to the aquifer recharge. At that time, a list of restrictive uses was created that require special approvals by the Salt Lake City/County Health Department and the Director of Public Utilities.
Mr. Smith stated that the Planning Commission members would like to discuss this ordinance further, however, there is no more time to continue at this meeting. Mr. Smith then asked Ms. Florence to return to the Planning Commission for a more detailed discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING -A request by Leucadia Corporation for approval of a housing mitigation plan for 25 and 29 "G" Street associated with previously approved rezoning of two parcels at 25 "G" Street from a Residential "RMF-35" zoning district to a Residential "RO" zoning district {Petition No. 400-97 -59) and previously approved residential/office planned development on the block generally located between South Temple & First Avenue and "F" and "G" Streets in a Residential "RMF-35" and "RO" zoning districts.
Mr. Smith declared a conflict of interest for this proposal, recused himself from the Planning Commission and left the room.
Mr. Brent Wilde presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recorr1mendation, a copy of which is flied with the minutes. Mr. Wilde stated that Salt Lake City's Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance requires a housing mitigation plan when there is a rezoning or the development of a parking lot that results in a loss of housing units.
Mr. Wilde then stated that the proposal at 25 "G" Street is to retain the structure and rezone it to facilitate an office use. The proposal at 29 "G" Street is to demolish the structure and construct a new driveway to provide access into the parking area in the middle of the block that provides parking for the surrounding uses that are owned by Leucadia Corporation. This driveway will eliminate the need to maintain an existing driveway that enters the property from 1st Avenue.
Mr. Wilde continued by stating that the Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss Ordinance outlines three options for mitigating residential loss. Theses options are as follows:
A. Replacement Housing.
B. Fee Based on Difference Between Housing Value and Replacement Costs
C. Fee, Where Deteriorated Housing Exists, Not Caused by Deliberate Indifference of Land Owner (there is a flat fee payment of $3,000 per unit).
The applicant is requesting mitigation Option C, a "Flat Fee Mitigation" for the loss of the two units at 25 "G" Street that are to be converted into offices and Option B, for mitigation of the loss of the four residential units at 29 "G" Street. The following shows how the mitigation costs were calculated:
25"G"STREET
The applicant contends that the cost of calculating and analyzing the various methods of mitigation are unreasonably excessive in relation to the rough estimated costs of constitutionally permitted mitigation for the property at 25 "G" Street. (The applicant estimates that the cost of calculating the cost of mitigation will be $35,200.) Information provided by the petitioner indicates that this has been damaged by fire and uninhabited since prior to the petitioner's ownership. The current condition is not the result of the applicant's neglect. The letter from Jonathan L. Cook (a copy of the letter is filed with the minutes) indicates that the current value of the improvements (building) on this property are $20,000 and that restoration is estimated to cost between $75,000 to $100,000. The rezoning and change of use will facilitate restoration of this building that might otherwise eventually be demolished. The applicant intends to restore the building and make it a viable asset to the community.
The request is for approval of a $3,000 per unit flat fee for a $6,000 total mitigation, plus an adjustment for inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index, as required in the Mitigation Ordinance ($6,000 x six percent= $6360).
29 "G" STREET
The applicant has provided documentation that the current fair market value of the structure at 29 "G" Street is $51.73 per square foot, not including land value (821.5 square feet divided into $42,500). The letter from Jonathan L. Cook indicates that the cost to replace this building, as indicated by the Marshall Valuation service as well as Alan Wood of Prowswood, is between $53.50 and $56.00 per square foot for the building, not including the land. The replacement cost as determined in the current International Conference of Building Official "Building Standards Magazine", for type five construction is $56.20 per square foot. Therefore, information from each source is generally consistent. Information from the "Building Standards Magazine is the information used for construction valuation at the City Building Permit Office. Therefore, a per square foot replacement value of $56.20 is recommended. This structure consists of 3286 square feet. Therefore, the difference between the value of the existing structure and the replacement value is $14,688 ($4.47 X 3,286 square feet).
Mr. Wilde then stated that the total proposed fees for mitigating the loss of the six residential units is $21,048.
Mr. Mariger stated that he is trying to understand the ordinance and what it means to use Option C The ordinance states that Option C is only available if "the petitioner actually and reasonably demonstrates to the City's director of Community and Economic Development that the costs of calculating and analyzing the various methods of mitigation are unreasonably excessive in relationship to the rough estimated costs of constitutionally permitted mitigation". Mr. Mariger then asked what the costs of constitutionally permitted mitigation are. Mr. Wilde responded that it is not defined and that it was inserted by the City Attorney because of a concern that the amount of rr1itigation expected might be unreasonable and not constitutionally valid. Therefore, at the time that this ordinance was adopted, a base fee of $3,000 was determined to be considered reasonable if there had been deterioration or damage and if there were going to be a lot of costs associated with calculating and analyzing the various methods of mitigation.
Mr. Mariger then stated that his understanding is that the cost of calculating is compared to another cost. What is the other cost?
Mr. Mariger stated that he does not agree with the applicant's calculation for the $35,200 because there is really no additional costs of determining under Option B. The applicant has decided that if they are going to use Option C the cost will be $35,200 of professional fees, but they have already determined what it would cost for Option B for the other parcel of property by using the square footage basis, not by hiring architects, engineers, etc. to determine the replacement costs. If the square footage values were used on 25 "G" Street it would not cost the petitioner anything to determine what they would owe for Option B. Mr. Mariger then stated that he does not see that the cost of calculating under Option C for 25 "G" Street is any greater than the cost of calculating for 29 "G" Street, which has been calculated under Option B. Mr. Mariger then asked why Option B is not being used for both properties?
Mr. Wilde stated that the difference is that Option C can only be used when there has been deterioration to the building. Mr. Mariger stated his understanding is that using Option C only applies if staff finds that the cost of making the calculation, under one of the other two options, is excessive compared to constitutionally permitted mitigation costs. The petitioner is making an argument saying that it is going to cost $35,200 to make a calculation under one of the other options that is excessive. Mr. Mariger believes that Option C does not apply for a deteriorated building until it has been determined that the cost of calculating under one of the other options exceeds some other number. Mr. Mariger then stated that he does not believe that staff has done that.
Mr. Wright stated that when this ordinance was written, the purpose of Option C was to make sure that someone does not have to spend a large amount of money to determine the true costs of replacing the units verses the cost of rehabbing the units on the site.
Ms. Barrows asked if this ordinance is unworkable inasmuch as there is a cost of constitutionally permitted mitigation and there is no number that establishes the constitutionally permitted mitigation. Mr. Wright stated that there will never be a number because the City Attorney has noted that at some point in time this becomes an impact fee that is not justified by the constitution.
Mr. Mariger then stated that he feels that the ordinance states that if the administrative costs of making the calculation exceeds what the City can constitutionally permit, in terms of mitigation, and when the two numbers compared are excessive, then Option C can be considered, which may or may not apply. He believes that the petitioner's argument that it is going to cost them $35,200 to make the calculation under Option B is not valid.
Mr. Wilde stated that part of the argument that it is valid is that there has been substantial damage and there are costs involved to restore the structure and it would be more than just a rough estimate to determine how much those costs are going to be. Mr. Wilde then stated that this is the second time that this ordinance has been used. The first time, staff determined that if there was substantial deterioration which was not created by the petitioner then staff chose Option C.
Mr. Mariger stated that that probably makes legislative sense but he does not feel that the ordinance is written that way. Mr. Wright then asked Mr. Mariger if his point is that he does not believe that it is going to cost the petitioner $35,200 to perform that work. Mr. Mariger stated that he is saying that his understanding is that Option B does not require the petitioner to perform a detailed analysis.
Mr. Wright indicated that the ordinance states that because there has been deterioration in the property, the petitioner has the right to select Option C and then provide the evidence that would show their calculations.
Mr. Mariger restated that under Option C paragraph #3 it states that the petitioner needs to show that the costs of calculating and analyzing the various methods of mitigation (the various methods of mitigation being Options A and B) and that analyzing under Option B, the cost of doing that, is excessive in relationship to what may constitutionally be permitted for mitigation. In the petitioner's same proposal, for another property, their method of calculation under Option B was by using square footage values that were taken from the Uniform Building Code and determined that the cost to replace the structure will be $56.20 per square foot. However, when the petitioner is choosing Option C, their method of calculation under Option B now includes fees such as architects, engineers, etc., making the cost of calculation excessive so that staff chooses Option C. Mr. Mariger indicated that this is not convincing.
Mr. Wilde stated that he understands Mr. Mariger's interpretation, however, staff did not interpret Option C the same way.
Mr. Wright asked Mr. Mariger if he was challenging that the petitioner's do not need to spend $35,200 in order to make that determination. Mr. Mariger stated that the petitioner's did not spend it on the other property. Mr. Wright stated that the difference is that the other property is not deteriorated, so, general per square footage values could be used.
Ms. Barrows asked if it is a given that the cost of calculation will always be greater when a structure is deteriorated. Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative which is the purpose for Option C.
Mr. Mariger stated that the estimated cost on the other properties is building from the ground up, so why should the deterioration of the property matter? Mr. Wright stated that perhaps staff should have the petitioner determine the estimated cost to restore the structure under Option B. Mr. Mariger indicated that the petitioner has already determined that it would cost between $75,000 to $100,000. Mr. Mariger then stated that staff should use the $75,000 amount to ·figure the cost of calculation, compare that to the $20,000 and then apply Option B.
Mr. Mariger continued by stating that maybe the City Attorney should provide his interpretation of the ordinance and if his interpretation is different than staff's, then staff would need to recalculate and present a new recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright stated that at the time the ordinance was written, Option C was intended to deal with deteriorated structures. The intent was to not require a lot of fees generated that would produce a number and then find out that, particularly in this situation, the value of the structure is higher because of the quality of finishes that would be used and because of the face value. Mr. Wright then stated that after doing the calculations it may be determined that the difference in the replacement costs of the unit, and what the existing value would be, could either be zero or that the existing units might be worth more than replacement or close to $3,000. The purpose was so that the petitioner did not spend a lot of money to determine that the value is a small amount and have an option available to use a flat fee for a mitigation option. In this particular situation, the petitioner believes that they would need to spend $35,200 to come up with an absolute number to use for comparison purposes.
Mr. Wilde stated that Mr. Mariger may be interpreting the ordinance correctly and that the literal language may not support the intent that was originally there. Option B does not give staff any way to compensate for the deterioration that was not caused by the petitioner. Staff would then need to go to Option C to reflect that compensation.
Mr. Fife stated that there is a long process to go through to evaluate a burned or deteriorated building (with a lot of structural and unknown damage) to determine what would need to be replaced and what would need to be done over. Mr. Fife then stated that this determination is something that cannot be done on a cost per square foot basis.
Mr. Tom Berger, attorney for Leucadia, stated that his interpretation is that Option C says in paragraphs 1 and 2 that the applicant is entitled, under Option B, to raise up to its fair market value of the structure to be lost if it were rehabilitated. Therefore, instead of comparing the $20,000 with the $75,000, the higher fair market value would be used if it were rehabilitated. So, it would be between $60,000 and $70,000 compared with the $75,000. The petitioner is then entitled, under Option C paragraphs 1 and 2, to increase the $20,000 up to the fair market value of the property as rehabilitated. Option C paragraph 3 says that if it would take a lot of money to figure out how much the true fair market value would be and how much it would cost to rehabilitate it, if the amount that is determined is significantly high compared to the $5,000 or $10,000 that would be determined from paragraphs 1 and 2, then the cost would be $3,000 as stated under Option C paragraph 3.
Mr. Wright agreed with Mr. Berger and then stated that staff believes that the cost of calculation has been determined correctly.
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.
Mr. Mariger continued to debate with staff on the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance.
Ms. Barrows asked if the goal of Option Cis to restore housing. Mr. Wright stated that the goal is to recognize that when housing is lost there would be some mitigation and that housing did not need to be replaced at full value at all times. There was a recognition in this mitigation that it was not always going to be a one for one replacement, as is stated in option A.
Ms. Funk commented that she is uncomfortable with making a decision, however, she feels that it is unfair not to make a decision because she feels that the petitioner has acted within the bounds of what staff had directed them to do.
Mr. McRea agreed with Ms. Funk.
Mr. lker stated that he feel that the petitioner has attempted to comply with the ordinance as directed by staff. The ordinance deals with trying to mitigate housing loss in a City which has a limited physical size. Mr. lker feels, after listening to the debate, that the ordinance is very flawed, on the other hand, it is the only ordinance available and the petitioner should not be punished for a flawed ordinance in which he tried to comply.
Motion for Housing Loss Mitigation Report for properties at 25 and 29 "G" Street:
Mr. lker moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the fee of $21 ,048 to mitigate the change of zoning and use at 25 "G" Street and the demolition of the structure at 29 "G" Street, as determined by the Director of Community & Economic Development. Mr. lker further moved that the fee ($21 ,048) shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund prior to issuance of the necessary change of use and demolition permits. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. McRea, Mr. Steed and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger was opposed. Mr. Smith was recused. Ms. Kirk was not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. lker then moved to direct staff to have the City Attorney prepare a letter of interpretation and to also have the ordinance restudied by the City Attorney and staff. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. McRea, Mr. Steed, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Mr. Smith was recused. Ms. Kirk was not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-292 by Donald Pickett requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development to be located at 1750 South 500 West in a General Commerciai"CG" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. McCandless stated that Mr. Donald Pickett is requesting approval to construct a 10,000 square foot industrial building at the South Pickett Circle Complex at 514 West Pickett Circle. A subdivision plat for this property was approved in 1995 for a five lot industrial subdivision. The proposed new building will occupy Lot 2 with the existing building. In order to allow more than one principal building on a single lot, Planned Development approval by the City's Planning Commission is required.
Ms. Barrows asked what is the rationale to why the City only wants one principal building on a lot.
Mr. Wright stated that the purpose is to make sure that there is frontage and access provided to each building. It is a community standard that most buildings will not be hidden by another building fronting it unless there is a special exception. There are some zones in the City where more than one principal building is allowed on a lot.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-292:
Mr. Fife moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-292 for the proposed building of a commercial planned development subject to the following conditions as stated in the staff report with one addition as noted:
1 Completion of all previously required improvements.
2 The requirement for not allowing more than one building on a lot with multiple uses be modified to allow two principal buildings on a single lot.
3 An approvable landscaping plan be submitted.
4 The final development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
5 The project be approved subject to meeting all City departmental requirements and the site plan for the project be approved by the City's Police Department and that the Police Department's corr1ments be furnished to the Planning Commission. (added by the Planning Commission)
6 The necessary cross-access easements be implemented.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. lker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Patrick Finnegan is requesting approval for a two lot minor subdivision for the Georgia Apartments located at 203 East 2100 South 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. Ms. Pahl presented a draft Agreement being considered by Mr. Patrick Finnegan and Mr. Doug Winward, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Pahl addressed the parking issue by stating that the Georgia Apartments have always had ample parking. The issue with its parking has been that the parking is located on abutting parcels to the north and south of the building. This subdivision action will combine the building with 48 parking stalls, designed according to Salt Lake City Transportation Division standards. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the minimum number of stalls which must be provided for the current apartment use is 56 stalls. To supplement the 48 stalls on site, the owner has a 99 year lease for eight stalls located on the property immediately north. (Mr. Doug Winward is the current owner of this property.) This lot used to be in common ownership with the apartments and its use for parking was authorized in a 1991 Board of Adjustment case. The lease was designed to protect those parking stalls, covering the rear 77 feet of the lot. The lease use for parking was put in place by an interim owner, prior to the sale to Mr. Winward. The lease was identified as a condition of the sale of the property.
Ms. Pahl continued by stating that Mr. Winward would prefer to own a minimum 5,000 square foot lot outright, without the intrusion of a lease. To that end, Mr. Winward previously offered to sell the rear 56 feet to Mr. Finnegan for $5,200. Mr. Finnegan has countered the proposal offering to trade the lease for the 56 feet. In either event, this deal would require a future subdivision consideration and approval. In addition, it would force Finnegan to demolish the garages and redesign the parking to retain eight stalls. This redesign is feasible, given the 50 by 56 foot pad, and could result in 10 parking stalls.
Ms. Pahl then stated that Staff has encouraged Mr. Finnegan and Mr. Winward to arrive at an amicable solution. Staff believes that the best solution for the long term public good, regardless of who owns the property, is that the front property has the 5,000 square feet that is required by zoning and the remaining 56 feet were dedicated to the Georgia Apartment parcel so that the additional10 stalls would be provided.
Mr. Patrick Finnegan, the petitioner and owner of the Georgia Apartments, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Doug Winward, abutting property owner, stated that he would like the Planning Commission to require that Mr. Finnegan construct a light proof wall (preferably masonry) to separate his property from Mr. Finnegan's. Mr. Winward would also like the Planning Commission to require Mr. Finnegan to construct a three or four foot high light proof wall to protect the south side of his property.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that the wall issue is not a valid issue unless an agreement is entered into by Mr. Finnegan and Mr. Winward that would change the boundary line.
Motion for two lot minor subdivision located at 203 East 2100 South:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant minor subdivision approval of the two lot Georgia Apartments subdivision subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with a few additions as noted:
1 That the internal circulation be clearly marked for one way traffic only.
2 That the parking stalls be restriped in accordance with the approved layout.
3 That the public way improvements be completed per Engineering standards.
4 That the subdivision would only be finalized if the City Council granted the rezoning request which was heard and approved by the Planning Commission on February 5. 1998. (added by Planning Staff)
5 That the agreement provided by Mr. Finnegan be opened to acceptance by Mr. Winward for a period of 20 days following Planning Commission's approval. (added by the Planning Commission)
Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING-Reconsideration of Petition No. 400-97-66 by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. requesting that Arapahoe Avenue (640 South) be closed east of 800 West a street which is a stub street that dead ends at Interstate 15. Also requested is the vacation of a portion of the original subdivision on this block known as Kimball Subdivision which is bounded by 800 West. 800 South and Interstate 15. A minor subdivision is also being requested allowing the combination of all church property into one parcel. (lndustriai"M-1" zoning district.)
Ms. Jackie Gasparik noted that the trees that were removed along 800 West in front of the Welfare Square in the public right of way was not done as part of the Welfare Square project. Utah Power and UDOT received a permit from the City's Urban
Forester to remove the trees. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the trees will be replaced with 2Y2 inch caliber trees of a maple species that will not grow as high as the power lines.
Ms. Gasparik then 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. Ms. Gasparik stated that this petition request to vacate the old Kimball's Subdivision plat, was originally considered by the Planning Commission at its December 18, 1997 meeting. One of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, upon the street closure request, was uthat no heavy truck traffic could utilize 800 West for ingress to or egress from the Welfare Square complex". This condition was imposed in response to the concerns of the Poplar Grove Community Council as expressed in a letter from Mr. Gordon Storrs, which indicated that potential increased truck traffic would have a negative impact upon the neighborhood. The petitioner is now requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the condition based on the analysis that has been made by
Mr. Kevin Young, Deputy City Traffic Engineer.
Mr. Young stated that, after receiving information from Mr. David Hall regarding the truck traffic for Welfare Square, his analysis concluded that there would be an increase of one more trip per day for the new proposal. Mr. Young then stated that there would be less impact to the neighboring properties due to the fact that these deliveries of the raw milk were from church farms on a set schedule spread out during the day and occurring at low peak hours of drive time. The dairy deliveries would only exit the site using 800 West to travel south back to 800 South and then proceed directly back to the designated City truck route. All of the drivers to the dairy are church employed drivers that are familiar with the site and they will be informed on how to enter and exit the site effectively.
Mr. David Hall and Mr. Jerry Sears, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. lker stated that the reason that the truck traffic became an issue was because of the recommendation submitted by Mr. Gordon Storrs, Poplar Grove Community Council Chair. Since the December 18th Planning Commission meeting,
Mr. Storrs has rescinded his recommendation based on the analysis that was made by Mr. Young.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gordon Storrs, Poplar Grove Community Council Chair, stated that generally the community council would not like to have truck traffic on the neighborhood streets. However, when the community council was informed that Welfare Square could not modify the truck traffic to allow the traffic to exit on 800 South, and that there was not going to be a significant increase of truck traffic, the community council visited with some of the neighbors and found that they were not opposed to the truck traffic. Mr. Storrs then noted that the neighbors are upset at whoever took down the trees along 800 West because they disrupted traffic for days, left sawdust to blow around the neighborhood and they now have to look at a bare wall. The community council hopes that the trees planted are large enough that they will offer some relief from the view of the blank wall, sooner, rather than later.
Mr. Wright advised Mr. Storrs to contact the Urban Forester, Mr. Bill Rutherford, and let him know the concerns of the community in relation to the removal of the trees.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Fife stated that he is involved with the Poplar Grove Community Council and wanted to comment that there are many other areas in the Poplar Grove neighborhoods that have a considerable amount of truck traffic that is opposed by the residents. Mr. Fife then stated that even though the residents on 800 West are not opposed to the truck traffic, as long as it is not increased significantly, the rest of the community is somewhat divided.
Motion for Petition No. 400-97-66:
Mr. McRea moved, based on the new information pertaining to the understanding of the past history of the Welfare Square complex, and the withdrawal of the community council concerns about the truck traffic use on 800 West, to modify the Planning Commission's condition of approval for Petition No. 400-97-66 prohibiting the use of 800 West for the dairy by limiting the use of 800 West to six trips per day exiting the site for only the dairy related truck traffic. Mr. McRea further moved to favorably forward this petition to the City Council, with this modified condition, along with all the other original conditions of approval to allow the street closure of Arapahoe Avenue between 800 West and Interstate 15, the declaration of surplus property and the vacating of the old Kimball Subdivision plat. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows and Mr. Fife were opposed. Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote.
The motion passed.
JOINT MEETING WITH THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING -A proposal by the General Services Administration (GSA) to expand and alter the Frank E. Moss Court House building. at 354 South Main Street. which is located in the Downtown "D-1" Zoning District and the Exchange Place Historic District.
Mr. Smith noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sugar House Subcommittee Update
Mr. Wright and Mr. Wilde briefed the Planning Commission regarding the progress being made by the Sugar House Subcommittee. (Mr. Smith, Ms. Short and Mr. lker are the Planning Commission representatives for the Sugar House Subcommittee.)
Conservation Overlay District Field Trip
Mr. Wilde discussed scheduling a field trip to look at some of the infill housing in the East Central neighborhood. The Planning Commission members agreed to have a longer field trip prior to a scheduled Planning Commission meeting rather than scheduling a separate day and time. A field trip was tentatively scheduled prior to a Planning Commission meeting in March.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.