February 24, 2016

 

SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Room 326 of the City & County Building

451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah

 

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33:22 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for an indefinite period of time.

 

Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson Andres Paredes; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Angela Dean, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon and Clark Ruttinger. Chairperson Emily Drown and Commissioner Jamie Bowen were excused.

 

Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Manager; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Jonathan Goates, Principal Planner; Christopher Lee, Principal Planner; Tracy Tran, Principal Planner; Kelsey Lindquist, Associate Planner; Michelle Moeller, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.

 

Field Trip

A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Michael Fife, Maurine Bachman, Carolynn Hoskins, Andres Paredes and Clark Ruttinger. Staff members in attendance were Michaela Oktay, Jonathan Goates, Tracy Tran, Christopher Lee and Kelsey Lindquist.

 

The following sites were visited:

• 2471 South and 1700 East – Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

• 1059 East 900 South – Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

• 845 W Hoyt Place – Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

 

5:33:49 PM

Ms. Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the request for reconsideration. She reviewed the process and basis for reconsideration.

 

5:34:07 PM

Commissioners Gallegos and Dean arrived at the meeting.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the process and criteria for reconsideration, the next steps for the proposal and if a motion was needed.

 

5:39:11 PM

APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 2016, MEETING MINUTES.

MOTION 5:39:06 PM

Commissioner Fife moved to approve the February 10, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Gallegos abstained from voting as he was not present at the subject meeting.

 

REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:40:05 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes stated he had nothing to report.

 

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:40:11 PM

Ms. Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the Historic Preservation workshops in March. She asked the Commissioners to let Staff know if they would like to attend.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed when Staff was going to give a report on the TSA zoning and the current legislation for Historic Districts.

 

5:43:40 PM

Salt Lake Swimming and Tennis Club Addition at approximately 2471 South and 1700 East - A request by Ben Schreiter, architect, for approval of a proposed addition to the Salt Lake Swimming and Tennis Club with a reduced north setback and additional height. This project is being reviewed as a planned development because the applicant is asking for a zero feet (0’) north setback and five feet (5’) in additional height. The property is located at the above listed address and is in the OS zoning district (Open Space) in Council District 7, represented by Lisa Adams. (Staff contact: Tracy Tran at (801)535-7645 or tracy.tran@slcgov.com) Case Number -PLNSUB2015-01012

 

Ms. Tracy Tran, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following

• If there were UDOT easements on the property line.

 

Mr. Dade Rose, applicant, reviewed the project, history and future of the tennis club.

 

Mr. Ben Schreiter, applicant, reviewed the layout and design of the proposal. He discussed the UDOT easements on the property and stated the easements would not affect the proposal. Mr. Schreiter reviewed the parking and how the new facilities would enhance the area.

 

Mr. Rose reviewed how the proposal met the standards of the ordinance.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant reviewed the following:

• The location of the solar panels on the roof.

• The issues with adding solar on the existing tennis shed.

• If the proposed height included the height of the solar panels.

• The final pitch of the roof would be reviewed by Staff.

• The green features of the building.

• The definition of general public.

• The community amenities of the facility.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 6:19:44 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes opened the Public Hearing.

 

Ms. Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council, stated the Community Council supported the proposal. She stated hosting tennis tournaments, the improvements and trail connections would be a large amenity to the area. Ms. Short stated the general response was positive and negative comments were mainly about parking.

 

Mr. Chris Manning stated he supported the proposal, loved the red tennis courts but was glad to see them go in order for the improvements. He stated the club was an asset to the area and community.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION 6:26:16 PM

Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding, PLNSUB2015-01012, Salt Lake Swimming and Tennis Club Addition, based on the information in the Staff Report, public testimony, and discussion by the Planning Commission, he moved that the Planning Commission approve petition PLNSUB2015-01012, regarding the Salt Lake Swimming and Tennis Club planned development. Subject to conditions one through three in the Staff Report. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

6:27:18 PM

Mixed Use Planned Development & Special Exception at approximately 1059 East 900 South - A request by Richard Martin for approval of a proposed mixed-use project which includes second story addition on an existing building and outdoor dining. Through the Planned Development, a reduced front & corner side yard setback is proposed to accommodate for the Outdoor Dining, reduced side yard building setback of one foot on the interior yard for the building addition. Building height in the RB zoning district is thirty (30’) feet. The applicant is seeking five feet (5’) in additional height to accommodate an elevator shaft and additional building height for two elevations of the second story addition. Relocation of required front

and corner side yard landscaping and additional glazing (50% to 95%) on the south and west elevations. A Special Exception is also being requested for outdoor dining. The property is located in a RB zoning district (Residential Business) in Council District 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (801)535-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Number - PLNSUB2015-01019 and PLNPCM2016-00011

 

Ms. Kelsey Lindquist, Associate Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.

 

Mr. Phil Winston and Mr. Ron White reviewed the proposal and how it met the standards in the ordinance. They reviewed the use of the building, parking, the elevator requirement, landscaping, noise and privacy features of the building.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicants discussed the following:

• The public concerns regarding the style of the building and how it fit with the neighborhood.

• The design details of the building.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 6:38:23 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes opened the Public Hearing.

 

6:38:27 PM

Commissioner Lyon asked to be recused as there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes read the comment card from Ms. Cammille Chant in opposition to the proposal.

 

Mr. Darryl High, Community Council, reviewed the Community Council meeting and the presentation from the Developer. He stated parking was discussed, the proposal met the standards for the area and how the restaurant parking would be mitigated. Mr. High stated the elevator placement was great, the glazing fit with other properties in the area and the overall design would be an improvement to the area. He stated the Community Council supported the proposal.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Ms. Marie Taylor, Mr. Joseph Hatch, Ms. Sandra Hatch, Mr. Bryan Clifton, Ms. Marielos Patilogas, Ms. Judy Short and Ms. Cindy Cromer

 

The following comments were made:

• Parking was an issue in the area.

 

• The RB Zoning was appropriate but the building should not need exceptions to fit the zone.

• Building would not fit with the eclectic nature of the area.

• The building should be scaled down and changed to fit the area.

• Building did not meet the Master Plan or the zoning.

• The amount of glass did not fit with the nature of the area.

• Why was there a code if exceptions are given.

• The City was losing the small neighborhood areas where local businesses are showcased.

• Should revisit the zoning before opening the area up to these types of projects.

• Structure should be in a CB zone not RB.

• Need a picture of the streetscape to properly see how it the proposal fit with the neighborhood.

• Use of the word pleasing in the ordinance was appropriate.

• Building was not compatible with the existing surrounding uses.

 

 

The Commission asked Ms. Hatch if she participated in the Community Council meeting. She stated she did not.

 

The Commission asked Ms. Patilogas if the current building was compatible with the zoning. Ms. Patilogas stated she did not feel it was compatible but the proposal was for a remodel and there was more that could be done to make the building compatible.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes closed the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Winston stated they appreciated the comments from the neighbors. He stated the buildings used as examples, in the Staff Report, were in the adjacent area and similar to the proposal.

 

Mr. White stated most of the exceptions were for the outdoor dining patio.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:

• If the property called for a Planned Development solution.

o A building could be built within the zoning without a Planned Development.

o The applicant applied for a Planned Development and should be considered.

• The purpose of the RB zone.

• The proposed building would be good for Neighborhood Commercial zone but not the RB zone.

• The compelling reason for the request.

• If encroachment was allowed for outdoor dining without the setback exception.

• Moving the landscaping to the rear of the property and if that was a reasonable request.

• The amount of glazing on the building and how it could be addressed

o The Applicant stated they could break up the face of the building with brick to match the existing structure

• The materials that could be used for the proposal and if the applicant was willing to make changes.

• The community outreach for the proposal.

• The current building was out of character with the neighborhood and the new structure would not negatively impact it.

• Changing the amount of glazing on the building and allowing Planning Staff to make the decision on the final product.

• The use of the building.

• What constituted a sloped roof versus a pitched roof.

• How landscaping could be added to the front of the building in the public way.

• If the patio did or did not negate a Planned Development

• Direction to Staff on the glazing and if a percentage should be determined.

 

MOTION 7:27:55 PM

Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding, PLNSUB2015-01019 and PLNPCM2016-00011 Mixed Use Planned Development & Special Exception at approximately 1059 East 900 South, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, discussion and public hearing, he moved that the Planning Commission approve PLNSUB2015-01019 and PLNPCM2016-00011, Subject to conditions one through six in the Staff Report and in addition :

1. That Staff work with the Developer to meet the seventy percent glazing and also look at ways to improve the landscaping of the proposed development in the front yard.

 

Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallegos, Bachman and Ruttinger voted “aye”. Commissioners Paredes, Fife, Hoskins and Dean voted “nay”. The motion failed 3-4.

 

7:31:28 PM

Commissioner Dean stated regarding PLNSUB2015-01019 Planned Development request, based on presentation, discussion and issues being raised about compatibility, scale and the standard for Planned Development for the RB zone and the RB zone objectives and purpose, she moved that the Planning Commission deny the petition. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Fife, Hoskins and Dean voted “aye” Commissioners Gallegos, Bachman and Ruttinger voted “nay”. The motion passed 4-3.

 

7:32:58 PM

Commissioner Dean PLNPCM2016-00011 Outdoor Dining Special Exception, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the outdoor dining within the front yard setbacks. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously

 

The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:

• What was approved and denied for the petition.

• The next steps for the proposal.

• The requirement for the elevator to met ADA regulations.

 

7:35:53 PM

Commissioner Fife moved to reconsider the petition. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion

 

The Commission discussed the reasoning for the reconsideration.

 

Commissioners Ruttinger, Bachman, Hoskins, Fife and Gallegos voted “aye” Commissioner Dean voted “nay”. The motion passed 5 - 1.

 

7:39:02 PM

Commissioner Fife stated regarding, PLNSUB2015-01019 Mixed Use Planned Development at approximately 1059 East 900 South, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development items one, two and three and deny item four and item five that they relocate the front yard landscaping to the Public right of way, these items are listed as conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the height of the building and how it could be addressed.

 

Commissioner Ruttinger, Bachman, Hoskins, Fife and Gallegos voted “aye”. Commissioner Dean voted “nay”. The motion passed 5 – 1.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes reviewed the postponed agenda items.

 

7:44:16 PM

 

The Commission took a five minute break.

7:49:46 PM

 

The Commission reconvened

 

Commissioners Lyon returned to the meeting.

7:50:45 PM

 

Hoyt Place Zoning Amendment at approximately 845 W Hoyt Place - A request by David Robinson, on behalf of multiple property owners, to amend the zoning map

for properties on the private street Hoyt Place to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential from R-1/5000 and R-1/7000 Single Family Residential. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for more flexible development and accommodate potential residential infill. The subject property is within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: J.P. Goates at (801)535-7236 or jp.goates@slcgov.com) Case Number - PLNPCM2015-00301

 

Mr. Jonathan Goates, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• The required updates to the road and utilities if the properties were developed.

• Who owned the street and how it would be addressed when the property was developed.

 

Mr. David Robinson, applicant, reviewed the issues with developing the parcels and the public support for the petition. He reviewed the improvements that would be made to the road and area.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:

• The ownership of the road and how it would affect the proposal.

• The parking for the property.

• The potential development of the properties.

• If the additional parcels could be approved with the current application or were required to be done separately.

• The height limits of the proposed zoning and how they related to the current zoning.

• The setbacks for the current zoning versus the proposed zoning.

• The proposed homes would not front a street.

• The maintenance for the street.

• The density allowed under SR3.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 8:09:32 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes opened the Public Hearing. He read the comment cards in support of the petition from Ms. Marie Taylor and the questions from Mr. Eddy Del Rio.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. David Charboneau, Mr. Tom DaVroom and Ms. Michelle Fahmy.

 

The following comments were made:

• The character of the neighborhood was at stake with the proposed zoning.

• SR-1 zoning would be more appropriate for the area.

 

• The developer was proposing to build multiple homes on small lots when the lots should remain similar to the surrounding properties.

• Parking for guest would need to be addressed.

• Design should allow for other properties to be included in the proposal.

• Have the street continue through to 800 West.

• Property lines needed to be clarified.

• Would like communication from the Developer for any upcoming projects on the properties.

• Bringing in new utilities and a HOA would impact the home owners in the area.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed if current property owners could be forced to participate in a HOA.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes closed the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Robinson stated he would be contacting property owners regarding future development in the area. He discussed the parking for the proposals and stated his company typically liked to provide additional parking and pedestrian passage ways for developments.

 

The Commission, Applicant and Staff discussed the following.

• The reasoning for the requested zoning.

• The intensity of the proposed zoning.

• If setbacks and height would match the current zoning.

 

MOTION 8:27:59 PM

Commissioner Lyon stated regarding, PLNPCM2015-00301- Hoyt Place Zone Change from R-1/5,000 and R-1/7,000 to SR-3, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning amendment. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

8:28:56 PM

Commissioners Gallegos recused himself from item seven through ten.

8:29:16 PM

 

SLV Health Department Surplus Property Exchange at approximately 610 S 200 E - A request by Salt Lake City to convey a significant parcel of real estate pursuant to Municipal Code section 2.58.040 located at the above listed address to Salt Lake County. This is part of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County dated December 22, 2015. (Staff contact: Christopher Lee at (801)535-7706 or christopher.lee@slcgov.com) Case Number - PLNPCM2016-00049

 

Sunday Anderson Senior Center Surplus Property Exchange at approximately 868 W 900 S - A request by Salt Lake City to convey a significant parcel of real estate pursuant to Municipal Code section 2.58.040 located at the above listed address to Salt Lake County. This is part of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County dated December 22, 2015. (Staff contact: Christopher Lee at (801)535-7706 or christopher.lee@slcgov.com) Case Number - PLNPCM2016-00050

 

1000 E Senior Center Surplus Property Exchange at approximately 237 S 1000 E - A request by Salt Lake City to convey a significant parcel of real estate pursuant to Municipal Code section 2.58.040 located at the above listed address to Salt Lake County. This is part of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County dated December 22, 2015. (Staff contact: Christopher Lee at (801)535-7706 or christopher.lee@slcgov.com) Case Number - PLNPCM2016-00051

 

Liberty Senior Center Surplus Property Exchange at approximately 251 E 700 S - A request by Salt Lake City to convey a significant parcel of real estate pursuant to Municipal Code section 2.58.040 located at the above listed address to Salt Lake County to Salt Lake County. This is part of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County dated December 22, 2015. (Staff contact: Christopher Lee at (801)535-7706 or christopher.lee@slcgov.com) Case Number - PLNPCM2016-00052

 

Mr. Christopher Lee, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• A formal motion was not required for the petitions.

• The process for the land swap.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 8:34:53 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes opened the Public Hearing.

 

Ms. Cindy Cromer reviewed the history of the tennis courts on 10th East. She stated it was important to put a condition on the petition, especially where there are abutting properties that if the City or County decided to sell the adjacent property the other entity would be given the first right of refusal.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes closed the Public Hearing.

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:37:51 PM

SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Room 326 of the City & County Building

451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

 

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:31:48 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for an indefinite period of time.

 

Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson Andres Paredes; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon and Clark Ruttinger. Chairperson Emily Drown and Commissioner Angela Dean and Jamie Bowen were excused.

 

Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Lex Traughber, Senior Planner; Christopher Lee, Principal Planner; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.

 

Field Trip

A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Michael Fife, Maurine Bachman, Carolynn Hoskins, Andres Paredes and Clark Ruttinger. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, Lex Traughber, Casey Stewart, Christopher Lee and Maryann Pickering.

 

The following sites were visited:

• 546 S. McClelland Drive - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

o The Commission asked if they could acquire more land for access. Staff stated the neighbor would not sell.

• 214 East 10th Ave - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

o The Commission asked what the purpose for the request was. Staff stated it was to increase the yard area on the south side of the building.

• Trolley Square - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

o The Commission asked could they build to full height along Ely Place? Staff stated the zone allowed it, but all new construction would require review by the Historic Landmark Commission for scale and compatibility.

• 1964 S 900 E - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

 

APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 2016, MEETING MINUTES. 5:35:58 PM

MOTION 5:36:06 PM

Commissioner Ruttinger moved to approve the February 24, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Gallegos abstained from voting as he was not present at the subject meeting.

 

REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:36:38 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes stated he had nothing to report.

 

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:36:45 PM

Ms. Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director, stated she had nothing to report.

 

McClelland Enclave at approximately 546 S. McClelland Drive – A request by Jacob Ballstaedt, Garbett Homes, for approval to develop a new six lot subdivision at the above listed address. Currently the land is used for residential purposes and is zoned SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District). This type of project requires Subdivision and Planned Development review. The subject property is within Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at (801)535-7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgcov.com)

a. Preliminary Subdivision-In order to build the project noted above, a preliminary subdivision is required to create six lots and a private street as part of the development. Case number PLNSUB-2015-00358.

b. Planned Development -In order to build the project noted above, a Planned Development is required for the subdivision to have a private street and to reduce the setbacks for some of the proposed lots in the subdivision. Case number PLNSUB2015-00567.

 

Ms. Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the petition as presented.

 

Commissioner Lyon recused himself from the meeting.

 

Mr. Jacob Ballstaedt, Garbett Homes, reviewed the project, history and purpose of the proposal. He reviewed the traffic, access and waste program for the property.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant reviewed the following:

• If the eight homes included the two existing homes.

• If the existing homes would be part of the HOA.

• The access to the site for construction vehicles.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 5:55:32 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes opened the Public Hearing.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Ms. Cindy Jones, Mr. Dave Jones, Mr. Craig Webb, Mr. Dean Mohr and Mr. Joseph Redd.

 

The following comments were made:

• Concerned over the egress and ingress of the lane.

• Parking was an issue and the proposal would make it worse.

• Current property owners use the subject area for parking.

• The proposal would help to improve the area.

• The proposal fit the area and should be allowed.

• A limited number of places existed in the city where this plan worked and this area was one of those.

• Something needed to be done to improve the property as it was not being maintained.

• In its current state, the area was a magnet for crime.

• Would like the property line measurements moved to reflect the current fence line.

• How would the sewer lines be configured for the proposal and current homes.

• Plan should be denied as no more than three homes should be allowed on the property.

• The car and pedestrian traffic in the area was already an issue.

• The use of the road would cause problems for the existing home owners.

• The road was too narrow for emergency vehicles.

• Builder had the right to develop the property and maximize the use of the property but not at the expense of the current residence.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes closed the Public Hearing.

 

The Applicant stated the property line would be moved to match the existing fence line. He addressed the sewer line updates and how it would affect the neighborhood. The Applicant stated the development would improve the area under the zoning.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:

• If the proposal met the standards.

• The ownership of the private lane.

• The potential risk for the home owners without knowing who owned the lane.

• The easements to the properties.

• Waste removal program for the proposal.

 

The Commission discussed the following:

• The access to the property.

• The area was blighted and changes needed to be made.

• The development would add to the area.

• A couple extra housing units would not be a detriment to property access.

• Anyone trying to develop the area would have issues with the narrow drive.

 

MOTION 6:17:10 PM

Commissioner Ruttinger stated regarding, PLNSUB2015-00358 McClelland Enclave at 546 S. McClelland Street Preliminary Subdivision and PLNSUB2015-00567 Planned Development, based on the Staff Report, testimony and proposal presented, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the planned development and subdivision request for the property located at approximately 546 S. McClelland Street. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Norris stated the Staff Report identified that standards C and E were not met. He explained the motion should state the Commission’s findings on how the standards were met.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the standards of approval and the findings. They discussed the eight standards in the Staff Report, if the proposal met the standards and the findings needed in the motion.

 

Mr. Nielson disclosed that a member of the public approached him regarding giving a statement. He stated the Commission did call for additional comments during the Public Hearing, a motion was on the table and the Public Hearing had been closed.

 

Commissioner Ruttinger amended the motion to state based on the Commission’s discussion, testimony, information from the applicant and public, the Commission did not feel that the waste collection would be overly impactful nor the increased traffic from the two additional units. The applicant was preserving the home that was in good condition and would be adding to the housing stock, and it fit within the existing requirements with conditions one through eight in the Staff Report. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously.

 

6:26:44 PM

Commissioners Lyon returned to the meeting.

 

6:26:47 PM

Merrill Residence Planned Development & Height Special Exception at approximately 214 East 10th Ave – A request by David and Colleen Merrill for approval to reduce the front yard setback and increase the allowed height of a new single family residence at the above listed address. Currently the land is occupied by one single family dwelling, which would be demolished. This type of project must be reviewed as a Planned Development and Special Exception. The subject property is within Council District 3 represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (801)535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com.) Case numbers PLNSUB2015-00965 and PLNPCM2016-00004

 

Mr. Casey Stewart, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the petition as presented.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• The access to the structure from 10th Ave.

• If the rooms above the garage would be attached to the main structure.

• The setbacks for other properties in the area.

 

Mr. Alan Roberts, architect, reviewed the project and requests. He explained the issues with the grade of the lot and why the additional height was being requested. Mr. Roberts stated the neighbors supported the petition; the new structure would not impede on the views from the neighboring properties and would improve the area. He reviewed the setback request and the layout of the home on the lot.

 

Mr. David Merrill and Ms. Colleen Merrill, applicants, reviewed the project, history of the neighborhood and why they were asking for the exceptions. They stated the proposal fit the area and would be a benefit to the blighted property.

 

Mr. Scooll, architect, read the purpose statement of the zoning and how the proposal met the standards.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant reviewed the following:

• How the design would be changed if the setbacks were met.

• If the there was something that prohibited moving the home to meet the setbacks.

• The seismic requirements for the proposal.

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING 6:53:48 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes opened the Public Hearing.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. Carl Hodges.

 

The following comments were made:

• Would not affect the view from the surrounding properties.

• Would improve the area.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes closed the Public Hearing.

 

The Commission and Staff reviewed the following:

• The average size of homes in the area.

• The reason the Planned Development process was chosen.

• If other similar proposals had been completed in the past.

 

The Commission discussed the following:

 

• The Planned Development process was unusual for this type of proposal but the other options may take longer.

• If they would or would not support the approval of the petition.

• Zone should not be changed for one petition and one lot.

 

The Commission and Applicants discussed the following

• The reason for the garage placement.

• How moving the home back ten feet would affect the design and proposal.

• The plan for the trees on the property.

 

MOTION 7:06:21 PM

Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding, PLNSUB2015-00965 Merrill Residence Planned Development, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the requested Merrill Residence Planned Development, based on the testimony regarding Standard A - the concerns were addressed. The proposal met the requirement for building materials, the stabilization of the construction and would be adding to the character of the area. The proposal was compatible with the surrounding structures and area. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallegos, Hoskins, Bachman and Ruttinger voted “aye”. Commissioners Lyon and Fife voted “nay”. The motion passed 4-2.

 

MOTION 7:10:27 PM

Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding, PLNPCM2016-00004 Merrill Special Exception for Building Height, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the requested Merrill Residence Special Exception for height as there were varying building heights in the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed height was lower than the existing home, and the lot was not level therefore, it created some complexities with the height. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallegos, Hoskins, Bachman and Ruttinger voted “aye”. Commissioners Lyon and Fife voted “nay”. The motion passed 4-2.

 

7:12:17 PM

Commissioners Lyon recused himself from the meeting.

 

7:12:21 PM

Trolley Square Ventures Zoning Map Amendment - A request by Douglas White, representing the property owner Trolley Square Ventures, LLC, to amend the zoning map for the following seven properties: 644 E 600 S (Parcel #16-06-481-019), 603 S 600 E (Parcel #16-06-481-001),652 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-001), 658 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-002),664 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-003), 628 S 700 E (Parcel #16-05-353-016),665 E. Ely Place (Parcel #16-05-353-014). The subject parcels are currently zoned RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District),

RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District) and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District). The applicant is requesting that the properties be rezoned to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) with the intent to redevelop the site in the future as a mixed-use (residential & commercial) development. The properties are located within City Council District 4 represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Lex Traughber, (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2015-00031

 

Mr. Lex Traughber, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition as presented.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• If the proposal would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission and the process for review.

• The use of the FBUN 2 zone in a Historic Distric.

• If there would be conflicts with the H overlay and the proposed zoning.

• The Planning Commission’s role in the process of approving items on the site.

• If the FBUN 2 could be used without being next to FBUN 1 zone.

• If there was a requirement to make the entire block one zone.

 

Mr. Khosrow Semnani, property owner, reviewed the background of Trolley Square and his vision for the site. He reviewed the history of Trolley Square and the challenges with the site and current zoning.

 

The Commission and Applicant reviewed the following:

• A great opportunity for an active hub to be created.

• Great opportunity to make the area walkable.

• The public outreach conducted for the proposal.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 7:45:57 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes opened the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Mr. Michael Iverson, Central City Community Council, stated the Community Council had not been able to review the proposal and therefore; they could not support the petition either way. He stated there was a total lack of communication for the proposal from the City Planner or the Applicant. Mr. Iverson stated the community needed the opportunity to understand the proposal and how it would affect the area. Mr. Iverson stated he would hesitate to call the Master Plan a Master Plan as it was amended continuously. He asked the Commission to table the petition to allow for further community outreach.

 

Chairperson Paredes read cards from the following individuals:

 

• Ms. Karen Bradakis – I am against changing the zoning so they can build a high rise apartment or condominium south of Trolley Square. I prefer keeping the zoning as is.

 

• Ms. Lynn Schwarz- I oppose.

 

• Mr. Bradley DeHerrera- Mixed use zoning is beneficial and good however; FB-UN 2 does not seem to represent the mixed uses that the neighborhood seeks. The current proposed redevelopment is poorly designed and not supporting of the community at stake. The neighborhood in this Trolley area has not been asked for their opinions. There are alternatives propositions that could liven the block south of Trolley Square.

 

• Mr. Christian Laedlke – That vacant lot is under used and an eyesore. It would do well to be open for mixed residential (commercial) zoning.

 

• Ms. Melisa Martinez- While I’m in favor of the mixed use and higher density in downtown Salt Lake City neighborhoods. I also think they have a great potential of changing the character of such neighborhood in a negative way. The housing complexes we have seen go up in the Trolley Square area so far have been cookie cutter in similar structures, creating a sense of separation from the existing neighborhood instead of what many of us current residents would like to see, which is integration and an added sense of community. I honestly don’t know what the solution is but in order to avoid this continued gentrifications and housing projects that will eventually push current residents out of the neighborhood because they won’t be able to afford it. We need more conversations, neighborhood involvement and collaboration in making these decisions that affect existing residents many of whom are not present today and are not involved in these processes and decisions, many are low income.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. Stuart Clason, Mr. Brent Uberty, Ms. Becky Brown, Mr. Warren Lloyd, Mr. James Miska, Mr. Jack Davis, Mr. Joe Scovel, Ms. Cindy Cromer, Mr. Alan Ragsdale, Ms. Mandy McKenna, Mr. Nickolas Rupp, Mr. Dallin Johnson, Ms. Leslie Trubetzkoy, Mr. William Nevins, Mr. James Webster, Ms. Collette Gillian, Mr. Scott Howell.

 

The following comments were made:

• The area needed improvement and it was important to help the process move in the right direction.

• Would love to see the surface level parking lot changed into something more.

• In favor of form based code.

• Excited to see the property developed in a positive way.

• In favor of the proposed rezone.

• Would help improve the area and rid it of the blight.

• Area was an urban neighborhood where apartment buildings belonged.

• Would not affect the diversity of the area in a negative way.

• Changing the zoning to allow development would help the neighborhood.

• Table the petition and reconsider changing the zoning.

• The preservation plan did apply to the area and should be considered.

• Something needed to be done to improve the historic nature of the area.

• Should consider other options than rezoning to the FBUN zone.

• Rezone would dilute the type of businesses in the area as local business owners could not afford rents in these developments.

• Did not strengthen the area or neighborhood.

• This part of town did not need more commercial entities.

• The new zoning should complement the surrounding zoning.

• Zoning was incompatible with current City Master Plans.

• The proposed zone did not match the height, scale, setbacks, parking requirements and intensity of uses that were incompatible with the area.

• The proposal would render the existing historic structures as non-conforming.

• Proposal should be considered an amendment to the master plan and had not been properly noticed to the public as such.

• Proposed zone would create a mismatch with H Overlay Zoning and the base zoning, which was discouraged under the preservation plan.

• Businesses in the area want the rezone and support the petition.

• Most of the homes in the area are rentals and renters did not want to comment on the proposal.

• The site had been addressed in detail in the current plans because everyone had been anticipating the redevelopment of the surface parking lot for years.

• The FBUN 2 zone did not comply with Master Plan.

• The Planning Division had made a conceptual error in claiming the Historic Landmark Commission could deal with any issues associate with the application of an inappropriate zone.

• Historic Preservation was under siege in the city.

• The Planning Commission was the body to help regulate zoning in the city.

• Created a walkable and urban neighborhood for the area.

• The proposal would give the property the opportunity to have the best value and quality for the Community, Residents and Local Businesses.

• Disagreed with Staff on the interpretation and direction given to the Planning Commission both academically and functionally.

• Disappointed with the applicant on the lack of engagement with the public.

• The Staff Report ignored the Community Preservation Plan, the Livable Communities Project and the most recent Central City Historic District Reconnaissance Level Survey.

• Salt Lake City had a habit of rezoning historic structures with the assumption that the Historic Landmark Commission would take care of the structures later in the process which was an academic fail and directly contrary to the adopted planning documents.

• RMU-45 zoning would be a better fit for the area.

• Historic Landmark Commission should not carry the sole burden of protecting the historic properties in the area.

• Something needed to be done in the area but the proposal would not bring economic benefits.

• Consider the economic effects of the proposal before approving something that could be a detriment to the area.

• Changes have been made to the neighborhood that the residences were not notified of.

• The historic buildings in the area are the patina of the city and should be protected.

• How would rezoning maintain the community esthetic.

• Did the Property Owner buy the property with the intent to change the area or work with what existed.

• New mega developments are a detriment to the area.

• Proposal was premature and more information was needed.

• Need to wait for the development proposal in order to know if the zoning was necessary.

• Notices were sent to residences and people were notified of the meetings.

• Can’t move forward with development unless the zoning was changed.

• A lot of the comments given were hearsay and not factual.

• Rezone would allow for development of affordable housing that was necessary in the area.

• The project would bring tax money back to the city.

 

The Commission and Mr. Lloyd discussed what zoning would be beneficial for the area. Mr. Lloyd stated the FBUN zone was untried and more research was needed.

 

The Commission asked Ms Cromer what her view as to what the big differences were between FNUB 2 and RMF-45.

 

Ms. Cromer stated she thought the property should be zoned RMU-45, as it would be consistent with the Master Plan and future land use map.

 

The Commission stated the current zoning was RMF-45. They discussed the history of the zoning on the property.

 

Ms. Cromer stated the RMF-45 and the RMU-45 were consistent with the Master Plan in terms of intensity of use. She stated the city had different zoning tools and all should be considered before one was chosen.

 

The Commission and Mr. Rupp discussed how the rezone would affect the historic properties in the proposal.

 

Mr. Rupp stated it was the first step in approving the demolition of the properties and he would not support rezoning that did not support the historic district and the Historic Landmark Commission in retaining the historic structures. He stated the proposed zoning would make the structure completely non-conforming.

 

The Commission and Mr. Johnson discussed how changing the zoning to form based zoning caused the development of a luxury apartment units.

 

Mr. Johnson stated with introducing the proposal Planning was allowing for an increase in mixed use housing and the Commission was providing an incentive to provide high end condos/apartments and different hotels. He stated by allowing these the rent ceiling would be increased.

 

The Commission asked Mr. Johnson about the supply out pacing the demand.

 

Mr. Johnson stated currently Salt Lake City was seeing unprecedented development in terms of luxury apartments but there were not a lot of vacancies and lower income housing was not being constructed.

 

The Commission asked Mr. Wally Wright if he wished to speak on the issue. He stated he did not wish to speak.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes closed the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Semnani stated they did not have a proposal to show the public regarding the future development of the property. He stated they would work with the community to make the design fit with the area and highly encouraged the community to give their input on the future development. Mr. Semnani reviewed the businesses housed in Trolley Square, the Community Outreach for the proposal, the affordable housing that would be part of the development and that they would keep in mind the historical nature and economic viability of the development.

 

Mr. Doug White, attorney, stated the decision to rezone was not haphazard it had been in the works for three years. He stated it was impossible for the developer to ask everyone what should be in the zone as everyone would have their own opinion. Mr. White stated research had been gathered on what to do with the site and there was a great need for apartments in Salt Lake City. He asked the public not to make a judgment on a project that had not been presented. Mr. White stated the lots were already non-conforming and the City had recognized that eventually the lots would be changed. He stated the proposed zone would make it possible to have a development in the area that was reasonable and sensitive to the historical zone and the neighborhood

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• The outreach to the Community Councils and why presentations were not given at those Councils.

• Why the proposed zoning was chosen.

• The Trolley Square area goal, listed in the Staff Report, and if the language was taken from the Master Plan.

• The difference in density and height in the various zones.

 

MOTION 8:53:57 PM

Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding, PLNPCM2016-00031, Trolley Square Ventures Zoning Map Amendment, based on the analysis and findings listed in the Staff Report, and the testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) for the following parcels:

• 644 E 600 S (Parcel #16-06-481-019)

• 652 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-001)

• 658 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-002)

• 664 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-003)

• 628 S 700 E (Parcel #16-05-353-016)

• 665 E. Ely Place (Parcel #16-05-353-014)

 

With the exception of the property located at 603 S 600 E (Parcel #16-06-481-001) which shall remain zoned as RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District). Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• The difference in the current zoning and the proposed zoning.

• The setbacks for the proposal.

 

Commissioners Gallegos, Bachman, Hoskins and Ruttinger voted “aye”. Commissioner Fife voted “nay”. The motion passed 4-1

 

9:01:31 PM

The Commission took a short break.

 

9:07:49 PM

Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1964 S 900 E – A request by Cottonwood Residential to amend the master plan and zoning map designation of eight properties near the intersection of Ramona Avenue and 900 E. The intent of the proposal is to consolidate the parcels into one and then construct a multi-family residential development. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-family Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use) to allow for structures up to 45’ tall and allow more apartments. The subject properties are currently residential uses ranging from a single family home to multi-family buildings. The Planning Commission may consider other zoning designations that are equal or less intense to what is being proposed. (Staff contact: Chris Lee at (801)535-7706 or chris.lee@slcgov.com.) Case numbers PLNPCM2015-00956 and PLNPCM2015-00957

 

Mr. Christopher Lee, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the petition as presented.

 

Mr. Jeremy Carver and Ryan Heath, Cottonwood Residential, reviewed the proposal, the property history and how the proposal would benefit the area. They reviewed the public outreach and changes made to the plan due comments received in that outreach. They stated they would be willing to enter into a Development Agreement stating there would not be commercial spaces available in the development. They asked the Commission to approve the proposal.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 9:34:25 PM

Vice Chairperson Paredes opened the Public Hearing.

 

Ms. Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council, reviewed the reasoning for the current zoning, the public outreach for the proposal and the lack of support. Ms. Short stated there were many apartment units being constructed in Sugar House and that crime was not any worse in this area than other areas. She reviewed the number of apartments in the Salt Lake and the number of vacancies in those units. Ms. Short stated the Community, Community Council and Master Plan did not support the rezoning or proposal. She stated they did not want to remove the historic homes from the streetscape and the proposal would bring more traffic to the area. Ms. Short asked the Commission to deny the petition.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes read the following cards:

 

Mr. Michael Rubin – The Sugar House Master Plan was crafted over several years with the input of a great many people and was designed for a specific purpose, to maintain the character and viability of the neighborhood. Much has changed over the years in Sugar House with a dramatic increase in the number of large apartment complexes and as a result in the number of residents and cars. Although many of us appreciate the need for more housing in Sugar House, this can’t come at the expense of the principles designed into the Master Plan. Changes to the Sugar House Master Plan should only be made for the most justified reasons and conditions. There is no clearly justifiable reason for this change. The reason is only to accommodate a developer’s wish to significantly increase the density of housing in this area. This will dramatically change the character of this area in Sugar House and does not conform with the goals of the Master Plan. Please respect the Master Plan and reject this proposal and help us maintain the charm of Sugar House.

 

Ms. Kim Payne – I’m concerned that someone can petition or a rezone to accommodate their own commercial interests (in this care a large apartment complex that wants to maximize the height of their structure for profits) and dwarf the surrounding residential structures. Where would the line be drawn between commercial interest and residents? Also, the size of the propose apartments should it be allowed will bring a greater impact to traffic on 900 East worsening the situation that we currently have in that area with traffic concerns.

 

Mr. Eric Wynn – I’m opposed to the proposed rezone and change in the master plan. The area cannot support the increased traffic that would accompany the change in zoning. Additionally, this type of high density housing is no in the character of the area. We should keep current zoning regulations. I’m not against improved, refreshed development of the lots in question. However, irrevocably changing the zoning will not improve the area but will add to already congested traffic and change the character of the area.

 

Ms. Cindy Walker – I am opposed to the rezoning of this area. I am already impacted by the traffic in trying to get out of my driveway (across the street from Memorial Clinic). Sugar House area already has two new huge apartment complexes (Vue & Liberty Village and two more in the building stage, Granite Furniture area). The charm of Sugar House is being replaced by apartments. We have had enough! Please don’t rezone this area with the possibility of more high density apartments and more traffic.

 

Ms. Krista Barns – I oppose the rezoning due to the increased traffic, loss of the charm Sugar House currently has and blockage of any views we have. Sugar House is over building high rise condo’s and apartments and this takes away the appeal it currently has. Thank you for your consideration of these views.

Ms. Lynn Swartz – I oppose.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. George Chapman, Mr. John Dauna, Mr. Allen Spencer, Mr. Richard Pasmann, Mr. Fredrick Perfuma, Mr. Derek Payne, Ms. Teresa Wilhelmsen, Mr. Gerald McDough, Mr. Dan Heaton, Ms. Megan Heaton, Mr. Mahan Khalsa, Mr. Justin Bowcutt, Ms. Jen Golembeski, Mr. Kyle Williams, Ms. Vicki Townsend, Ms. Steve Townsend, Mr. Carl Pollock, Mr. Bruce Hagans, Ms. Julie Ban, Mr. Charles Kirkham, Ms. Tracie Kirkham, Ms. Susan Rose, Mr. Todd Holbrook, Ms. Philippa Magone, Ms. Amy Vera and Ms. Elaine Thorton.

 

The following comments were made:

• Deny the petition as the negative impacts could not be mitigated.

• Would increase traffic and air pollution in the area.

• Development needed to be done but not at the sake of the Master Plan or the zoning.

• Sugar House did not need additional high rise apartments.

• Crime in the area was very low.

• Supported the project and the area had continuously changed over the years.

• Properties next to apartments are usually devalued when they are appraised.

• If the value of the properties changed after the proposal was built would the developer compensate the property owners.

• Concentrating renters in any area was not good as they tend to not care about the property as much as an owner would.

• Commercial creep would erode the residential area.

• The Master Plan committee would not have wanted to up zone any of the residential areas that qualify as a transitional zone.

• It was important to have affordable apartments in the area.

• Not fair to call renters nomads and inverts.

• Would be a good amendment to the Master Plan and the zoning.

• There was no guarantee that the original proposal would be constructed.

• What proposal was being approved as there were many shown to the public.

• Important to buffer the area and protect the bungalow homes in the area.

• At least ninety five percent of the neighbors were against the proposal.

• Not right to rezone for the benefit of the developer at the detriment of the surrounding property owners.

• Large structure will deteriorate the uniqueness of the neighborhood.

• Would destabilize the neighborhood.

• Proposal would not improve the area.

• Current apartments are hidden so removing them would not change the character of the neighborhood.

• Would rather keep the property values high with the quality proposal from the Developer.

• Community could work with the Developer on a great design.

• Scope of work needed to fit the area and not be a detriment.

• The difference in the current parking requirements and what would be allowed under the proposal.

• Townhomes were not affordable to construct in the area.

• Good renters were hard to come by.

• The Master Plan was a guideline for how the inevitable change was addressed.

 

 

The Commission and Ms. Short discussed the wishes of the Community Council and the surrounding community.

 

Ms. Short stated they wanted the area to be a buffer zone between the commercial and the residential areas. She stated town homes would be more appropriate for the area.

 

The Commission, Staff and Ms. Thorton discussed the grandfather clause that prohibited more units to be constructed on the site under the current zoning.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes closed the Public Hearing.

 

The Applicants stated there were people who supported the proposal that were scared to express their support. They stated townhomes would not be viable in the area and they would own the property forever as it would be a flagship development for their company. They explained they were willing to work with the Community to develop a viable and

community friendly development on the property. They asked the Commission to approve the proposal as presented.

 

The Commission and Applicants discussed the following:

• Why the zoning was compatible for the area and if there was a compromise.

 

MOTION 10:41:48 PM

Commissioner Lyon stated regarding, PLNPCM2015-00956 and PLNPCM2015-00957 Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment at 1964 S 900 E, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Amendments. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion.

 

The Commission discussed the following

• Understand the issues the Developers have but the zoning was too much for the area.

• Like the product but not in the proposed area.

• Needed to maintain the affordability in the area.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:44:18 PM

SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Room 326 of the City & County Building

451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

 

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:41:37 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for an indefinite period of time.

 

Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Emily Drown, Vice Chairperson Andres Paredes; Commissioners Jamie Bowen, Angela Dean, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Matt Lyon and Clark Ruttinger. Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins and Maurine Bachman were excused.

 

Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Michael Maloy, Senior Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Christopher Lee, Principal Planner; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.

 

Field Trip

A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Michael Fife, Emily Drown, Michael Gallegos, Andres Paredes and Clark Ruttinger. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, David Gellner, Doug Dansie, Michael Maloy, Christopher Lee and Anthony Riederer.

 

The following sites were visited:

• 740 S 700 E - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

o The Commission asked if the block building would be demolished. Staff stated yes.

o The Commission asked if it would comply with parking. Staff stated yes.

o The Commission asked how many people attend the building. Staff stated at the largest time it would be about 200 people.

• 1528 West North Temple - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

• 315 East 200 South - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

• 800 N 800 W - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

• 1932 N. 2200 West - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

• 211-251 N. Cornell Street - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

o The Commission asked the difference between core and transition. Staff stated they would address this during the meeting and the primary difference was height.

o The Commission asked would they have to bring the project back to the Commission for approval. Staff stated it depended on the design of the building.

• 1117 E South Temple Street - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

• 1724 E 2700 S - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.

o The Commission asked if the shed could be moved somewhere else on the property. Staff stated it exceeded the maximum square footage permitted on the site.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 9, 2016, MEETING MINUTES. 5:42:04 PM

MOTION 5:42:12 PM

Commissioner Fife moved to approve the March 9, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:42:30 PM

Chairperson Emily Drown stated she had nothing to report.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes reminded the Commissioners of the March 31, workshop regarding windows and encouraged everyone to attend.

 

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:43:00 PM

Ms. Nora Shepard, Planning Director, stated she had nothing to report.

 

Mr. Norris stated the petition for McClelland Enclave was appealed.

 

The Commissioners discussed the issues with noticing multiple Community Councils and public notices. They discussed if the process could be changed to ensure Community Councils were given a chance to hold meetings for issues in their areas prior to the Planning Commission hearings.

 

Ms. Shepard stated Staff had been discussing the issue, reviewed the current Open House and notification process and how to make the notification process clear. She stated it was always best to over notify an item and Staff was looking on ways to train Community Councils on the process.

 

The Commission asked when the TSA briefing would be presented to the Commission.

 

Mr. Norris stated the goal was to have it on the next meeting agenda.

 

5:51:50 PM

 

Conditional Use for Masjid Al-Noor Mosque at approximately 740 S 700 E - Kimly Mangum, architect on behalf of the property owner, is requesting a Conditional Use Approval to construct a place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size located at the above listed. The subject property is located in an RMF-35 (Moderate Density Residential Multi Family) zoning district and is located in Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff contact: Anthony Riederer at (801)535-7625 or anthony.riederer@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2015-00968

 

Mr. Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• The parking for the facility.

 

Mr. Kimly Mangum reviewed the project and need for the additional space.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant reviewed the following:

• The configuration of the offsite parking and if it would continue with the new plan.

• The number of people that use the facility.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 6:00:56 PM

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. Dave Alderman, Mr. Abdul Arridi, Mr. Arle Motowala, Mr. Peter Corroon and Mr. Bryan Schellenberg.

 

The following comments were made:

• Would like to have a nice building for people to gather and pray.

• New building would help teach people about the Muslim culture.

• Needed more space to accommodate worshipers.

• In favor of the proposal.

• Parking was not an issue for the facility.

• Excited for the updates to the building.

• Thankful for the community support.

• Would bring a new architecture to the city.

 

Vice Chairperson Paredes read the following cards:

• Ms. Noor Hason- Thank you for providing board support and we appreciate being able to expand this so we can serve refugees better in Salt Lake City.

 

Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION 6:07:04 PM

Commissioner Fife stated regarding, PLNPCM2015-00968, Conditional Use for Mosque, based on the analysis of the Staff Report and public comments, he moved that Planning Commission approve the requested Conditional Use application (PLNPCM2016-00968) with conditions one through three listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

6:08:43 PM

Cornell Alley Vacation at approximately 1528 West North Temple - Power Station Investments, LLC, is requesting to vacate an alley adjacent to Cornell Street located at the above listed address. The alley runs north/south along the western edge of the property and east/west through the middle of the property. The alley does not provide access to any other property. The project is located in Council District One represented by James Rogers (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at (801)535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2015-00941

 

Mr. Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.

 

Mr. Blake Henderson, Power Station Investments, LLC, reviewed the project and the history of the alley.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 6:13:12 PM

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION 6:13:30 PM

Commissioner Lyon stated regarding, PLNPCM2015-00941 Cornell Alley Closure, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report and public comment, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2015-00941, Cornell Alley Closure. Commissioner Bowen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

6:14:27 PM

 

Cornell Station Area Zoning Map Amendment, Alley Vacation and Street Closure for the properties located at approximately 211-251 N. Cornell Street - Peter Corroon, representing Little Diamond Housing, LLC is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for seven parcels, vacate the platted alleys, and, close a platted but non-existing segment of Stewart Avenue through the properties. These requests are part of a proposal to develop multi-family housing on the subject parcels. Currently the properties contain 2 single-family residences and the undeveloped street and alleys. The current zoning does not permit multi-family housing. The alleys and street would be incorporated into a new development and would be sold if the proposal is approved by the City Council. The property area, including the alleys and street encompasses approximately 1.57 acres (68,432 square feet) total. The project area is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801)535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com.)

a. Zoning Map Amendment - The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the property parcels, adjacent alleys and street segment from BP (Business Park) to the TSA-MUEC-C Zoning District (Transit Station Area Mixed Use Employment Center Station Core). Although the applicant has requested that the properties be rezoned from BP to TSA-MUEC-C, consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Case number PLNPCM2015-00824

b. Alley Vacation - The petitioner is requesting the City vacate and close the platted but undeveloped alleys located around the subject properties so the area can be incorporated into a proposed multi-family residential project as private property. The alleyways encompass approximately 11,500 square feet (0.26 acres) of property. Case number PLNPCM2015-01002

c. Stewart Avenue Street Closure - The petitioner is requesting the City close a platted segment of Stewart Avenue that exists on paper only. This undeveloped street segment is located just north of the property located at 211 N. Cornell Street. It runs from Cornell Street to the west for a distance of approximately 200 feet and contains approximately 11,500 square feet (0.26 acres) of public property which would be incorporated into a proposed multi-family residential project as private property. Case number PLNPCM2016-00079

 

Mr. David Gellner, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• If the parcel were required to be combined.

 

Mr. Peter Corroon and Mr. McNedo, Little Diamond Housing stated they did not have anything to add to the presentation.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant reviewed the following:

• The reasoning behind the requested zoning.

• The Master Plan called out TSA Zoning for the area.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 6:26:16 PM

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.

 

Ms. Joann Anderson, Jordan Meadows Community Council, stated the Staff Report miss labeled the title of the trailer park and there were two entrances to the All Seasons Mobile Home Park. She stated the Jordan Meadows and Fairpark Community Councils did not want the proposed zoning. Ms. Anderson stated the proposed zoning would allow for large buildings to be constructed in the backyard of the mobile homes. She reviewed the preferred zoning that was more compatible for the area. Ms. Anderson stated the issue was not with removing the alley but parking and the zoning

both of which would not fit with the area. She reviewed how other projects worked with the zoning and where the TSA Zoning was intended to be used.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. Walter Gunn, Ms. Cheyenne Nimes and Ms. Shawna Peck.

 

The following comments were made:

• The alley way needed to be maintained as a buffer zone from the development and a corridor to the Cornell Trax Station.

• Maintaining the alley would give sight lines to the wall around the mobile home park and help with crime.

• Height was not an issue if the buffer was there.

• The potential allowable height would be an issue for the surrounding properties.

• The additional people and traffic would be an issue for the area.

• Development should be a grocery store or some type of community based business not more housing.

• How would the development affect the schools in the area?

 

The Commission and Mr. Walter discussed the access points to Trax from the mobile home park.

 

Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

The Applicant reviewed the access to the mobile home park. They stated the current alley was a driveway for the existing home.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:

• The setbacks for the proposal and different zones.

• When the Master Plan was updated for the area.

• If the proposal would include mixed use.

• The possible use and design for the property.

• The parking for the proposal.

• The streets affected by the proposal.

 

The Commission discussed the following:

• Concerns from the public about multifamily housing and the fair housing act.

• Conducting an assessment of the area regarding fair housing.

• City needed to look at disbursement of affordable housing to ensure low income housing was not concentrated in one area.

• If the petitions should be considered separately or together.

 

MOTION 6:55:38 PM

Commissioner Dean stated regarding, Alley Vacation PLNPCM2015-01002, based on the findings and analysis listed in the Staff Report and the testimony and plans presented, she moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive

recommendation to the City Council for the Alley Vacation PLNPCM2015-01002. Commissioner Bowen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

MOTION 6:56:43 PM

 

Commissioner Dean stated regarding PLNPCM2015-00824 Amending Zoning from BP to TSA-MUEC-C, based on the findings and analysis listed in the Staff Report and the testimony and plans presented, she moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for a Zoning Map Amendment from the existing BP (Business Park) zoning district to the TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area Mixed Use Employment Center Transition) zoning district. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

MOTION 6:57:37 PM

Commissioner Bowen stated regarding PLNPCM2016-00079, Street Closure, based on the findings and analysis listed in the Staff Report and the testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Street Closure. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

6:58:55 PM

Public Safety Building Land Transfer at approximately 315 East 200 South - Dan Rip, Salt Lake City Property Management, is requesting authorization for the conveyance of a significant parcel of real estate pursuant to City Code 2.58.040. The property is the former public safety building located the above listed address. The sale of the building is preceding though an RFP (Request for Proposal) process administered by Salt Lake City Real Property Management, who is in negotiation with a private developer to restore the historical building, built in 1958, and construct additional housing. The project is, located in Council District Four represented by Derek Kitchen (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at (801)535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2016-00066

 

Mr. Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Mayor regarding the petition.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• If the item needed to be heard by the Commission since they were not required to make a recommendation.

o A Public Hearing was required for the petition.

 

Mr. Dan Rip and Mr. Todd Reider, Salt Lake City Property Management, reviewed the proposal for the building.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant reviewed the following:

• What the building was currently used for.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 7:04:35 PM

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION 7:05:11 PM

Commissioner Fife moved that the Public Hearing be closed. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

7:05:27 PM

Adding Community Recreation Center as a Conditional Use in RMF-35 - The Good Samaritan Foundation is requesting to amend the Land Use Table to allow Community Recreation Centers as a Conditional Use in the RMF-35 (Residential Multi-Family, Medium Density) zoning district. The amendments will affect section 21A.33.020 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A (Zoning) may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact: Anthony Riederer at (801)535-7625 or anthony.riederer@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2015-00775

 

Mr. Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• If the facilities under the proposed definition were publicly funded.

• If a new definition for the proposed use was needed.

• Who would be using the facilities and what types of uses would fall under the definition.

• Why the proposal was to add the use to only RMF 35 zoning.

o Staff was reviewing other zones where the use could be allowed but did not want to hold up the petition.

• If the proposal was denied where would facilities such as these be allowed.

 

7:17:05 PM

The Commission took a short break.

 

7:22:55 PM

The Commission reconvened.

 

The Commission and Staff reviewed the following:

• If the item should be tabled since the application was not present.

• The approval process for the proposed facility and the Commissions role in that process.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 7:24:17 PM

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

 

The Commission discussed the following:

• If the item should be tabled or moved forwarded.

 

MOTION 7:25:40 PM

Commissioner Fife stated regarding, petition PLNPCM2015-00775, based on the analysis of the Staff Report and public hearing, he moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding petition PLNPCM2015-00775, text changes to amend section 21A.33.020 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts, to allow for Community Recreation Centers as a conditional use in the RMF-35 (Residential Multi-Family, Low Density) zoning district. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion. Commissioners Bowen, Gallegos, Dean, Fife, Lyon and Paredes voted “aye”. Commissioner Ruttinger voted “nay”. The motion passed 6-1.

 

7:27:09 PM

Street Closure at approximately 800 N 800 W - The Good Samaritan Foundation is requesting to close a section of street located at the above listed address to allow for the development of a new Rose Park Refugee and Immigration Neighborhood Center. The subject property is located in the RMF-35 (Residential Multi-Family, Medium Density) zoning district and is within Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff Contact: Anthony Riederer at (801)535-7625 or anthony.riederer@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2015-00462

 

Mr. Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• What happened to the property if the petition was approved and the Applicant decided not to buy the property.

• If the item should be tabled since the Applicant was not present at the meeting.

o Applicant had been working with Real Property who could speak on their intent.

 

Mr. Dan Ripp, Salt Lake City Real Property Manager, reviewed the proposal, the recommendation given to the Applicant and the basis for the street closure.

 

The Commission, Mr. Ripp and Staff discussed the following:

• If the lots could be combined.

• Regardless of the Applicants intent the property could be developed by someone else.

• The petition was a cleanup issue for the neighborhood and not tied to the Applicant.

• If the parcel across the street could be added to the proposal.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION 7:37:16 PM

Commissioner Ruttinger stated regarding, PLNPCM2015-00462, Eight North Street Closure, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the request to close 800 West between the terminating cul-de-sac and the Right-of- Way associated with Interstate 15. Commissioner Bowen seconded the motion. Commissioners Ruttinger, Lyon, Fife, Dean, Gallegos and Bowen vote “aye”. Commissioner Paredes voted “nay”. The motion passed 6-1.

 

7:38:15 PM

Beck Rezone at approximately 1932 N. 2200 West - Jeff Beck is requesting approval from the City to rezone approximately 18.39 acres from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to BP (Business Park). Any owner of real property that is proposed to be rezoned may file a written objection to the inclusion of their property in the proposal within 10 days following the public hearing with the Planning Commission. All written objections will be forwarded to the City Council. The subject property is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at (801)535-7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2016-00007

 

Ms. Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.

 

Mr. Jeff Beck, applicant, reviewed the proposal for the property and the intended use.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant reviewed the following:

• If the buildings were spec developments.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 7:42:01 PM

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:

• The notice to the property owners and the objection process.

• The proposal was compatible and fit the area.

 

MOTION 7:43:38 PM

Commissioner Bowen stated regarding, PLNPCM2016-00007 Former Beck Rezone, based on the findings in the Staff Report, Planning Staff finds the factors for zoning map amendments supports the proposed zoning map amendment and therefore recommends the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation for PLNPCM2016-00007 to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning map amendment. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

7:44:25 PM

Commissioner Bowen left for the evening.

 

7:44:29 PM

Master-Plan & Zoning Amendment at approximately 1117 E South Temple Street - Tariq Mughal is requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Master Plan and Zoning Map for property located at the above address. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate construction of a new 14 unit apartment building. The property is zoned RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District, and located within Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy, AICP, at (801)535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com.)

a. Master Plan Amendment - A request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Community Master Plan from Medium-Density 8-20 Units per Gross Acre to High-Density over 20 Units per Gross Acre for property located at 1117 E South Temple Street. Case number PLNPCM2015-00887

b. Zoning Map Amendment - A request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to RMU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District for property located at 1117 E South Temple Street. Case number PLNPCM2015-00808

 

Mr. Michael Maloy, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• If the setback amendment was to be included in the motion.

• Why the proposal was for a Rezone and not a Planned Development.

• The number of units allowed on the property.

• The parking for the property and how it would be reviewed.

 

Mr. Tariq Mughal, property owner, reviewed the project and proposal. He stated he would be living in the facility and the other units would be used to house exchange

students throughout the year. Mr. Mughal asked the Commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 8:07:25 PM

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Dave Alderman, Greater Avenues Community Council, stated they had met with the Applicant to review the proposal. He stated the Community Council was concerned over potential commercial uses on the property however, the applicant agreed to a zoning restriction prohibiting commercial uses. Mr. Alderman stated parking was an issue and they would like to see final drawings/ plans for the proposal. He stated there was an elementary school to the east and the proposal would create an additional drive on the street and the Council would like to ensure all regulations were followed in regard to the driveway.

 

The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. Bob Kalm, Mr. Scott Anderson, Mr. Larry Foote, Ms. Sunny Sundstrum, Mr. Michael Marron and Mr. Tariq Lowsar.

 

The following comments were made:

• Stop light was a great addition to the neighborhood and sorely needed.

• Parking for the proposal would need to be adequate and not affect the surrounding area.

• Could the current zoning and Master Plan remain and allow the development.

• Would set a precedent for density increases in the area.

• Would like to see the density of five to six units with parking.

• There was a need for additional housing in the area.

• New building should fit with the character of the neighborhood.

• The proposal would improve the lot.

• Would be a great addition to the neighborhood.

 

Chairperson Drown read the following cards:

Mr. Josh Surprise – I love this area and was initially concerned but every issue was addressed. I am impressed; we need quality housing for families.

 

Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:

• How long the applicant had owned the property.

• The number of proposed units in the structure.

• If the proposal was spot zoning.

• If the proposal opened the area up to commercial uses in the future.

• How to ensure commercial uses were not allowed on the property.

• The square footage of the lot.

• If restrictions could be put on the petition regarding commercial uses.

• If other zoning was more appropriate for the development.

 

The Applicant stated the property would be part of a trust and not allowed to be sold in the future. He stated he was more than happy to restrict the commercial uses on the property.

 

The Commission discussed the following:

• Like the proposal but there were conflicts with rezoning one parcel.

• If a recommendation could be made to enter into a Development Agreement.

 

MOTION 8:33:29 PM

Commissioner Dean stated regarding, PLNPCM2015-00887 Master Plan Amendment and PLNPCM2015-00808, Zoning Map Amendments at 1117 E South Temple Street, based on the information contained in the Staff Report and comments received, she moved the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments at 1117 E South Temple Street with a condition that there be a development agreement or deed restriction that limits any potential future commercial use maintaining it only as residential. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed if the reason the Master Plan Amendment was needed was so there was not a spot zone. It was stated that the Master Plan and the zoning should match and the State Legislature had done away with actual spot zoning. The Commission asked Staff to include area zoning maps in the Staff Reports. They discussed the units per acre and if they would or would not support the Master Plan Amendment.

 

Staff explained why changing the Master Plan and zoning worked for the property and benefited the area.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the land use table and the role of the Master Plan.

 

Commissioner Ruttinger, Paredes, Fife, Dean and Gallegos voted “aye”. Commissioner Lyon voted “nay”. The motion passed 5-1.

 

8:44:38 PM

Commissioner Fife left for the evening.

 

8:45:30 PM

The Commission took a short break

 

8:47:00 PM

The Commission reconvened.

 

8:47:07 PM

Appeal of Special Exception Decision at approximately 1724 E 2700 S - Amir Cornell, owner of the property located at the above listed address, has filed an Appeal of the Findings and Order issued for Special Exception PLNPCM2015-01034. The Special Exception was meant to resolve height, use, and design issues associated with an existing garage that was not built to approve plans. It was determined that the garage can remain if a permit is pulled and certain alterations are made. City ordinance allows up to 720 square feet of accessory structures on a property. The footprint of the shed and the garage exceeds 720 Square feet. The approved special exception required the removal of the smaller shed so that the total square footage of all accessory buildings on the property is 720 square feet or less. The appellant contends that he received approval from a City employee for both buildings although no records or approved plans support his claim. (Staff contact: Chris Lee at 801.535.7706 or chris.lee@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2015-01034

 

Mr. Chris Lee, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the petition as presented.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed the following:

• The time line for the construction of the shed and garage and what was originally approved to be built.

• The process for the appeal and the next steps for the petition.

 

Mr. Amir Cornell, property owner, reviewed statements from his neighbors, square footage of the garage and stated the shed existed before he purchased the property. He reviewed the trouble with the petition and the history of the property.

 

Mr. Danny Mathews stated the shed existed from the beginning but was hidden by shrubs.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant reviewed the following:

• The total square footage of building space allowable under the code.

 

PUBLIC HEARING 9:23:05 PM

Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.

 

Ms. Ruth Norton stated she had faced a similar situation and obtained permits up front. She stated the code was in place because of safety issues and to improve the property. Ms. Norton stated she felt everyone should comply with the code and requirements. She asked the Commission to help ensure the property was brought into compliance although the applicant showed a pattern of non-compliance.

 

The Commission and Ms. Norton discussed when her garage was constructed and where she lived in relation to the Applicant’s property.

 

Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.

 

The Applicant stated the property was in compliance and the only thing he did wrong was to put plumbing in the upstairs of the garage. He reviewed the compliant from his neighbor and the dormers on the structure.

 

The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:

• The Planning Commissions purview on the application and appeal.

• More communication was needed prior to the construction of the garage.

• The contents of the shed.

 

MOTION 9:33:09 PM

Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding, Appeal of Findings and Order of Special Exception PLNPCM2015-01034, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, he moved that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Findings and Order issued for Special Exception PLNPCM2015-01034. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:34:06 PM