SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Prescott Muir, Vice-Chair, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Babs De Lay and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner Lex Traughber; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, February 11, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as stated are reflected in the February 11, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
This item was heard at 5:56 p.m.
Chair Muir stated that at the last meeting with the City Council/Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and representatives from the City Council Office they continued their previous meeting discussion of the Master Plan process. He noted that the City Council Office is continuing to work on the Central City Master Plan. They envision that the Central City Master Plan will be sent back to the Planning Commission for final review.
Commissioner Diamond asked Chair Muir how the City Council is working on the Central City Master Plan. Chair Muir said that there are a lot of elements in the document that constitute ordinance restrictions rather than policy statements. He said that the City Council is trying to remove the restrictions as well as redundancies to make the document smaller and more cohesive.
Commissioner Chambless added that they also considered the matter of housing at that meeting. The review of a study conducted by the Redevelopment Agency was discussed. This study was conducted in the fall of 1998 through the year of 2000. He said that by looking at that study the Commission can revisit some questions that will help in general planning.
Chair Muir referred to the moratorium on sexually oriented businesses downtown which is expiring within the next six weeks. He said that the City Council Office has hurried a rewrite of that ordinance to the Planning Commission for review at the next meeting. He said that the City Council Office has conveyed a sense of urgency regarding that matter.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:59 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the copy of the map depicting the easement of the LDS Church steam tunnel which was heard at the last meeting. He noted pursuant to the Commission’s request the map was enclosed in their packets.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Zunguze if he had heard word from Commissioner Jonas. Mr. Zunguze replied that he has made several telephone calls which have not been returned. He noted that Commissioner Jonas has been absent from four consecutive Planning Commission meetings, plus one which he missed between two meetings that he attended. Mr. Zunguze said that he will make one final attempt after which perhaps this issue may need to be addressed.
Chair Muir said that he thought that there was a consensus of the Planning Commission that currently there are too many members. He wondered if it is the decision of the Planning Commission or the Administration if that position is filled.
Mr. Zunguze agreed and said that there is a sense that others in the Administration share the same view. He said that first the Commission should deal with the issue and then perhaps make a recommendation to the Mayor and who would make the decision as to what to do with respect to filling or not filling that position.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the Commission discuss the pros and cons of eliminating a Planning Commission position, as well as review the Planning Commission bylaws and how they effect that decision.
Mr. Zunguze restated that he will make another attempt to contact Commissioner Jonas prior to the next meeting and if he is not successful then this issue may be set as an agenda item for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Seelig asked Mr. Zunguze if there is a sense of when the Planning Commission will have a retreat. Mr. Zunguze said that the Planning Staff is reviewing several dates around May of this year.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-659, by the McClelland Street Associates represented by Armand Johansen, requesting planned development approval for a new commercial/retail building located on the southeast corner of 1000 East and 2100 South in the Sugar House Business District “C-SHBD”. The Applicant is also requesting conditional use approval to allow for off-site parking associated with the proposed building; and
Petition No. 400-03-35, by the McClelland Street Associates represented by Armand Johansen, requesting that the City close an alley located at approximately 2135 South between 1000 East and McClelland Street.
This hearing began at 6:02 p.m.
Principal Planner Lex Traughber presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that the current proposal is requesting approval of a planned development for new construction. He said that the new structure will be a mirror image of the nearly complete building on the corner of 2100 South and McClelland Street. He said that the existing buildings located on the proposed site will be demolished and the new structure will be used for retail purposes. Mr. Traughber described the surrounding properties and structures. He said that the development will be situated on two parcels with separate owners. The Planning Commission approved phase one of this development in May of 2003. He said that the required parking for this phase is 27 stalls and the Applicant is proposing 17 stalls due to the excess amount of parking stalls approved as part of phase one. The Applicant is suggesting that they will pick up the additional stalls from phase one to meet the requirement for this phase.
Mr. Traughber referred to the comments submitted by the various City departments as well as the community councils, and said that there were no major concerns; however, there were requirements that have been addressed in the conditions of approval. Mr. Traughber referred to the standards for conditional uses and planned developments and noted that in the staff report there are findings to support this proposal. Based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the planned development and the conditional use for off-site parking with the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Mr. Traughber said that in addition the Applicant is requesting that the City close the alley abutting the proposed project. He referred to the approval of phase one and said that one of the conditions of approval was that the Applicant submit an application for the closure of the alley, hence this request. He said that should the proposed planned development and conditional use be approved this evening, the subject alley would be encompassed by this entire commercial development. He referred to the Sugar House and Open Space Master Plans as the two governing plans for this site, and noted that the Sugar House Master Plan defers to the City Council policy for closing alleys. Mr. Traughber said that there were requirements which have been noted in the staff report and addressed in the conditions of approval. The neighboring property owners all received written notification of the alley closure and Staff has not received comments expressing concern. Mr. Traughber noted the City Council’s policy in regard to closing alleys and said that this request satisfies two of the policy considerations as outlined in the code. The Applicant contends that the alley should be closed due to lack of use. In this particular instance the alley is essentially used for access to parking. In terms of urban design, Staff contends that this alley does not contribute. He noted the finding in the staff report that the Applicant shall pay fair market value to the City if the alley is closed. In conclusion Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close and declare the subject alley property no longer needed or available for use as a public alley, subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Diamond asked if this project had been discussed at a Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee. Mr. Traughber replied that it had not.
Commissioner Diamond stated that when phase one for this project was heard by the Planning Commission it was first heard by the Planned Development Subcommittee which he was asked not to participate in. He said that the Developer was concerned that Commissioner Diamond’s past relationship with this architect may be a conflict. Commissioner Diamond said that he did not feel that his past relationship would sway his opinion about the project in any way shape or form. He said that he wanted to make the Commission aware of that and he would be willing to excuse himself from this hearing if they felt it necessary.
Chair Muir asked the Commission if anyone felt that Commissioner Diamond had a conflict.
Commissioner Chambless said that he did not see a conflict. Commissioner Daniels said that Commissioner Diamond’s participation here is valuable and he did not see a conflict. Commissioner Seelig agreed.
Chair Muir also noted that his firm has worked with Johansen Thackeray in the past; however, they are not currently working on any projects. Chair Muir did not feel that that hampered his ability to render objective judgment. The Commission agreed.
Mr. Armand Johansen addressed the Commission to say that Staff has done a remarkable job. He said that the McClelland Street Associates expects that this phase will be very similar to the first phase. He noted that through agreements with the City Attorney’s Office they will ensure that the parking lot for both phases will be legally one entity and usable by both buildings.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Johansen if the property lines will remain split from north to south through the parking lot or if they will be combined into a single parcel. Mr. Johansen answered that the leases on the properties require the Applicant to keep the parcels separate; however, when the leases run out they intend to purchase the properties and combine them into one parcel. He said that their objective is to have the two buildings function as one seamless development.
Commissioner Scott referred to the walkway from one structure to the other and asked if it will be designed in a manner that would distinguish the walkway. She was concerned that the walkway is located in a fairly busy ingress and egress area for automobiles. Mr. Johansen replied that they had not thought about that at this point but they would be willing to explore it.
Commissioner Scott referred to the Sugar House Community Council’s letter and asked Mr. Johansen if they are willing to keep the Community Council updated as drawings become available. Mr. Johansen replied that they have been working with the Community Council up to this point and will continue to do so.
Chair Muir said that he is concerned with the two curb cuts on 2100 South within such close proximity of each other. He also mentioned concern with the circulation of the parking area, and asked if that was a concern for Mr. Johansen. Mr. Johansen replied that he is not concerned and added that they are eliminating one curb cut, that there are currently three cuts, so they are improving the current situation.
Chair Muir stated that the objective of the Sugar House Plan is to maintain the street wall along 2100 South. He asked if the Applicant had considered turning the new structure to face 2100 South to lessen the gap between the two buildings. Mr. Johansen answered that they are attempting to include the parking of Granite Furniture to the south and have designed this development with that in mind.
Commissioner Diamond mentioned concern with vacating the alley. He is worried that there may be a safety issue with respect to the relationship between pedestrians and automobiles. He suggested an alternative parking solution which would place parking to the south of the buildings, which he felt might make the circulation of traffic safer. He encouraged the Applicant to work with Staff to explore alternative approaches to the parking. Commissioner Diamond agreed with Chair Muir’s comments regarding the curb cuts. He said that if the Applicant reduced the curb cuts to one, it would eliminate four of the parking stalls; but the internal circulation would be more successful. Commissioner Diamond added that if the Applicant is planning to incorporate the Granite Furniture parking into this development then it may be best to arrange a subcommittee discussion which would give the Commission a better understanding of the big picture.
Mr. Johansen said that he appreciated the comments. He agreed with Commissioner Diamond and said that obviously they want this project to be as efficient as possible and they will work with Staff to develop more efficient parking. Mr. Johansen said that they have timelines they are trying to work within and they did not want to stall the process by having to come back to close the alley separately. He added that the Granite Furniture parking is not final; when and if they incorporate that portion into the development they would come back to Staff to develop the best way to do so.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forth coming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Chair Muir said that he hopes that the Applicant would look internally at how the adjacent property could be configured to ensure that the Commission is not approving something that precludes efficiency in the future. Chair Muir referred to the alley and said that the consensus of the Commission is that the alley should be closed and he felt that the first phase approval by the Commission mandated that. He said that the configuration of this parking lot is extremely inefficient and with the help of Staff, the Applicant could work through the ingress and egress challenge off 2100 South to generate better internal circulation.
Commissioner Diamond reiterated that he believed there is a way to eliminate the second curb cut. Mr. Johansen replied that they will come back to Staff with several plans and find the most efficient parking plan as well as explore the possibility of eliminating an additional curb cut.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Johansen how many tenants he anticipates. Mr. Johansen replied that there may be two or three but it is not set at this time. Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Johansen to clarify if there is a west access to the site. Mr. Johansen said that they hope to work with Staff and the tenants to find the best solution regarding the number of accesses.
Commissioner Scott referred to the request by the Sugar House Community Council that there be an access off of 1000 East and asked Mr. Johansen if that is possible. Mr. Johansen replied that the Community Council will be involved in that process as well and he thought it would be possible depending on the type of tenant.
Commissioner Scott asked for clarification of the difference regarding the vacation and the closure of an alley. Mr. Lynn Pace stated that for practical purposes the effect is the same in that the alley is no longer available for use to the public. The legal distinction by and large consists in the fact the closure means that the City gets paid for the property.
Commissioner Scott referred to the statement in the staff report that says that the Applicant obtained more than 80 percent of the signatures of adjacent property owners granting consent to close the alley, she asked if anyone objected or simply did not respond. Mr. Traughber clarified that the Applicant has met the requirement and they have consent of 100 percent of the adjacent property owners.
Motion for Petition 410-659
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-659 based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report pertaining especially to the standards for conditional use and planned development review standards that the Planning Commission approve the planned development on the south east corner of 1000 East and 2100 South and the conditional use for off-site parking with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, final approval of the landscape plans and elevations shall be delegated to the Planning Director.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, crossover easements shall be executed and recorded to provide for pedestrian and vehicular access between the two phases.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a lease agreement for use of all property not owned by the petitioner shall be executed and recorded.
4. That the Sugar House Community Council shall receive information only updates per their request at subsequent Community Council meetings when the design is finalized.
Mr. Zunguze inquired as to who the updates should come from. Commissioner Scott replied that the updates should come from the developer.
Commissioner Daniels asked to add a condition number 5 that the Applicant work with Planning Staff to eliminate the double curb cuts along 2100 South.
Commissioner Scott accepted the additional condition.
Chair Muir asked that condition number 5 be subject to the approval of the alley closure.
Commissioner Scott accepted that addition as well.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Amended Motion for Petition No. 410-659
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-659 based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report pertaining especially to the standards for conditional use and planned development review standards that the Planning Commission approve the planned development on the south east corner of 1000 East and 2100 South and the conditional use for off-site parking with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, final approval of the landscape plans and elevations shall be delegated to the Planning Director.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, crossover easements shall be executed and recorded to provide for pedestrian and vehicular access between the two phases.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a lease agreement for use of all property not owned by the petitioner shall be executed and recorded.
4. That the Sugar House Community Council shall receive information only updates from the Developer per their request at subsequent Community Council meetings when the design is finalized.
5. The Applicant shall work with Planning Staff to eliminate the double curb cuts along 2100 South subject to the closure of the alley located at approximately 2135 South between 1000 East and McClelland Street.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Johansen asked if providing the final configuration to the Sugar House Community Council Chair, Ms. Helen Peters, would meet condition 4. Chair Muir said that that would be adequate.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-35
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-35 that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close and declare the subject alley property no longer needed or available for use as a public alley, subject to the following conditions:
1. The method of disposition on the alley property shall be consistent with Sections 14.52.020 – Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 – City Owned Real Property, of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
2. Public Utilities shall not own, operate, or maintain the new catch basin and storm drain facility recently installed in the subject alley (Phase I – McClelland Corner Building, Petition 410-632). This facility shall be privately owned, operated, and maintained by the property owner.
3. The alley property shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
4. Should the City Council grant approval, prior to the sale of the alley property, an access easement shall be executed by all adjoining property owners to allow the existing access to all the abutting properties to remain.
5. All utility and utility easements shall remain as required and approved by the entity having an interest in said utility or easement.
6. Prior to the sale of the alley property, the Applicant shall amend the Fairmont Springs Subdivision plat to reconfigure and incorporate the alley property into adjacent parcels owned by the applicant. This requires subdivision approval.
7. Prior to City Council consideration, the Applicant shall reach an agreement concerning the price to be paid for the alley property with the City’s Property Management Division.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion
Commissioner Diamond asked to add an additional condition 8 stating that upon the closure of the public alley the parking to the south of phases one and two be reevaluated to be more efficient; and that the Applicant is mindful of the dangers between the vehicular and pedestrian accesses into those buildings and that the Applicant work with the Planning Staff to achieve this.
Commissioner Scott accepted the additional condition. Commissioner Daniels accepted the condition as well.
Commissioner Scott said that she would like to recognize that the Sugar House Community Council has requested that the sale proceeds from the alley closure go to the “Open Space Trust Fund”, which is a decision made by the City Council. She wanted to recommend that the City Council take into consideration that the Planning Commission noted that request and that the City Council review that possibility.
Mr. Zunguze said that the City Council Office will receive the complete packet that the Planning Commission has received regarding this request. He said that he believes that the Council Staff will consider that request. Mr. Zunguze said that he did not want to taint the Planning Commission process in any way that could potentially lead to challenges. He restated that the City Council Staff will receive the same material and he is willing to raise the issue with the City Council if the Commission directed him to do so. He discouraged the Commission from reflecting in their approval that they considered an issue which is not within the Planning Commission’s authority.
Mr. Zunguze asked for clarification of the condition added by Commissioner Diamond with regard to the curb cuts. Commissioner Daniels said that the correct wording used was, that the Applicant work with Staff towards the elimination of the double curb cut.
Mr. Lynn Pace commented that the proposal before the Commission is to close the alley due to lack of use; however, conditions 3 and 4 reference that the alley remain open for parking cars and that access easements be granted for all of the abutting property owners. He said that the Commission can not impose those conditions if the alley is going to be closed. He suggested that the Commission decide which direction they want to go.
Chair Muir suggested that if the Commission accepts Commissioner Diamond’s condition then they should strike condition 3. He referred to condition 4 and asked if the access agreements pertaining to the parking areas follow the legal description of those parcels which would include the alley. Mr. Pace said that if the intent is to retain access but not necessarily on the alley then that condition is acceptable. Mr. Pace stated that his concern was that the Commission may be sending a message that the alley can be closed and also that it has to remain open.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the Commission add that there will be two curb cuts on the east end of the property rather than four which may help to clarify.
Chair Muir said that that has been acknowledged in the planned development as configured. Commissioner Diamond suggested that the Applicant utilize the alley for parking and the flow of pedestrian access between the buildings and parking. He felt that the Commission should narrow the curb cuts to two, one on the east and on the west.
Chair Muir asked Commissioner Scott if it would be acceptable to add to condition 8 to reconfigure the parking lot to include the consolidation of the alley curb cuts.
Commissioner Scott inquired whether the Transportation and Public Utilities Divisions may want to then review the project again if that condition is added.
Mr. Zunguze indicated that yes that would be the case and said that he agreed with the original motion which states that the issue shall be cooperatively reviewed.
Commissioner Diamond restated that he disagreed with the four curb cuts, he felt that it is not smart planning.
Mr. Pace said that the City Council will be receiving comments from the Transportation Division. The Commission may make the recommendation that City Council approve the alley closure, and the Commission would support only two curb cuts, one on the east and one on the west.
Chair Muir asked if that could be subject to the Transportation Division approval. Mr. Pace felt that that was acceptable.
Mr. Zunguze respectfully disagreed with Mr. Pace and said that if the Planning Commission takes a hard line on an issue then the Planning Staff has no recourse but to represent that position to the City Council. He said that there may be reasonable issues that the Transportation Division may raise that the Planning Commission and Planning Staff are not aware of at this point. He said that Staff does not want to have their hands tied in the face of reasonable suggestions.
Chair Muir said that he felt that Staff understood that the goal is to consolidate the curb cuts. He said that the Commission defers to the Planning Staff’s judgment to achieve that.
Mr. Zunguze said that Staff takes the recommendations of the Planning Commission very seriously. He said that what Staff was asking for is latitude to explore workable suggestions.
Commissioner Diamond restated the additional condition 8 that upon the closure of the public alley the parking to the south of phases one and two and the parking between the two buildings be reanalyzed to eliminate redundant curb cuts on the east and west so that vehicular and pedestrian traffic are cognizant of one another, and that additional dangers are not created as this plan does. Commissioner Diamond said that he has full confidence that the Transportation Division will look at the Applicant’s suggestions and if it does not work with those things in mind that they will come up with another solution and work with Planning Staff.
Commissioner Scott accepted the additional condition as restated. Commissioner Daniels accepted the condition as well.
Amended Motion for Petition No. 400-03-35
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-35 that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close and declare the subject alley property no longer needed or available for use as a public alley, subject to the following conditions:
1. The method of disposition on the alley property shall be consistent with Sections 14.52.020 – Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 – City Owned Real Property, of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
2. Public Utilities shall not own, operate, or maintain the new catch basin and storm drain facility recently installed in the subject alley (Phase I – McClelland Corner Building, Petition 410-632). This facility shall be privately owned, operated, and maintained by the property owner.
3. The alley property shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
4. Should the City Council grant approval, prior to the sale of the alley property, an access easement shall be executed by all adjoining property owners to allow the existing access to all the abutting properties to remain.
5. All utility and utility easements shall remain as required and approved by the entity having an interest in said utility or easement.
6. Prior to the sale of the alley property, the Applicant shall amend the Fairmont Springs Subdivision plat to reconfigure and incorporate the alley property into adjacent parcels owned by the applicant. This requires subdivision approval.
7. Prior to City Council consideration, the Applicant shall reach an agreement concerning the price to be paid for the alley property with the City’s Property Management Division.
8. Upon the closure of the public alley the parking to the south of phases one and two and the parking between the two buildings be reanalyzed to eliminate redundant curb cuts on the east and west so that vehicular and pedestrian traffic are cognizant of one another, and that additional dangers are not created as this plan does.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
*The Planning Commission passed a motion to strike condition 3 of this petition during the approval of the minutes at the meeting held on March 10, 2004.
Petition No. 400-04-01, a request by Diamond Parking Service, for an amendment to the Northwest Community Zoning Map. The site is located at 50 South Redwood Road. The proposal includes rezoning 13.522 acres of the eastern portion of the property (where the commercial parking lot is located) from Business Park “BP” to Commercial Corridor “CC”, while the western portion (where the storage units and warehouse/offices are located) will remain Business Park zoning.
This hearing began at 6:56 p.m.
Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the petition as written in the staff report. She stated that the request is to rezone the eastern 13.5 plus acres of property from Business Park “BP” to Commercial Corridor “CC”. The subject property is currently used for parking. The remainder of the site is currently used for storage and will not change from the Business Park zoning. At this time the Applicant does not have a plan proposed for the site. She noted that the request is in keeping with the goals of the Master Plan. Staff supports this request because it allows for future development that will increase commercial opportunities for the community and it carries potential aesthetic upgrades to this currently unannounced entrance into the Salt Lake City from the highway. Based on the findings of fact, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property from Business Park “BP” to Commercial Corridor “CC” as requested. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning subject to the Applicant completing Final Plat conditions prior to transmission of this petition to the City Council. The Applicant is currently working with other Staff members to that end.
Commissioner Scott referred to the Permits Office comments which refer to three parcels and asked Ms. Lewis to give an explanation of those parcels. Ms. Lewis said that originally there were three parcels. The subdivision process will remove the existing property lines and redefine the new property lines which will follow the new zoning.
Mr. Jim Schmick, the current manager of the Airport Parking Facility in question addressed the Commission to answer questions regarding the proposal.
Commissioner Scott asked if the recommendation made by the Transportation
Division to define the pedestrian access separate from the vehicular path would be addressed with this proposal. Ms. Lewis replied that the Transportation Division is making the point that when a project is proposed, that is something that they expect to be defined, as well as the avigation easement.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forth coming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Diamond asked Ms. Lewis if there are environmental issues that the Commission should be aware of. Ms. Lewis replied that there are none regarding the rezoning of the property to Commercial Corridor. The remediation has been configured to a level of industrial/commercial usage. In the Commercial Corridor there is a wide variety of permitted uses, that could be allowed at that level of remediation.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the extension of the light rail and asked where the potential nearest stop will be to this site. Ms. Cheri Coffey said that there may be stops at 1800 West and 1600 West.
Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-01 for the zoning amendment, based on the findings of fact set forth in the staff report that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property from Business Park “BP” to Commercial Corridor “CC” as requested by Staff and subject to the Applicant completing the following Final Plat conditions prior to transmission of this petition to the City Council: Remove the existing Holmes Henderson Subdivision(s);
a. which would eliminate all existing internal property lines that parallel the subdivision boundary;
b. vacate the residential subdivision in a commercial use area;
c. reconfigure the interior lot lines to eliminate existing illegal circumstances where two storage units were constructed over a property line, and established the separation of zoning between BP and CC.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 410-656, a request by Avis rental car for a conditional use approval to provide automobile rental service within the Hilton Hotel, located at 255 South West Temple, in a Downtown “D-1” zoning district.
This hearing began at 7:03 p.m.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the request and said that car rentals are allowed as a conditional use in the Downtown “D-1” zone because they have the potential to require surface parking lots. Mr. Dansie said that the Applicant will be leasing counter space within the lobby of the Hilton Hotel. The Avis vehicles will not be serviced on-site , this is a satellite location but it is still required to go through a conditional use process. The Applicant will be leasing 18 parking stalls in the parking structure of the hotel. The hotel presently exceeds the parking requirement for the amount of stalls per the amount of rooms and retail space in the hotel. Based on the findings of fact as listed in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant approval of the conditional use for a car rental service at 255 South West Temple.
Chair Muir confirmed that hotel parking is not diminished by this request. Mr. Dansie replied that the hotel is well over the requirement.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Dansie if this may encourage other car rental companies to locate Downtown at such sites as this one. Mr. Dansie answered that it might but they would have to work out their own agreements with hotels.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Dansie if there are other hotels in the Downtown area that have such agreements.
Commissioner Daniels said that he is aware of other hotels with car rentals in the Downtown area.
Mr. Frank Jones the City Manger for Avis Car Rental addressed the Commission. He said that generally there is a need for more car rental companies at the airport; you would rarely find more than one at a hotel because there is not enough space to accommodate. He noted that there is a Thrifty Car Rental in the Sheraton and a Hertz in the Marriott Downtown. He said that Avis has been in operation at the Hilton Hotel.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forth coming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion
Commissioner Galli made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-656 that the Planning Commission grant the application for the conditional use for a car rental service at 255 South West Temple based on the findings of fact as listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-03-33, a request by the Salt Lake City Council, to consider alterations to the definition of “brewpub” to allow for limited wholesale off-premise sales of beer. By comparison; “Breweries” and “Microbreweries”, which are separately defined and distinguished by the level of production, are allowed to wholesale beer, but are restricted to more intensive commercial and industrial zoning districts. This proposal would allow brewpubs, which are allowed in a wider range of zoning districts, to wholesale produce up to 500 barrels (164,400 bottles) per year and to allow the sales of beer in 3 and 5 gallon kegs (in addition to the 15.5 gallon kegs they can presently sell) for special events. Presently, brewpubs are not allowed to wholesale beer, they are restricted to production that is consumed on-site or sales that are limited to brew fests and charity functions.
This hearing began at 7:20 p.m.
Chair Muir Noted that this is an issues only hearing.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He gave a brief history of breweries in Salt Lake City, and said that traditionally breweries have been an industrial use. He said that 10 or 12 years ago the classifications of microbreweries and brewpubs were created. A brewpub is defined as a pub where the product is brewed on-site and they are required by law to have 50 percent of their sales come from food. The product must be consumed on-site with exceptions of special events. Microbreweries are smaller breweries that distribute to other locations then bottle and/or distribute in kegs, as well as selling the product on-site. Mr. Dansie referred to the zoning map and said that the brewpubs are allowed in all of the zoning districts that breweries and microbreweries are allowed as well as the Community Shopping “CS” zoning district there are other zones too. In addition to the zoning map brewpubs have to comply with the liquor map. He said that Staff is requesting direction from the Commission regarding a request which was submitted to allow brewpubs to produce more product on-site than can be consumed on-site. He said that this petition is driven by several factors such as: one of the brewpub owners also owns restaurants and this would give the opportunity to sell their product at other sites, others would like to sell their product else where. He said that conversely some microbreweries and brewpubs have located based on the existing zoning. He said that some companies have brewpubs and microbreweries in different locations according to the zoning.
Chair Muir said that it would be very difficult to track the amount and where the product is coming from if a company had a micro-brewery and a brewpub if the beer is sold in a grocery store. Mr. Dansie said that it is obvious which site would have the higher amount of production.
He asked the Commission if they are comfortable with making the switch from consumed on-site to allowing wholesale. He said that if the Commission is comfortable with the wholesale then the question arises as to limitations to the amount of wholesale product.
Chair Muir asked if Mr. Dansie had an idea of what the cap should be. Mr. Dansie answered that he did not, but the proposal is 500 barrels.
Commissioner Galli referred to a study that considered 10,000 barrels to be excessive and asked what study had been done to come to that conclusion. Mr. Dansie said that study was done by the Council Staff. That request was not forwarded to Planning Staff. The amount was dropped down to 500 barrels.
Commissioner Galli asked how difficult it would be for staff to undertake that sort of study with regard to traffic and so forth. Mr. Dansie answered that it is possible with assistance from those in the industry.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the zoning map and noted that the 9th and 9th as well as the 15th and 15th areas are not included for the use of brewpubs; he asked Mr. Dansie if there is a particular reason why. Mr. Dansie said that the zoning map shows where brewpubs are currently allowed. He said that it was determined that brewpubs are more intense with respect to the volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic than the 9th and 9th neighborhood would tolerate. He said that when the brewpub classification was developed there was a value judgment made as to which zoning districts to allow brewpubs.
Commissioner Chambless wondered if it would be appropriate to revisit the zoning to explore the possibility of brewpubs within the 9th and 9th and 15th and 15th as well as similar areas.
Commissioner Scott asked if Staff has an indication of how much beer other Utah City Ordinances allow brewpubs to manufacture. Mr. Dansie said that the majority of brewpubs are within Salt Lake City.
Commissioner Scott referred to the comment in the staff report which states that there have been no reports of spill odors and asked if this is true for all brewpubs through out the City. Mr. Dansie said that he is not aware of any complaints. A history of a site may be checked to see if there is a history of complaints.
Commissioner Scott referred to the letter from Red Rock Brewing Company which states that they would require 1,000 barrels to open a new location so it seems that the request to modify the ordinance to allow 500 barrels per year would not meet their needs. She wondered how the City Council arrived at the number of 500 barrels. Mr. Dansie said that he did not know how that number was created.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Lawrence Buhler a resident of the 9th and 9th area addressed the Commission to say that he supported the current proposal. He said that brewpubs usually have higher quality food and are located in the retail/commercial zones in upscale areas of cities. He said that he has found no other city like Salt Lake in the Country where brewpubs cannot wholesale. He said that the brewpubs are usually the best commercial citizens of a community and they bring high quality clientele. He said that he felt that this modification is rationalizing a modern trend. Mr. Lawrence referred to the amount of traffic associated with brewpubs and said that there may not be an increase, the additional amount of product delivered can be delivered with current deliveries. He said that the amount of barrels allowed should be based on the amount of sales of the brewpub product. The more restrictive the ordinance it tends to discourage the larger national breweries not to locate in Salt Lake City. He said that the concern is from the bigger breweries which fear the possibility of a little more competition.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Lawrence if he would support a brewpub in the 9th and 9th area. Mr. Lawrence answered that he has wondered for some time why that area does not currently have a brewpub. He said that he would support that and thought perhaps there is neighborhood opposition because he felt it would be an ideal location for a brewpub.
Mr. Bob Jensen a resident of Sugar House and the last original investor in the Red Rock Brewing Company addressed the Commission. He said that Red Rock in the first year after its opening sold 2,100 barrels of beer putting it in perspective of the microbreweries which brew probably upwards of 100,000 barrels per year. He said that Red Rock being a healthy restaurant they currently brew 1,200 barrels per year and it is a profitable part of the business so obviously they are looking for ways to enhance their revenue. He said that he has been approached by several local restaurants who have asked to serve Red Rock beer. He felt that it is unfair that outside competition from throughout the Salt Lake Valley and Utah State can deliver their beer to his neighbors in the City but he can not move his beer and sell it 200 feet down the street. He said that this is a key element in expanding his business. Mr. Jensen said that he thought that the limit should be upwards of 1,000 barrels which would be 2,000 kegs.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Jensen if he knew the comparables of the other brewpubs such as Rooster’s as to how much beer they sell on-site and how much they export. Mr. Jensen said that he was not aware of those numbers.
Chair Muir asked if 1,000 barrels would rectify the disparity between a Salt Lake City based businesses and those outside of Salt Lake who are effectively competing with the Red Rock Company. Mr. Jensen said that it would.
Mr. David Novak a resident of the Broadway Lofts addressed the Commission as a resident and not a representative of the home owners association. He said that he enjoyed the products, revenue and jobs created by the Red Rock Brewing Company. Mr. Novak said that as a Downtown resident he is opposed to the proposed zoning modification. He said that he has heard talk of just one more truck or one more delivery to an already stressed infrastructure and did not think this would have a positive impact. Mr. Novak felt that he is at a disadvantage in that he has invested into his homestead and does not have the ability to move to another location and he felt the Red Rock Brewing Company has that option. He thought that those that want to open a brewpub should do so in the zoning where it is allowed.
Ms. Sarah McCarvel, a resident of the Broadway Lofts addressed the Commission in support of the Applicant. She noted that the Home Owners Association may submit written comments but there was not a consensus among them either for or against the proposal. The Home Owners Association directed the individual residents to attend the meeting and express concerns directly to the Commission. She appreciated the mix of different businesses within the City and felt that Red Rock Brewing Company is a contributing member. She mentioned concern of the delivery hours and hoped that the deliveries could take place during the regular business hours.
Mr. John Fife, a resident of the Broadway Lofts addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He mentioned concern with the additional traffic associated with the deliveries and distribution of the product. He felt that deliveries should be made and received during normal business hours.
Mr. Jeff Polychronis addressed the Commission as a representative of Squatters Brewery. He referred to his attempts to locate in the City with the request for a brewery. He said that he was directed to locate his business in an industrial zone, which was what he did. He said that the impacts are great. The product is produced in batches which are large quantities of beer such as 20 barrels at a time. He said that at his facility on 300 West they produce 10,000 barrels of beer a year and at the facility Downtown they produce much less. He agreed with the argument that if you own more than one facility you should be able to sale your beer at both locations.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Polychronis if his production is more in bottles or kegs. Mr. Polychronis replied that the majority of the product is bottles.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Polychronis if he felt that he was disadvantaged when his business started in that he could not sale beer to Gastronomy but Uinta Brewery could. Mr. Polychronis said that he was in the same position as Mr. Jensen and he was directed to locate in the correct zoning to develop a new structure to brew beer. He did feel disadvantaged by moving to a new location to produce his product.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Polychronis if it would be beneficial for him to move his product in town if the ordinance is changed. Mr. Polychronis said that the cost to do that would be comparable to starting a whole new business and he did not think it would be beneficial for him.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Polychronis if he were in the Applicant’s position how he would suggest a solution. Mr. Polychronis agreed with the request to move beer to another location and sell it; he said that that makes sense.
Commissioner Galli referred to Mr. Polychronis comment regarding his attempt to get a similar proposal approved and asked if he worked with the Planning Commission by filing a request to amend the zoning ordinance. Mr. Polychronis said that they came to Staff and were told that the chances were not good and he elected not to proceed.
Chair Muir noted that it is not germane to the Planning Commission to review economic hardships although it is always helpful for the Commission to hear the concerns of the community.
Mr. Will Hammell with Uinta Brewing Company spoke to oppose the proposal. He suggested that the Commission visit a brew pub and view the distribution impacts first hand. He said that the current zoning for Salt Lake City is proper for the community. He said that there are proper zones in which the Applicant may locate to, like other breweries have. He felt the modified areas would be compromised and said that a distribution company has a different formula from a community business. He added that the Moab Brewery has a few acres of land for various storage areas and is not comparable to the Salt Lake City area. He said that Uinta Brewing Company distributes 14,000 barrels per year. He hoped that the Commission reviews the implications of the zoning change on the neighbors and community.
Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Hammell to describe the process of distributing the 14,000 barrels of beer. Mr. Hammell said that the distribution varies depending on the location they would be distributing to. Diesel trucks come frequently between regular working hours. He said that they also receive trucks with the deliveries of the raw materials. Mr. Hammell said that they have three loading docks which have trucks there often.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Hammell how often he has to have the by-products and trash removed from the brewery. Mr. Hammell stated that they have trucks pick up the spent grain three times a day five days a week. He said that the trash pick up is three times a week.
Mr. Peter Coles founder of Squatters addressed the Commission saying that he and his partner located their microbrewery on 200 South and 400 West facility in the zone which allowed the use. He said that at that location they never exceeded 6,000 barrels a year before the Utah Brewers Cooperative was formed which is currently located at 1750 South 300 West. He said that the City approached them after they located in the correct zone with concerns that the amount of trucks visiting the facility was excessive. He said that the issue was resolved because they formed the cooperative and changed locations. He added that both Squatters and Red Rock are successful businesses. He said that if Red Rock would like to produce their beer wholesale then perhaps they should consider talking to the Utah Brewers Cooperative.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Chair Muir said that there seems to be a double standard imposed upon this industry. He said that most bakers, grocery stores, butchers, and cleaners etc. will produce their production at one site and distribute from that location. Chair Muir cautioned those in the industry about making location and business decisions based on the opinions of past Commissioners, without testing the nature of this process by bringing this kind of petition before the Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the comment made by one of the residents regarding delivery hours, she asked Staff to evaluate the code requirements and enforcement capabilities. As the Planning Commission makes land use decisions and continuously has to balance the mix in the Downtown Area, is the City prepared to maintain delineation of those uses. Commissioner Seelig referred to delivery restrictions within the industrial zone and wondered if delivery hours are more restrictive in other zones. Commissioner Seelig said that as the land use decisions are made she wanted to make sure that the City is prepared to deal with the impacts.
Mr. Dansie replied that the Commission may want to allow more wholesale activity in some zones and less in others. He gave an example of residential districts as opposed to commercial shopping areas where the delivery truck would have a greater impact in the residential.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the impacts seen regarding the housing units along 200 East and the car dealership between 500 and 600 South where a delivery truck may be illegally parked and the resident’s quality of life is negatively impacted. She said that those kinds of things determine the success of the zoning.
Commissioner Scott felt that it is important that the volume of beer be involved in this analysis. She said that it is difficult to compare 6,000 barrels from a facility at 400 West with 500 barrels that may be going out of a facility in the Downtown area. She felt that it would be helpful to obtain a list of what the different microbreweries and brewpubs are producing.
Chair Muir added that it should be requested based on the production per seat in the restaurant. He referred as an example to an area which is 2,500 square as a cap. He added that it would be helpful if the Commission had an idea of the benchmark and how much production can reasonably service that amount of seats.
Commissioner Scott said that perhaps the cap should not be on barrels, it could depend on the facility and equal to the amount of beer consumed on-site. For instance, if in the facility the amount of product consumed is 1,000 barrels a year that facility could perhaps wholesale 1,000 barrels. She felt that that would allow an equitable facility with a second facility with the same owner.
Mr. Dansie clarified that Commissioner Scott is suggesting that the cap may be 500 barrels or 10 percent of the total production which ever is least. He said that the question would arise as to who would police that.
Commissioner Scott referred to the ordinance and the current cap on the microbreweries which is 60,000 barrels and she asked if anyone is currently monitoring that. She said that there is a certain amount of trust in record keeping.
Chair Muir invited Mr. Mr. Jensen to speak.
Mr. Bob Jensen said that there are federal taxes paid on all of the beer based on the actual barrels produced. He said that that would be a reasonable way to monitor the amount.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing again.
Commissioner Daniels was concerned with limiting the amount of production or wholesale. He felt that once the playing field is leveled then the market will limit how much beer a company can make and sell. He felt that the ordinance should be changed to allow a facility that makes beer to sell beer.
Chair Muir said that the challenge then would be when does a restaurant become a production facility in a restaurant zone. He said that he is bothered by the fact that a Salt Lake based brewpub is disadvantaged by an out of town establishment.
Chair Muir asked if Staff could give an idea of benchmark beer sales per number of seats according to various microbreweries and brewpubs and compare that ratio. He said that the question would then be should the door be opened to include across the street sales.
Commissioner Galli said that he felt that the appropriate monitoring mechanism is to look at the volume proposed which is 500 barrels and determine the impacts compared to other types of facilities. He said that the petitioner is comfortable with the amount of 500 barrels and the Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing land use regulations and land use impacts. He felt that the Commission should focus on the impacts of whether 500 barrels is an appropriate capacity for this type of facility. Commissioner Galli said that there are mechanisms and restrictions to reduce the impacts on the neighbors.
Chair Muir agreed with Commissioner Galli’s suggestion that the Commission look at the capacity limit irrespective of where the sales occur, but focus on the potential impacts and determine appropriate land use regulations to mitigate the impacts.
Mr. Dansie clarified that brewpubs do not bottle their beer, there is a caveat in the ordinance that they can do a certain amount of retail sales but generally the excess capacity is strictly for wholesale. State law requires that anyone purchasing a keg from a brewpub has to have a keg license.
Mr. Dansie reiterated that the Commission is suggesting that the 500 barrels limit should be evaluated to see what the impacts are and if that level of wholesaling would create problems.
Chair Muir said that they are not talking about wholesaling but the ratio of the capacity to seats in a restaurant irrespective of where the product is distributed, and is that appropriately benchmarked against microbreweries around the country that primarily sell their beer on premises.
Commissioner Galli said that he understood the petition to request that the 500 barrels directly refers to the amount that a brewpub can wholesale.
Mr. Dansie clarified that the requested petition is to increase the amount of the current brewpub production onsite by 500 barrels more beyond what they are currently producing. He asked the Commission if they are suggesting that there be a maximum number of barrels produced.
Commissioner Galli asked if Staff could work with the industry and community, and attempt to qualify and quantify the neighborhood impacts of distributing an additional 500 barrels of beer at this location. Commissioner Galli suspected that that research with the Petitioner would allow a reasonable understanding of the range of options, and Staff could give the Commission the impacts of the different options.
Mr. Zunguze asked whether the Commission members, given what they have heard this evening, are inclined to have an ordinance prepared; Staff will take the necessary measures to research the issues that have been raised. He said that it is clear that the focus, on whatever change that is made, should be on land use impacts. He asked the Commission if they are inclined to move in that direction or to maintain the status quo.
Chair Muir stated that the Commission supports the Staff investigation of this and present the collected data to the Commission. The Commission agreed.
Commissioner Noda agreed and said the ordinance needs to be modified. She referred to the letter from Council Members Jill Love and Nancy Saxton requesting that the Attorney’s Office amend the ordinance to allow no more that 500 barrels and said that the cap should probably be 500 barrels beyond the current production. She thought that the City Attorney’s Office should submit a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Daniels noted that those in the audience this evening would be good sources to obtain the research information.
Commissioner Diamond asked how this amendment will be a benefit to those that have located in the other zones, to allow this sort of use.
Commissioner Galli said that that is an equitable concern; however, this is the first time that that Commission has had a formal petition using a quantity that on its face does not appear to be ludicrous. He felt that the Commission should give Staff leave to ascertain the impacts of this petition. He felt badly that there was a reliance on the judgment of past Commissioners by those in the industry that choose to locate outside of the City but that reliance stopped people from taking the step that forced the Commission to evaluate this proposal.
Commissioner Scott referred to the public comment that the business has changed. She said that that is possibly due to the fact that there are more microbreweries and brewpubs around, but the percentage of sales of beer as oppose to food has gone down. If the climate had been as it is now then perhaps the early brewpubs and microbreweries would not have been as successful in today’s climate.
Chair Muir noted that if the capacity of the brewpub is to service the walk in customers, the Commission could consider setting a finite export capacity that is proportional to the original capacity of the brewpub.
Commissioner Galli said that he is uncomfortable with that because trying to legislate generally something of this nature to see what is fair and what the market will allow is counter productive.
Mr. Dansie stated that the current state law regulates the amount of distribution by saying that 50 percent of the product must be consumed on-site and the other 50 percent is limited to charity events and such.
Commissioner Chambless asked Staff to consider the 9th and 9th and 15th and 15th areas as part of his research.
Mr. Dansie asked for clarification on that request and said that the current petition is not requesting to expand the zoning districts where brewpubs are allowed. He asked if the Commission wanted to differentiate between the current zoning districts.
Chair Muir said that some of the issues raised go beyond the petition before the Commission this evening.
Commissioner Seelig asked if the Commission is concerned with the areas with residential uses such as the Avenues and the effect of the delivery trucks there. She said that those are the quality of life issues that she is concerned with.
Chair Muir said that those areas need to be looked at as the more sensitive areas within the permitted districts, and let that be the benchmark. He said that what we can tolerate in the Avenues may dictate what is done Downtown. He asked Mr. Dansie if that is appropriate.
Mr. Dansie thought it would be helpful for the Commission to receive more information. He said that some areas of the City will be more sensitive than others.
Chair Muir said that Staff should give the Commission those recommendations and quantify the impact upon those more sensitive areas, and give recommendation of how to adjust this based upon the different zones.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Commissioner Scott referred to the Avis Rental and asked how the car rental was operating out of the hotel before they got their conditional use approval. Mr. Wilde stated that this type of use is required to obtain a business license and sometimes a business starts operating because they perhaps are not aware that they would need a separate business license for the different address.
Commissioner Scott said that there is a procedure in place but this must have slipped through the cracks. Mr. Wilde said that appears to be the case.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.