SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Elizabeth Giraud, Jackie Gasparik, Greg Mikolash, Melissa Anderson and Doug Dansie.
Approval of the Minutes from Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Mr. Jonas referred to the following pages for correction:
Page 12, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Some of the parking will be underground”, etc.
Page 13, third line from the bottom of last paragraph (started on the previous page), “1300 South” street shall be corrected to read “1300 South” street.
Page 16, second paragraph, second line sentence starting with “They have meet” shall be corrected to read, “They have met”, etc.
Page 17, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Fannie Mae had no problem with insuring, “ etc. And the first sentence of last paragraph shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Muir asked about the banks’ response to this project”, etc.
Page 18, fourth paragraph ending with the words, “in evaluating Jefferson Street in particular”, a final sentence will be added to read, “Mr. Jonas questioned the reliability of these figures.”
Page 20, second paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “He felt that the Planning Commission would like the applicants to bring them conceptual plans in order to get the opinion and direction from the subcommittee.”
Ms. Funk referred to the following pages for correction:
Page 13, last paragraph, fourth line from the bottom shall be corrected to read “back the front four buildings”, etc.
Page 14, third paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Chair Jonas noted that the staff report discusses the possibility of bringing the 200 West connection”, etc.
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Diamond seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels and Ms. McDonough voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Louis Zunguze reported that on February 3, 2003 the Land Use Appeals Board held a hearing for two appeals regarding the same conditional use Petition No. 410-605, which the Planning Commission had previously reviewed and approved. This was for a private club on 1492 South State Street. The appeal was upheld by the Appeals Board.
Mr. Zunguze sought direction from the Planning Commission regarding a request to amend a previously approved landscaping plan relating to the new Wal-Mart on 1300 South and 300 West. The site plan currently showed landscaping planters and vegetation on the upper deck of the parking lot, distributed at both ends of the parking rows. This landscaping is in excess of what is required in the current zoning ordinance. The request to amend the site plan is because further engineering studies have estimated that the cost of the additional structural support for the weight of the landscaped planters will add up to $500,000 to the cost of constructing the parking lot. Wal-Mart is asking to be excused from that aspect of the landscaping portion, and in lieu of that they would donate up to $50,000 to Salt Lake City for another public purpose. This part of the landscaping plan approval was given at the discretion of the Director, but Mr. Zunguze wished to be cautious regarding the conditional use permit. He asked for the Commission’s feelings about the amended site plan request.
Mr. Daniels asked if the minimum requirements for landscaping would be honored. Mr. Zunguze replied that all other landscaping requirements would be upheld.
The Commission felt that as long as the minimum requirements for landscaping were being upheld, it was fine for Mr. Zunguze to approve the amended site plan.
Mr. Zunguze then sought support from the Planning Commission for a study to explore the ability to increase the housing potential within the downtown area to maintain the viability of the community’s economic health. He would like to study portions of Downtown Salt Lake City and with the help of the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Alliance, and developers, and others, put together a package that would increase housing availability in the area. He asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in pursuing such a study, and/or who they might suggest could be brought to the table to participate in the study.
Mr. Muir said there was a convergence of economic resources that were coming together to support a project like this. For example, Zions Securities felt there was a need for Salt Lake City to help the developers of the Brigham Street Apartments to create a vision of a “neighborhood” environment (parks, schools, streetscape improvements, merchants, etc.). Clark Ivory, delegated by the Chamber to study Portland’s redevelopment of their central business district, said he learned that housing was a critical component. If you want customers downtown, you have to grow your own customers by creating neighborhood housing in the area. Mr. Muir was in full support of the Planning Commission initiating the study mentioned by Mr. Zunguze.
Mr. Jonas was also in favor of the Planning Commission initiating these studies. The Planning Commission members expressed their support.
Mr. Brent Wilde discussed with the Planning Commission possible times for having two workshops or retreats – one with Planning Consultant Frank Gray to discuss the walkable communities ordinance, and the other with City Attorney Lynn Pace to discuss policies and procedures. The Commission agreed on Tuesday, April 8 for a meeting with Frank Gray, and Wednesday April 30th for the meeting with Lynn Pace. Both meetings will be scheduled between noon and 2 p.m.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Petition Initiated by Planning Commission
Planner Elizabeth Giraud, requested the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to study changing the boundaries and the zoning of the Central City Historic District. The Staff believes that the two problems in this district are 1) they spend a lot of time reviewing petitions for structures that are not historic and in areas that have lost historic context; and 2) that they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to preserve structures on which the zoning is of a very high density and is not conducive to the preservation of the contributing structures in the district.
Ms. Funk moved to initiate the petition.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Highland Dental Plaza, Subdivision and condominium amendment case re-opened from 11/7/02, for a 10-minute rebuttal by the applicant or a designee. The property is located at 1955 & 1977 South 1300 East, in a Residential/Office “R-O” zoning district.
Ms. Seelig announced an affiliation with the attorney Mr. Baird and one of the neighbors in the area, Michelle Hutchins.
Mr. Baird, a representative of the applicant began his rebuttal by thanking the Planning Commission for reconsidering this matter. He believed there is a process confusion issue, and that he needed to respond to some of the neighbors’ issues that were not addressed at the first meeting.
The alley opening does not have any relationship as a matter of law or fact to the subdivision amendment in front of the Commission. The Planning Staff has acknowledged that the conditional use permit, which had the restriction for alley use, terminated once the properties were combined. That makes the alley open. Tying the alley to an amendment then, is irrelevant. There is no rational nexus between what the Commission is being asked to approve and the condition that it is asked to impose – they are unrelated.
From reading the minutes, Mr. Baird had the feeling that the two primary opponents of the project wanted the Commission to believe that the owner of the land was a “violator, a despoiler of neighborhoods.” Mr. Baird claimed his clients are not as portrayed.
Building expansions were indeed made with permits, as evidenced by copies of a 1996 permit and a zoning certificate, issued by the City as a result of that permit, approving the project a year later. Therefore, the project was built legally. Mr. Baird brought copies of both documents.
The clinic has not imposed huge burdens on the alley. Mr. Baird’s client commissioned a report from a licensed traffic engineer to prove otherwise. He distributed copies of the report to the Commission. Most of the traffic runs from the main 1300 East street accesses.
There is a serious confusion about which alley was in dispute. It is a relatively simple stretch of east-west alley located to the immediate south of the Applicants property.
The businesses around Mr. Baird’s client have 2.5 to 3 times more parking spaces than their 85 stalls. Those businesses generate the most traffic because they are after hours businesses. His client generates traffic only during the work day.
The Transportation Department desires this alley to be open because it helps their traffic flow. They need backup ability to go through the various parking lots of these businesses as an alternative to 1300 East when it becomes a “parking lot” and backs up from 2100 South to the University of Utah. The Fire Department also recommended this alley remain open.
The claim that the master plan for the area “prohibits” the alleys for commercial use when the alley abuts residential property is not correct. It discourages it for future development. This is a long existing commercial use that the master plan does not prohibit.
There is no logical correlation between the trivial amendments the Commission is considering and a closure of the alley. No connection has been demonstrated by the opponents or the motion. He asked the Commission to reconsider their vote and approve the amendments before them.
Ms. Funk asked if the traffic count on the alley was from the middle of the block to 1300 East, to which Mr. Baird replied that it was. Ms. Funk then asked if there were any counts done of traffic going east from the alley exit. Mr. Baird said the count was both in and out of that exit. The count was the total count for one day on the east-west alley.
Mr. Chambless asked why the permit and zoning certificate presented this evening was not presented earlier. Mr. Baird believed it was because no one on the applicant’s side anticipated a problem. The documents were then passed to the Commission for review. The staff report gave no reason for anyone to suspect that the project was built without permits.
Mr. Wheelwright asked if the 1996 permit application and subsequent zoning certificate were for the addition to the condominium building. Mr. Baird believed it was.
Mr. Chambless asked who the zoning administrator was that signed the certificate. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the zoning certificates are issued by the permit office and not necessarily by the zoning administrator. Mr. Baird did not recognize the signature, but assured the Commission that the document was valid.
Ms. Funk noted that the staff report stated that the owner purchased the duplex, sold the duplex and kept part of the parking lot without doing a formal subdivision approval. Mr. Baird explained that there was a request to do the subdivision, and he recalled that the Staff suggested a lot line adjustment process. This is standard procedure when not creating a new building lot.
Ms. Funk then asked why that negates the parking lot not being connected to the alley. Mr. Baird said that once they purchased the property it was no longer off-site parking. The off-site nature of the non-common ownership rendered it a conditional use. When the triggering event went away, the condition logically went away as well. This is what the city determined.
Mr. Muir asked if it was supported by Staff that the premise for imposing a limitation on access to the alley disappeared. Mr. Wheelwright affirmed that the zoning administrator determined that once the property was in common ownership with the condo parcel, the conditional use aspect of “off-site parking” was ended.
Ms. Funk asked for an opinion from City Attorney Lynn Pace. She asked him to review Mr. Baird’s testimony and discuss whether or not he agreed with it or not.
Mr. Pace was reluctant to render an opinion because he was not part of the original Planning Commission meeting or have a part in the original staff report and decision. He could not answer whether it was appropriate for the Planning Commission at its last meeting to impose a new condition regarding the use of the alley as a condition of its approval for this petition. He agreed that the original conditional use went away by definition. He assured Ms. Funk that the Commission had the ability to impose a new condition if it was determined that it was in the best interest of the alley.
Mr. Pace explained that the standard for proving a subdivision amendment is material injury. Mr. Baird believes there is no material injury because they are not generating that much traffic. The Commission can determine if this is correct. Mr. Baird believes the Commission is not entitled to cut off legal access because they are an abutter. Mr. Pace made the point that these are two separate issues. The Commission needs to weigh those issues based on what was presented at the original meeting.
Mr. Baird clarified that it is a question of whether there is a material injury from the amendment, or whether the amendment creates the material injury. Mr. Pace agreed.
Mr. Chambless asked for Mr. Baird to reiterate that he indeed received the permit and zoning certificate from his clients. Mr. Baird replied that he had.
Mr. Chambless referred to the date on the certificate as July 11, 1997, and asked if Mr. Baird was employed by the City at that time. Mr. Baird said he was not.
Mr. Chambless asked if Mr. Baird perceived any denial procedural due process. Mr. Baird was unaware of a procedural due process denial now that there had been the opportunity for rebuttal.
Ms. Funk referred to Michelle Hutchins’ letter and asked if Mr. Melvin Knight, who is part owner of the dental clinic, said closing the alley was favorable to the area. She asked if that meant he was in favor of closing the alley. Mr. Baird said that Mr. Knight was referring to another alley, a further continuation of the north-south alley. Mr. Baird believed the Hutchins letter confused at least three different alleys, none of which were the issue of tonight’s hearing.
Mr. Muir believes that the Commission is not necessarily equipped to judge the legal merits of the previous motion, and that the Commission should honor the judgment of the previous Planning Commission. He expressed his support of the original motion, and if the applicant had a legal stand it could be tested at the Land Use Appeals Board.
Ms. Funk wondered why it was so important to the applicant to have the alley open. Mr. Baird said a private property owner has a right to access the property next to him. Also, it is necessary for the applicant’s use when 1300 East is gridlocked. The City has a process for closing alleys and needs to go through that process to get this alley closed – it cannot be applied as a condition with no evidence in the record.
Mr. Chambless asked if Mr. Baird’s legal interpretation was that control of the access was a taking. Mr. Baird said there is an equal protection problem, a rational nexus problem, but it is not necessarily a taking of that right. However, he referred to a 3-D case that the City lost earlier which could make the argument that it does constitute a taking. The Carpet Barn case also states that if you materially change people’s use you must compensate them for it.
Mr. Pace responded to Mr. Muir’s comments by saying restriction to the alley must be proved by showing what material injury might occur. The material injury must be identified, and the conditions the Commission imposes to mitigate that injury must also be identified. The Commission cannot say the previous conditional use standard makes it possible for them to do the same today under a subdivision amendment standard. Those are two different standards.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Kevin Young from the City’s Transportation Division to testify. Ms. Funk asked if it was Mr. Young’s recommendation that the alley should be opened. Mr. Young clarified that Transportation reviewed the petition as a change in lot lines and saw no impact to the area based on the change. Therefore no traffic study was done. The Transportation Division made the assumption that the petitioner was abutting an alley and had rights to that alley. Transportation asked that if the access was to remain open, the driveway needed to be properly fixed. The process required by the City to close alleys has never been brought to the attention of the Transportation Division because of traffic conditions.
Mr. Young referred to the traffic report submitted by Mr. Baird and agreed that the numbers were not high. He agreed that at times it is good to have another outlet from 1300 East. From a Transportation standpoint, however, the alley is not absolutely necessary. It is desirable for those who work in that area. It is an impact to the businesses if 1300 East is congested.
Ms. Funk observed that the congestion along 1300 East is principally when traffic is going south. She asked Mr. Young if there was an impact going north from 2100 South to 1700 South. Mr. Young said northbound was affected in the morning and southbound was affected in the evening.
Ms. Arnold felt that 1300 East was constantly congested. She clarified that the Transportation Division did not have any control over 1300 East because it is owned by the State. She asked who would petition the State to get no left hand turns allowed from the parking area. Mr. Young said those who complained would be referred to the State either directly or their complaints would be carried by the Transportation Division to the State. People could still choose to ignore a sign restricting left hand turns because nothing could physically prevent them from doing that.
Ms. Seelig asked for more of the parameters of the traffic study. Mr. Baird explained that the traffic engineer actually went out and physically counted cars that went down the alley in both directions. Ms. Seelig said she would support her original vote to maintain no access from the parking lot to the alley. She believed the material injury is the traffic, and noted that the Sugarhouse Master Plan stated that the use of alleyways should be discouraged for commercial access if the alleyway abuts residential property.
Mr. Jonas suspected that more people are using the alley who are not going to the clinic, but are simply stuck on 1300 East and wish to get off. He also believed there were other businesses that used the other portions of the alley that will impact the street behind it.
Mr. Muir said it appeared that the standard had changed, and it is now the impact on a specific adjoining property owner that is the measurement. He did not take that standard into consideration at the original hearing. He would not like to reevaluate that standard without the property owner coming to give testimony as to the material impact upon them.
Ms. Noda agreed with Mr. Muir that the Commission needed to address the material injury issue and how it affects those abutting property owners. A finding needs to be made in terms of the material injury impact. The Commission needs testimony from those property owners.
Mr. Muir asked for a clear definition from Staff as to what rises to the level of material injury. Ms. Noda agreed and asked for more clarification from the City Attorney as well.
Mr. Pace said neither the Staff nor the attorney’s office could advise the Commission as to what is or is not a material injury.
Mr. Jonas closed the hearing for further rebuttal from the applicant.
Mr. Pace told the Commission it was up to their discretion to determine material injury based on public testimony. The Commission could reopen the public hearing for this purpose if necessary.
Mr. Diamond noted that a property owner’s right to access an alleyway that abuts residential property was another issue that needed to be addressed.
Ms. Funk suggested that reading the testimony of the previous minutes and another field trip to the area would help the Commission come up with their conclusions on material injury without reopening the hearing.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved that the Commission continue the case, review the testimony, revisit it again on the next appropriate field trip and bring it up at the next meeting, with no public hearing.
Mr. Wilde informed Mr. Jonas that he did not have to send out a new agenda for a continuance of this petition, but that it could be done by oral notice this evening and brought up in the next meeting.
Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels and Ms. McDonough voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Jonas announced that Mr. Diamond needed to leave the meeting at 7 p.m. and wished to make comments regarding the Smith’s Food and Drug Petition No. 410-599. Mr. Muir was asked to leave for a few minutes because he has a conflict with this petition. Mr. Jonas opened the public hearing on this matter in order to get Mr. Diamond’s comments, after which the Commission would return to the Brothers Auto Sales petition.
Petition No. 410-599, by Smith’s Food and Drug Stores, represented by Bret Wahlen of Great Basin Engineering, is a request for a conditional use permit for redevelopment of the site located at 2135 South 900 East, in a community Business (CB) Zone. The proposal will entail demolition of the existing structure and development of new buildings for the Smith’s supermarket and related retail space. This is a continuation of Petition No. 410-599, which was heard on December 5, 2002.
Mr. Diamond expressed his disappointment in his review of the new site plan from his perspective. He did not like the idea of a blank wall on the south side of the building. The two small buildings on north side of the parking lot will not enhance the development in the spirit of a walkable community. He encouraged the Commission to revisit and table this issue back to the subcommittee and Staff for a discussion about what is really appropriate for this site.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Diamond for any suggestions, other than for the housing on the south side, for a better placement of the building.
Mr. Diamond believed that pushing the building completely to the front of the property would not work with Smith’s concept of how they operate their store. He challenged their concept since he has seen it done in a lot of other places. He felt that bringing the building up to the front of the property with parking in back was doable and promoted a walkable community, and suggested creating a relief to the south adjoining residencies.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and asked that it be continued after the Brothers Auto hearing.
Mr. Muir rejoined the meeting.
Petition No. 410-626, by Brothers Auto Sales requesting Conditional Use approval for an automobile recycling business to be located at 3505 West 900 South in an M-1 zoning district on approximately 5-acres of property.
Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. He directed the Commission’s attention to an aerial site plan showing a 5 acre existing lot with a 6,000 square foot service warehouse. The site was previously used as a sandblasting area. A salvage yard/recycling area is being proposed for the site. The intended use on the site is indicated on Exhibit 4 of the staff report. Inoperable vehicles will be immediately taken to the service warehouse where large component materials would be removed from the vehicles. The components would then be racked and available for sale. The fluids would be eliminated and stored on-site, after which the vehicles would be stored outside. A big concern in this M-1 site is that there are a lot of conflicting uses between new construction in the area and what is already there. Salvage yards mixed with new office buildings and may be incompatible with light commercial/industrial uses. This site would be adding to that. In an attempt to buffer this, the Petitioner is proposing an 8 foot corrugated white metal fence around the entire lot. The Staff recommended a PVC coated chain link fence with vinyl slats instead. In addition, Staff recommended an 8 foot casted block or split-faced block wall along 900 South. This would be 15 feet back from the dedicated 9 feet of right-of-way and will match the curb and gutter of the existing industrial park on the corner of 3600 West and 900 South. The Petitioner planned to apply for a waiver to avoid having to install the curb and gutter. Based on the findings of fact and compliance to Staff recommendations as listed in the staff report, Mr. Mikolash recommended the Commission approve the petition. He added another recommendation not listed in the staff report, saying that Mr. Brad Stewart, from Public Utilities, has informed the Staff that the State would require more in the way of either asphalting or lining the entire site. Even if the entire site were lined, nothing can keep out leaching of toxic fluids entirely; therefore staff proposed that the Planning Commission look into more restrictive site leaching requirements.
Mr. Diamond clarified that, based on Staff’s recommendation number 8, whatever was on the ground around the lined retention areas could flow anywhere. Mr. Mikolash stated that Public Utilities indicated that they have no requirement for lining or asphalting the areas, but that the State could require more. Mr. Diamond then asked if the Commission required the Petitioner to line the entire property, could the State overturn that requirement. Mr. Mikolash said because it was a conditional use, he could not be certain how far the Commission could go.
Mr. Wheelwright said that if the Commission required the entire surface to be lined as a condition of the Conditional Use, it was within their right, regardless of whether the State would require it or not.
Mr. Jonas then asked the Applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Alberto Rivera, with Brothers Auto Sales, stated that he was very willing to obey to all the restrictions and requirements of the Commission, and would do his best to improve the property.
Mr. Corbin Bennion, Dominion Engineering, identified himself and stated that he had helped with the site planning. He and Mr. Rivera agreed with all the Staff recommendations. Mr. Rivera said that his company would work hard to keep the leaching of toxic fluids at a minimum and to keep the site clean.
Mr. Daniels was concerned about ground water contamination and asked the Applicant to speak to that issue and how far they would go to eliminate groundwater contamination under the property.
Mr. Bennion said he had not met with the State yet regarding their requirements. The fluids would be removed inside the building. If it is a State requirement to pave the site or increase the impervious area, it could be done. The storm drainage system would be designed to totally retain on site.
Mr. Daniels asked the applicant about their intentions regarding groundwater contamination, regardless of what the State would require.
Mr. Bennion said he would have to consult with his client to determine how much it would cost to totally pave the site.
Mr. Jonas then opened the hearing to the public. There were no members of the Community Council who wished to come forward. Mr. Jonas then invited members of the public to speak.
Mr. Lon Stalsberg, 3405 West 900 South, owns property to the east of the proposed site. He owns and operates ACE Disposal Company and has been in the area for 15 years. He explained that a junkyard had once been next to his property and had been asked by the City to clean up the yard and remove it to another location. He was violently opposed to the City allowing another wrecking yard to come in, stating that it was not good for the property values for any of the current owners in the area.
Ms. Patricka Klarr, 840 South Gladiola Street, spoke next. She expressed concern that most people were not aware that residential property still existed in the area. She said she had livestock and was concerned about the potential noise from the business, as well as the inevitable leaching of toxic fluids into groundwater. She uses two wells on her property. She believed a wrecking yard would litter the streets with metal and garbage.
Mr. John Bradley, a representative of LonePeak Investment Group (LPG) spoke next. LPG owns a recently constructed office and warehousing facility southwest of the proposed site. They are concerned that a “junkyard” in the same area of their building would depreciate the economic value of the building and surrounding area. They are also concerned about the potential environmental impact. There are drainage problems in the area. LPG would share a ditch with the applicant. The runoff would drain from the applicant’s ditch and then flow over to sit at the edge of LPG’s property, where it would not drain any further. LPG fears their property would eventually become contaminated and would have to be remediated – a very long and expensive process.
Mr. Bill Benson, owner of the property directly south of the applicant, spoke next. He also pointed out the drainage ditch mentioned by Mr. Bradley, and expressed his concern about groundwater contamination. An environmental assessment conducted by his company learned that some of the materials from the sandblasting operation which used to inhabit the proposed site had contaminated the ditch. Therefore, there is an environmental concern for what is being proposed for the site. He was not in favor of a wrecking yard coming in, and asked the Commission to deny the application.
Mr. Chambless asked if the contamination found at the ditch was ground contamination. Mr. Benson said it was surface contamination. The ditch and runoff situation was a concern for their property, and he believed the fluids from the automobiles on the proposed site would definitely contaminate any adjoining property.
Mr. Mike Mitchell, General Manager of the property just west of the proposed site, spoke next. He operates a produce warehouse. His concern centered on his food service business. He believed a rodent problem co-existed with wrecking yards. The toxic fluids could get into the air and perhaps into his refrigeration system. The sandblasting operation caused several thousand dollars worth of repairs and filters to try and block what was in the air. His company was required to beautify their property, and a wrecking yard would be a step backwards from that.
Mr. Muir said that he just realized that his brother worked with Mike Mitchell and therefore Mr. Muir had an interest in the case. He recused himself from the discussion and left the room.
Mr. Jonas noted that Mr. Diamond and Mr. Muir had left the room, and invited any other interested parties to speak.
Mr. Jim Swedin, who owns property directly north of the proposed site, spoke next. He worried about theft and ground leaching. He has a well on his property. He talked about a junkyard that existed in the area a few years ago that experienced a lot of theft, and that he himself was robbed on a weekly basis at the time. He expressed the concern of other people in the area about putting in a junkyard and passed letters from these people to the Commission for review.
Mr. Chambless asked whether Mr. Swedin was burglarized or robbed. Mr. Swedin said he was burglarized. When the junkyard and several other buildings were cleaned up, the crime lessened considerably.
Mr. Jonas then asked the applicant if he wished to rebut.
Mr. Rivera said there were many car businesses in the area that did the same thing he wanted to do. He is a professional that would do his best to keep the contamination problem at a minimum and keep the area cleaned up. He would keep his wrecking yard looking professional. He is willing to obey any of the Commission’s requirements.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chambless spoke for Mr. Diamond, who wanted to address three items:
1. He asked the Planning Staff if this case is appropriate for an M-1 zone. Mr. Wheelwright said an auto salvage yard is a conditional use listed in the table for M-1 zoning. It is permitted in M-2.
2. He asked with regard to the existing ground contamination, how close the site was to the Jordan River and Great Salt Lake. Mr. Wheelwright said both were many miles away.
3. He asked the Commission to consider whether this type of development was positive for the area. Mr. Wheelwright said that was subjective and did not represent the property value of construction in a new development area. It is a transitional area between new development and M-2 zoning where it would be a permitted use. It is a judgment call for the Commission.
Mr. Jonas said the Commission needed to make some findings, two of which would relate to the proposed site being harmonious with and having no material impact to the area. The development was continuing in the area because it is an M-1 zone, where people did not expect to see an auto salvage yard approved.
Ms. McDonough agreed with Mr. Jonas and said that the development appeared to be going in another direction. She felt inclined to deny the petition because the proposed site is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (Finding K).
Mr. Jonas noted Finding B as a problem as well.
Ms. Arnold also agreed that the area was growing in another direction environmentally, especially with wells. People have a right to be protected by zoning.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to deny Petition 410-626 for the conditional use approval for an automobile recycling business on the basis of the findings of facts that it does not meet the following standards listed in the findings of the staff report:
1. Standard B, the proposed development is not in harmony with the general purposes of this title, and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including the master plans, because this is in a zoning use that requires conditional use in this district.
2. Standard G, architectural and building materials are not consistent with the development nor compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
3. Standard K, the proposed conditional use is not compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development, and would have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood.
The Commission reversed the findings of the Staff on standards B,G, & K.
Ms. Arnold seconded the motion.
Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels and Ms. McDonough voted “Aye”. Mr. Muir and Mr. Diamond were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No. 410-599, by Smith’s Food and Drug Stores, represented by Bret Wahlen of Great Basin Engineering, is a request for a conditional use permit for redevelopment of the site located at 2135 South 900 East, in a community Business (CB) Zone. The proposal will entail demolition of the existing structure and development of new buildings for the Smith’s supermarket and related retail space. This is a continuation of Petition No. 410-599, which was heard on December 5, 2002.
Mr. Jonas noted that he was contacted by several members of the Planning Commission, expressing their displeasure at what was perceived as an attempt by the Sugarhouse Community Council to go around the Planning Commission. Mr. Jonas had a discussion with Mayor regarding his involvement in a meeting with members of the Sugarhouse Community Council. The Mayor heard Mr. Jonas’ complaint and expressed his simple desire to help facilitate some economic development and goodwill between two parties in the transaction. Mr. Jonas believed the Mayor’s intent was good in trying to move forward a situation that appeared to be stalemated, but it was not handled properly and sent a poor message to the public.
Planner Melissa Anderson reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She directed the Commission’s attention to two letters of testimony submitted that evening, one from Judi Short, and the other from Nathan and Marian Florence. The secretary received both documents for the record.
Since the December 5, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission had a subcommittee meet with two representatives from the Sugarhouse Community Council, two representatives from the surrounding neighborhood, and representatives from Smith’s. They met on December 16, 2002, and January 9, 2003. During these discussions the main issue was the extent to which the new site plan for the new grocery store is consistent with the Sugarhouse master plan, which directs new development in this location to provide a pedestrian oriented site design.
Two site plans were presented. One site plan illustrates the store on the northeast corner; the other locates the store to the south with two buildings fronting along 2100 South. The Transportation reviewed both of the plans and summarized that the plan with the building to the south was better for vehicle and pedestrian circulation, and would also create less of an impact for the existing traffic system.
Following the meetings with the subcommittee, the applicant met with the administration and representatives from the Sugarhouse Community Council to explore further site design solutions. The Sugarhouse Community Council recommended the following modifications to the site plan:
1. Modify 900 East from four to two traffic lanes with a continuous center turn lane. Those modifications are proposed in the new site plan.
2. Provide a mid-block crosswalk on 900 East at Commonwealth Avenue. This has also been incorporated in the new site plan. The applicant is willing to implement the street design along 900 East as far as Elm Avenue because that is as far as their property goes. However, the Transportation Division recommends the street pattern be extended to 2700 South because they cannot do just one block at a time. Any funding for street design from Elm to 2700 South would have to explored through the City.
3. Increase the building size on the northwest corner to 3,000 square feet. The new site plan proposes a 2,368 square foot building.
4. Construct the parking lot with concrete or other materials to reduce urban heat. Permeable materials are also recommended. Currently there is no change proposed on the new site plan.
5. Conduct CPTED review of the frontage along Elm Street. CPTED Officials have suggested efforts to reduce graffiti and insure adequate lighting to deter loitering and tagging. Those recommendations are included in some of the recommended conditions.
6. Explore options of including murals and/or paintings on the Elm Street frontage. The applicant has offered to work with the City and Community Council on this issue.
Since the December 5, 2002 meeting, the applicant has incorporated changes to the proposed site plan. Ms. Anderson then showed the Commission a copy of the new site plan. A variety of elements of pedestrian orientation are included, such as a secondary entrance with windows on 900 East, two building pad sites on the northern corners of the block, a pedestrian walkway through the parking lot, and architectural elements on all sides of the building. Modifications are proposed along the street on 900 East, and pedestrian lighting on Elm, Lincoln and 900 East are also proposed.
Staff has determined that the site plan with the building set to the south meets the technical requirements of the Transportation Division, has elements that work toward satisfying the intent of the Sugarhouse Community master plan relating to pedestrian orientation, and responds to safety concerns raised by adjacent residents. Provided the Commission determines this project meets the conditional use permit requirements, Staff recommends the Commission includes the conditions listed in the staff report as part of their approval.
Mr. Jonas asked if the applicant intended to use asphalt for the parking lot instead of concrete as proposed by the Sugarhouse Community Council. Ms. Anderson replied that the applicant intended to keep the asphalt parking lot.
Mr. Jonas asked if the recommendations for murals and paintings on Elm Street were consistent with the CPTED review. Ms. Anderson said the CPTED officials have not recommended specifically that that would be desirable. It is one way to address graffiti. Another way would be to have the trellis with vines and landscaping. The applicant proposes vines and lattices to address the graffiti problem.
Ms. Funk asked if the architectural elements of the building would prevent murals. Ms. Anderson replied that it would be up to the Commission to see if it would be worth exploring the suggestion of murals further.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and speak. Wade Williams, of Smith’s Food and Drug, invited Jack Robertson to make their presentation.
Mr. Robertson, of Prescott Muir Architects, said he was the Smith’s architect for this project. Smith’s have met with Sugarhouse Community Council and adjacent neighbors, received input from the Transportation Department, and met with CPTED in an attempt to develop a plan that addresses concerns from all constituents. At the same time, Smith’s has tried to design a site plan that it feels can be a profitable endeavor.
The biggest change to the new site plan has been the inclusion of the buildings on 2100 South. One building is approximately 720 square feet, and the other building on the corner of 900 East and 2100 South increased to approximately 2,400 square feet. Smith’s believe these buildings address the concerns of the Community Council and meet the intent of the master plan to provide pedestrian oriented development.
Significant materials upgrades have been made to the grocery store itself. These include the additions of brick veneer on all four sides of the building, the incorporation of concrete lintels, and on the south side the proposal of a steel trellis to encourage vines to grow on the wall face. Sunscreen elements have been added on the west side of the building for buildings facing 900 East, and they have carried the level of the glass closer to finished grade on that side of the building.
Smith’s is still proposing that the building be pulled up to the property line on the south side of the site. It was determined through neighbors and CPTED that additional landscaping to the south of the building provided an opportunity for loitering. It also provides more space in the parking lot. Parking on the new site is within two stalls of the ordinance mandated minimum of three stalls per 1,000 square feet of built area.
Marsha Gilford, from Smith’s, presented a petition to the Commission. Smith’s conducted a three day survey and collected 1,375 signatures from shoppers that were in support of their proposed site plan. 80 percent of the signatures were from those who lived in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Robertson about the pedestrian connection from the front of the store to the north and then to the west. Mr. Whalen said that the draftsman had made a mistake and corrected the site plan for Mr. Jonas.
Mr. Robertson also pointed out that another change involved moving the main entrance off of 2100 South further east because of the size of the new building.
Mr. Jonas asked if Smith’s went all the way to the property line on Elm Street. Mr. Robertson said there was a space of two feet between the building and the sidewalk for the vines to be planted.
Ms. McDonough asked what prevented more glass on the exterior of the building. Mr. Robertson said the inside of the store was structured to have perimeter departments such as the bakery and deli on the east side of the building by the loading dock. Cooking equipment, freezers and coolers were on that side. The south side of the building is primarily an access corridor so that product can be taken from the loading dock side of the building and moved to access points on the store floor, making it primarily a loading and storage area. Glass would be a possibility, but they were concerned about a glare problem for residents across the street. If glass on those areas were considered a “deal breaker”, it would not be ruled out. The west side of the building had the greatest opportunity for glass. The northwest corner of the building is the pharmacy and glass into that area is precluded. The front of the façade has restrooms, offices and customer service areas which do not lend themselves to glass treatment.
Mr. Daniels asked how many of the 1,375 people who signed the petition actually looked at the site plan, and how many plan options were shown to the people. Ms. Gilford said Smith’s presented their case and their position on the new proposed site plan. No other site plans were shown. They discussed the benefits of the plan and whether or not the people agreed with it. They did receive approximately five phone calls from those who did not like the plan. She agreed that the survey was probably biased in Smith’s favor. They felt it was significant that the people who signed the petition agreed with Smith’s position.
Mr. Chambless asked if the alternative plan presented to the people surveyed was to keep the Smiths store as is. Ms. Gilford said they simply presented their plan and asked if the people agreed with it. The site plan did inform the people that the Community Council’s suggestion of moving the building up to the front of the street was unacceptable to Smith’s. Mr. Chambless questioned the legitimacy of the poll, and believed it was a persuasive effort on Smith’s part. Ms. Gilford reiterated that the point of the survey was to show that there were a lot of people in support of Smith’s site plan. Mr. Williams disagreed that it was a persuasive effort on their part.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing up to the public.
Helen Peters, Sugarhouse City Council Member, spoke next. She wished to address the issue of the Community Council’s meeting with the Mayor. It came to her attention at some point that Smith’s had gone to the Mayor to discuss their plan. She then felt it prudent on behalf of the Community Council to request time with the Mayor to hear fairly what he felt in terms of the plan. It was a fact finding meeting. In their meeting, she was surprised when the Mayor presented Smith’s site plan, and stated that he had discovered a loop hole in the master plan that did not require buildings to have a frontage onto 2100 South. He then asked if the Community Council could work with Smith’s. Ms. Peters begged the forgiveness of the Planning Commission if they felt slighted in any way. She assured them that she would in the future make an attempt to talk to them first before going to the Mayor.
She felt that Smith’s have been disingenuous with the community on this matter, making it difficult to have a partnership. She said they have worked hard on their master plan and Smith’s plan is not conducive to it. The Community Council is working to close the perceived loophole regarding buildings fronting 2100 South.
Susie Pethrem, Sugarhouse Community Council Member, spoke next. She said the Community Council appreciated that this issue was sent to a subcommittee for review. She believed the Smith’s plan was still a far way from what the master plan is trying to encourage as far as development in the area. Their opposition has nothing to do with Smith’s themselves, but is trying to enforce the master plan in general. It is still not pedestrian friendly. Too much asphalt will be fronting 2100 South, thus adversely affecting the intended character of the area. The existing store is in need of attention. There are transient and drug-related activities occurring in the lot at present. The concerns of the Elm Avenue residents are valid in wanting to have a safer use of the lot. A 25 foot brick wall will not promote safety. There are transient and drug-related activities that are occurring in the lot now. None of the walls proposed should be completely brick because it is not pedestrian friendly. The site plan ignores the character and uniqueness of Sugarhouse. The proposal is completely car oriented in a pedestrian friendly community.
Derek Payne, 1034 East Hollywood Avenue, spoke next. He was a member of the subcommittee. He said the master plan was updated and labored over to retain and enhance the charm and walkability of Sugarhouse. Building heights, distances from streets and the percentage of glass are all quantifiable and outlined in the master plan. Smith’s plan does not follow the recommended guidelines. The north side is not welcoming and transparent, but is more of a fortified bunker approach. This scheme will erode the quality and character of Sugarhouse.
Mr. Jonas asked for Mr. Louis Zunguze’s perspective on the whole issue of master plans and their role in the planning process.
Mr. Zunguze said for any community to remain economically and socially viable it has to adopt among other things a set of regulations that encourage much flexibility as well as diversity in the retail perspective. Sugarhouse has a definitive master plan. His analysis of the situation is that a master plan is essentially a set of broad guidelines that a community sets for itself. Implementation of those guidelines are then typically expressed through zoning districts and accompanying ordinances. With respect to Sugarhouse, we are in the review process for a walkable communities ordinance which will clearly spell out some of the more definitive ways of accomplishing what the master plan says. He attended a City Council briefing at which the City is looking at the districts within the Sugarhouse community to determine where various uses would be allowed and at what scale. Without those two accompanying documents, the whole exercise essentially becomes how best a proposed project is designed to meet everyone’s notion of what the master plan actually says. This was a challenge for the Planning Staff. The Commission needs to figure out how best to make the jump from being tied to the master plan and the goal of keeping the community viable. A master plan is important, but it is also critical to have accompanying documents that define how to actually get it done. Those documents are, unfortunately, not yet available to compliment the Sugarhouse master plan.
Soren Simonsen, 2639 Dearborn Street, spoke next. He presented a slide show that showed pictures of what he believed were acceptable business development patterns. He had serious concerns about the proposed Smith’s plan. He felt there were better models for developing grocery stores. Other options have not been explored. A number of policies and recommendations in the master plan have been overlooked in Smith’s plan. He found at least a dozen specific instances that are not consistent with the master plan, including orientation of the building, pedestrian focus, location and design of parking, scale and massing of the proposed development, preservation of the historic character and response to the surrounding neighborhood.
Agnes Greenhall, 1817 South Lincoln Street, spoke next. She was one of those surveyed at Smith’s. She was presented with the options of either supporting Smith’s proposed plan, or if they could not rebuild they would have to close up shop. She was offended to find out at this hearing that Smith’s did have other options. She hoped the Commission would not find Smith’s current proposal acceptable.
Mark McGrath, 1972 South 800 East, spoke next. He voiced his opposition to Smith’s development proposal. As currently planned, the proposal conflicts with the historic character of the Sugarhouse business district and is in clear conflict with the spirit of the Sugarhouse master plan. Sugarhouse Commons did a much better job of adhering to the existing character of the neighborhood.
Ed Merrill, 510 South Windsor Street, spoke next. He supported the idea of master plans, and believed they should be adhered to. Smith’s plan would be too much of a compromise. Creativity could be used to make an appropriate building work.
Matthew Snow, 1725 Lake Street, spoke next. He was in opposition to the Smith’s plan and wanted to see the master plan implemented. A change needs to be made, but the master plan should be enforced, and loopholes should not be allowed to conquer.
Dany Tremblay, 932 and 940 Elm Avenue, spoke next. He lives and works in Sugarhouse. He frequently works late at night and has personally seen ongoing illegal activity, including drugs and most likely male prostitution, in the parking lots now giving on to Elm Avenue. These are areas that need to be eliminated for the safety of Elm Avenue residents and the community at large. Facing the Smiths on 2100 South and the parking lot on Elm will continue to encourage illegal activities. Some measure of flexibility needs to be exercised to account for the financial viability of a neighborhood anchor, such as an affordable grocer. He fully endorsed the Smith’s redevelopment proposal. It improves safety and well being, while providing an immeasurable improvement in overall visual appeal.
Angela Waagen, 924 Elm Avenue, spoke next. When the subcommittee was formed it was at a time that was inconvenient for anyone who worked full time to attend. A Planning Commission member commented at one of the meetings that if Smith’s walked away it would not stay empty for long. She disagreed, saying that Smith’s does own the property and could walk away and leave it empty as they did at Olympus Hills for several years. She wanted to know how the master plan would address that. Smith’s are trying to work within the perimeters that everyone is setting up for them and are being told “no.” They are a business and will walk away if they can’t make money. Smith’s are not just in a business district. They are surrounded by a neighborhood. She supported Smith’s proposal.
Maureen Simes, 932 East Elm Avenue, spoke next. She strongly supported the Sugarhouse master plan, however she did not like the lack of flexibility with the Smith’s redevelopment project. She felt the project would enhance the security of the neighbors to the south. The financial viability of a business needed to be considered. She preferred a brick wall to a great view of a parking lot and a loading dock. She felt the proposal to move the building to front 2100 South would encourage more traffic on Elm Avenue.
Kristi Johnson, 2187 South Lincoln, spoke next. She asked the Commission to consider three things. First, she said that walkable and liveable communities have to go hand in hand. The prospect of having a parking lot in her front yard was not acceptable. It creates a dark void in the neighborhood. Second, she stated that 2100 South is not a walking street, but rather a major artery. Making 2100 South a walking community would mean diverting the traffic from 2100 South and into her front yard. Third, she asked what would come in if Smith’s went away. She was in favor of Smith’s proposal.
Tom Judd, 956 Elm Avenue, spoke next. He was concerned about the constant references to the master plan. The master plan talks about vehicle traffic being necessary. Referring to pedestrian friendly, he stated that most people drive into Smith’s to have something to put their groceries in when finished shopping. He mentioned that virtually none of the Community Council shop at Smith’s. He was in favor of Smith’s proposal.
Steve Blackham, 857 Padley, spoke next. He is a builder/developer. He presented the Commission with several alternative plans for the Smith’s remodeling project. He wanted a development that would work now and in the future for Sugarhouse.
Mr. Jonas read a statement by Mr. St. Andre, 2260 Lake Street. Mr. St. Andre was opposed to the Smith’s proposed building, saying it did not conform with the Sugarhouse community master plan’s emphasis on buildings that contribute to a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward for rebuttal.
Mr. Williams thanked all who had been involved in the process. His family owns property on 2100 South and therefore he has a vested interest. He assured the Commission that Smith’s had looked at a number of alternatives and wished to continue to a part of the community. He believed his proposal was the best and only proposal that would work at this time. It does make Sugarhouse a pedestrian friendly area. Smith’s Food and Drug is a strong anchor to the community. Portions of the building are over 35 years old and need to be replaced. Their plan would meet the walkable community ordinance and would be much better for the neighborhood. Smith’s hopes to be an impetus for the west end of Sugarhouse to continue to be revitalized.
Mr. Jonas closed the meeting and brought it back to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Mr. Daniels and Ms. Funk asked that copies of the alternative site plans handed out by Mr. Blackham be given to the applicant for review. Mr. Daniels stated that these alternative site plans contradicted the applicant’s view that their plan was the best and only option. Smith’s could take a look at other plans that might better satisfy all concerned.
Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Robertson again why windows could not be placed along 900 East, Lincoln and Elm, assuming that lighting was not an issue. He explained about the corridor and glare concerns. Nevertheless, he said window-like elements could be added to the façade, but would not be an appropriate expression for the building. Actual windows would necessitate changing the inside of the store and affect the efficient and economic store operation needed to deliver groceries at a reasonable price.
Mr. Jonas compared the building to the Grand America building on the State Street side, where the frosted glass fronts a work area.
Ms. Arnold asked about some of the buildings shown in Smith’s display. Mr. Robertson explained that they were contextural elements that exist in the neighborhood.
Ms. Arnold noted that Smith’s were continually talking about everything being affordable to the customer, as if they were selling discounted goods. Mr. Williams responded that their products would not necessarily be very low-priced goods, but that people were very price sensitive about groceries. The grocery business is a very small margin business. Part of the reason groceries can be purchased at reasonable prices is the economy of scale built into the distribution systems.
Ms. Noda said that for the record the proposal given to her at the first subcommittee meeting and one of the proposals given by Mr. Blackham showed the store fronting 2100 South. She asked why that was not workable. Mr. Williams said the biggest issue was that on one of the plans there were seven entrances, which make theft control very difficult. Other concerns include the impact of street traffic on the neighborhood, and parking locations. It is not economically feasible.
Ms. Noda said she agreed with Elm neighbors about not wanting to look into a parking lot. She thought buffering, such as grass and trees before the parking lot started would address that. Mr. Williams said there was a space problem with that idea. The property is not large enough and buffering would cause parking to be constricted and strained.
Ms. Noda, asked if the current proposal eliminated some of the current number of parking stalls. Mr. Williams said the new proposal has more parking. Ms. Noda then noted that she shops at Smith’s and has never noticed the current parking being anywhere near full. She thought the current proposal had excess parking in the front on 2100 South. Mr. Williams said there would be 167 stalls and that their hope by remodeling would be to attract more business. The parking lot would be fuller and more convenient to the front door.
Mr. Chambless also said he felt Smith’s had always had adequate parking. He asked why Smith’s had not considered a multi-tiered store. Mr. Williams said the cost of construction was too large and that there were groundwater issues relating to that site. Historically, Smith’s experience with multi-level facilities has not been successful.
Mr. Jonas asked why there was a need to have a mid-block connection across 900 East. If the recommendations were followed and traffic lanes were reduced from four to two, there would be queuing issue. Mr. Wilde explained that it would provide access from the west mid-block without having to walk the distance to 2100 South and then back southerly to the store. Mr. Jonas questioned how many people would actually use that connection, and whether it was absolutely necessary.
Ms. Seelig asked who controlled the area of 2100 South Street and 900 East. Mr. Young said the City did. She then asked how many parking stalls were required with the proposed square footage. Mr. Robertson said 167 stalls were required.
Ms. Seelig asked Helen Peters for comments about the proposed square footage of the two buildings proposed for 2100 South. Ms. Peters said one of their suggestions to Smiths was to have a building on the corner and a smaller building was suggested for the northeast corner. The buildings were never officially presented to the Community Council. She believed the buildings would work towards the goal of walkable communities.
Ms. Seelig then asked Smith’s what their suggestion would be for more glass on the building. Mr. Robertson said they had addressed the issue that glass was possible for the corridor, but not necessarily desirable. Glass on the east façade would not give on to interior space and would have to be a false window.
Ms. Seelig asked Smith’s what their plans were for the retail stores facing 2100 South and to respond to the fact that the one on the northeast corner was a pad at this point and not a completed structure. Mr. Williams first spoke to the issue of making the buildings 2,400 square feet as opposed to the 3,000 requested by the Community Council. Smith’s had spoken to a number of retail leasing brokers, who said the bay depth of 20 by 60 made more sense and is more in line with current market demands. If the buildings are built, Smith’s goal is that they be occupied with vibrant businesses. The other building was planned for future retail. If Smith’s got a tenant for the space, they plan to build the structure immediately.
Ms. McDonough said she believed Elm Avenue was still a big issue that neither proposals addressed. A parking lot facing Elm is not good. The wall idea is not good either. She would like to see more creativity and some meeting on middle ground in trying to satisfy the master plan. She suggested that perhaps that edge of Elm should be zoned residential, and wondered if that piece of property could be developed residentially. She did not think the proposal met the principle standards for the conditional use. The land use does not contribute to the surrounding neighborhood and is not yet appropriate.
Ms. Noda agreed with Ms. McDonough about how the store affects Elm Avenue, and that the wall does not work. It is very inhospitable, and a beacon for graffiti. She had concerns about creating so much parking on the front of 2100 South and would like to see the store built closer to 2100 South instead. The master plan is important for the community, and she would like to adhere to it if at all possible. The community lacks a vision, and the Salt Lake City Council and Planning Commission need to create that vision. Smith’s proposal does not promote the walkable community goals. Ms. Noda wanted to put the petition off and see if more of a compromise could be reached.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Williams to address the issue of a buffer on Elm Avenue. Mr. Williams said Smith’s had looked at many alternatives and believed they had come up with the plan that meets the neighbors’ needs on Elm Street. The site is simply too small for a buffer area. Mr. Williams then stated that Smith’s had no more time for discussion and that they needed to move on to other projects. He felt Smith’s had spent more time, money and effort on this project than any other, and they had nothing to show for it. Given the demographics, Smith’s believes that for the next 10 to 20 years, their proposal is the best they could afford.
Ms. Funk expressed her desire to see Smith’s stay in the area. She would like to see them rebuild, but would like to see them be a better neighbor. She noted from the staff report some information called TSA Urban Supermarkets. She quoted from the article that Kroger said, “to date, customers do not need to see parking. Rather, they just need to know there’s a Kroger there.” Ms. Funk believes this could be accomplished by fronting the store up to 2100 South, and preferably housing along Elm. A parking lot on Elm is not a good idea, so there needs to be some kind of a buffer. She asked Smith’s not to throw in the towel, but to try pushing the building up to 2100 South.
Mr. Williams disagreed with Ms. Funk, saying he believed Smith’s had met many, if not all of the criteria.
Mr. Wilde clarified that this property is located in a “CB” zone. The ordinance clarifies that dwelling units, including multiple family dwellings, are permitted above or below the first story office retail or commercial uses, or on the first story where the unit is located behind, but not immediately adjacent to, the street. Housing on Elm would require a change of zoning or amending the ordinance text. This is a technical issue that can be worked out, if necessary.
Mr. Zunguze added that it is important that communities have a master plan and ordinances that will give direction to developers on how to develop the different types of uses. We have here an exercise in figuring out how best to design something without some good direction. We have a clear master plan, but are missing some components that will help implement it in the community. It is important to put everything into context, because this is not a black and white scenario. There needs to be some give and take.
Mr. Jonas said he had no problem making a finding that Smith’s proposal is consistent with the master plan. The master plan is a guidance document and unspecific as to the area in question. It focuses primarily Town Center along 1100 East and the Shopko site. He did not believe it was explicitly stated in the master plan that the building had to be brought out to 2100 South, and flexibility was needed. If this proposal is turned down based on the fact that it is not specifically consistent with the master plan, the Commission should never approve a master plan again. It would make a master plan more important than zoning. He, for one, did not believe that was the intent of the master plan when the Commission sent it to the City Council.
Further, the Planning Commission has an obligation to create economic development – one of the main components of the issue at hand. The master plans intends for a viable community that works for the business owners and well as the people that live there. There will not be a walkable community if a grocery store is taken out. Smith’s have worked hard, and made innumerable changes to their plan to try and meet the intent of the master plan. He did not understand the Sugarhouse Community Council meeting with the Mayor and supposedly coming to an agreement for something they could support, and then coming to this hearing and not supporting what they apparently agreed to. It is incumbent upon the Commission to take a very difficult site for a business with specific needs and find a way to make it work.
He liked the idea of housing on Elm Avenue, and did not like the idea of the two buildings in the front. The Commission can make demands for landscaping along the perimeter and parking lot that will make the area look good. A business of this type needs parking.
Ms. Seelig said the Commission needed more specific design guidelines set forth in ordinance that are very clear to everyone involved. It is unfair right now to keep getting more specific about a moving target. She believed the Smith’s plan was a fair compromise for all concerned. Rezoning at this point is not a good idea, nor is it fair. She liked the addition of the buildings on 2100 South. The walkway on 900 East is also a good compromise. She would vote in support of the Smith’s project.
Ms. Noda commented on the proposed small buildings on 2100 South. She believed they are throw away buildings that do not work and should be done away with if they were to go with the current proposal. She said the Walgreens site is an example of something that does not work when a small building is added to a lot.
She also said the master plan could not be so specific. There need to be general guidelines. The findings of fact, however, that relate to the master plan in the Staff’s earlier report are quite cogent. They are succinct and spell out the problems as to why it does not conform to the master plan. She would like to see Smith’s stay as well, but cannot go along with a proposal that does not fit with the Sugarhouse master plan.
Mr. Jonas clarified that the Planning Commission has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council about rezoning this property, as well as much of the area between 900 East and 1100 East and 2100 South and Sugarmont Drive. The recommendation would make the area into the Sugarhouse District, which would allow housing if it were to be approve by the City Council. The issue of zoning has been addressed, but no action has been taken as yet. One of the key issues was to downsize the area, so it is important to protect Elm and keep traffic away from the multi-family area.
Mr. Jonas also addressed the TSA article about urban supermarkets. Urban supermarkets are something different to the issue at hand. There are incredible densities of populations in the immediate vicinities of the urban supermarkets. The store sizes are much smaller than the Smith’s proposal. A population base needs to be considered. The TSA article said many chains were opting for buildings between 25,000 and 40,000 square feet, as opposed to the larger suburban buildings.
Ms. McDonough said that would actually support the point that Ms. Funk was trying to make – that this is not a suburban site. There must be some prototypes of smaller stores that work.
Ms. Arnold wanted to know the size of the store in the Avenues. Mr. Williams said it was 40,000 square feet. He also said that if and when there becomes vertical development in the Sugarhouse area with multi-level housing, then there is the ability to do the type of development discussed in the TSA article. Smith’s did not see the proximity of population and density necessary to justify lessoning the parking requirement below what is already proposed.
Mr. Jonas and the Commission agreed that Salt Lake City was neither urban nor suburban.
Ms. McDonough said she would rather be proactive than reactive, and make decisions based on what the Commission anticipates will be the future direction of the City. The future of the City is transportation oriented, not vehicle oriented. Giving up a few parking spaces has been done in the past.
Mr. Lynn Pace said that unless this is a Plan Development, the City does not have the ability to approve less than the mandated parking requirements.
Ms. Funk said perhaps a smaller store and less parking is an option.
Motion
In regard to Petition 410-599 by Smith’s Food and Drug Store for conditional use permit for redevelopment of the site located at 2135 South 900 East, Ms. Funk moved that the petition be denied based on the findings of fact as set forth in the first staff report of December 5, 2002.
Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Facts 21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable city master plans.
The Staff found that the proposed site design of the new Smith’s development is not consistent with the master plan in the following areas: 1) street setback from 2100 South and parking lot location are not consistent with the pedestrian orientation; 2) building setback and site design is not consistent as a gateway into the business district; and 3) two 25-foot tall blank-walls face Elm and Lincoln Streets, with a minimal setback, which is not consistent with a pedestrian environment.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
The current proposal does limit the number of parking stalls to the number of stalls required by the zoning code.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
The staff report stated that the south and east side of the building is proposed as a solid wall, 25’ high, with a thin strip of ivy to soften the building face. Without windows and human activity to monitor these areas, the ivy alone is unable to provide an adequate buffer for the rear and side faces of the building. An increased setback with additional landscaping will help to mitigate the expanse of the 25-foot solid wall facing the streetscape. Staff recommended the site be redesigned to increase the setback with landscaping for any side of the building that sits adjacent to the street and does not have windows with activity monitoring the area.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
The Staff found that the architectural design is not consistent with the neighborhood. Staff recommended that the site be redesigned to address the following: 1) architectural detail, windows and/or landscape setbacks are addressed on all four sides of the building; 2) the site layout is modified to locate the proposed building next to 2100 South; and 3) the building materials are modified to include a greater percentage of brick to remain consistent with the neighborhood. These issues have been addressed by the applicant and are now acceptable.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Staff recommended that the landscaping and setback be increased on any side of the building that sits adjacent to the street without windows with final approval of the landscaping plan granted to the Planning Director.
I. The proposed development preservers historical architectural and environmental features of the property.
This does not apply.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
This also does not apply.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
The Staff found that the proposed conditional use is not compatible with the neighborhood surround the proposed development and will have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
The Planning Staff then recommended that the Planning Commission deny the conditional use permit.
Mr. Pace requested that the Commission clarify why they are relying on the findings of the first staff report and disregarding the second one.
Ms. Noda reiterated that the reason the Commission approved the Staff’s original proposal was because it did not meet the general conditions of the master plan. The Staff’s current report now states that because of some of the transportation issues that the current Smith’s proposal would work. However, the second Staff’s proposal did not address in detail the master plan itself, have adequate findings, or specifically state why it did meet the master plan requirements. The first staff report specifically sets out the provisions of the master plan that deal with compatibility, pedestrian orientation and also other aspects that affect the community.
Ms. Funk agreed that the second proposal should follow some semblance of the master plan, and does not.
Ms. Noda said the latest staff recommendation does not give the Commission enough in terms of how the current Smith’s proposal meets the intent of the master plan. The December 5, 2002 proposal does.
Mr. Jonas asked for any further discussion. Ms. McDonough wondered if the Commission had satisfied for the record the description of why the first proposal was used. She asked to list the six improvements listed in the second proposal that allowed the Staff to recommend approval of the petition. The improvements are listed as follows:
1. A secondary entrance with windows on the side of the main building that faces 900 East. The Commission supports this.
2. Two building pad sites on the northern corners of the property along 2100 South. The Commission believes this does not address to the full extent the issue of neighborhood compatibility.
3. A pedestrian walkway through the parking lot. This is adequate for the Commission.
4. Architectural enhancements on all sides of the building. The Commission believes the enhancements do not go far enough specifically on Elm Street to address neighborhood compatibility and items B and K of the conditional use standards.
5. Modifications to 900 East from 2100 South to Elm Street. The Commission believes this is adequate and going in the right direction.
6. Pedestrian lighting on Elm Street, Lincoln Street and 900 East. This adequate for the Commission.
Ms. McDonough said item numbers 2 and 4 are where the Commission takes issue in their motion to deny the petition.
Mr. Jonas said he believed the Commission was taking a huge step back in terms of the viability of the City. The Commission has sent a message that zoning does not matter, that master plans are the only thing that do, and that our Community Councils have an inordinate amount of power to control what happens in the City. We are sending a message to people who want to develop in the City that they may want to go elsewhere. He believed a horrible precedent had been set.
Mr. Jonas called for a vote. Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Funk and Mr. Chambless voted “Aye”. Ms. Arnold and Ms. Seelig voted “Nay”. Mr. Muir and Mr. Diamond were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. McDonough excused herself from the meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Petition No. 400-02-17, by the Salt Lake Planning Commission, requesting reevaluation of the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 21A.42), in relation to seasonal items sales.
Planner Doug Dansie reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. Mr. Dansie stated that he had addressed the issues brought up by the Commission at the last meeting. He sent out an inquiry to APA members and of the various communities and had received responses that indicated temporary use permits vary considerably.
Mr. Dansie stated that he had talked with Roger Evans, of the Building Department, regarding temporary structures within permanent buildings. The key issue is business licensing and associated fees. There are two types of fees, permanent and temporary. Permanent license fees are approximately $70 a year, temporary license fees are $120 a day. Temporary licenses are purchased by someone with a short term sales event, for example (selling paintings in a hotel ballroom on a Saturday). There are grander enforcement issues with the temporary license. If someone gets a permanent license to work within a permanent building, the Building Department requires the business to be up to code. The bottom line is; temporary uses are allowed. Even a temporary structure within an existing building is allowed. It is the fee structure that discourages it. The philosophical question is whether you want to encourage temporary uses in structures that do not meet building code.
Mr. Dansie discussed the issue of temporary structures on public and private property. The amendments he will discuss involved private property. On public property, the City has the administrative alternative to permit it.
The last issue was whether or not the Commission wanted to permit ancillary items or restrict sales of cold items. Mr. Dansie said the County Health Department said they distinguish between snow cones and ice cream, because when ice cream goes bad it is unhealthy, and when snow cones go bad they melt.
A draft time period from May 15th to September 15th was decided upon because the vendors mostly wish to be open during the summer season.
Appropriate districts for snow cone huts and the fairness issue were the two most controversial issues. The Planning Commission earlier had decided to limit vending carts to downtown zones and a few other districts. Where most of the snow cone huts want to be is in grocery store parking lots, which are in neighborhood zoning districts.
Mr. Dansie produced an ordinance that legitimized snow cone huts as temporary uses. The zoning districts used include all districts that allow sidewalk vending, plus the districts where one would normally find a grocery store. A definition for a snow cone hut is included in the ordinance.
The major issues that the Commission needed to resolve were 1) whether or not they were comfortable with the zoning districts; 2) the structural models allowed; and 3) whether the Commission wants flavored ice only or other packaged foods not regulated by the Health Department.
Mr. Daniels asked if soft drinks would be disallowed. Mr. Dansie said at the moment the definition allows for shaved ice only. Mr. Daniels suggested it might be safer to leave the definition as is. The more you sell, the more competition and potential for conflict.
Mr. Jonas asked if the 45 days per calendar year worked for the vendors. Mr. Dansie said the original petition was for permitted temporary uses and other seasonal items, and he was defining seasonal items in terms of farm product sales. The 45 days was to keep someone from selling farm products such as Bear Lake raspberries from June to December. There is a proposed new section that specifically allows snow cone huts. The time frame for snow cones is from May 15th to September 15th.
Ms. Coffey clarified that Mr. Dansie was revamping the permitted uses and seasonal sales definition because the Permits Office was interpreting what seasonal sales was.
Ms. Arnold asked if the Board of Health did not regulate cold products. Mr. Dansie said that they review snow cone huts, but do not regulate them with the same rigor as they do dairy products or other things that spoil. Ms. Arnold said she had visited several golf courses in Arizona where the Board of Health would not permit them to provide any ice.
Ms. Funk asked why Mr. Dansie included the words, “Prepared food is not a seasonal item” in the first paragraph. Mr. Dansie said that it was to clarify that some foods are not intended to be seasonal items.
Ms. Funk asked what was meant by the words, “Such facilities shall not be located in any required yard area.” Mr. Dansie said if you were in a zoning district that has a 15-foot landscape setback, you cannot put your structure in the landscaping area. It has to be in buildable area on the lot. Most snow cone huts need electrical outlets and will locate near the door of the building. After seasonal items are allowed to be in the required yard area, but only for the 45 days per calendar year.
Ms. Funk asked if the vendors had to buy a professionally made structure or could build their own. Mr. Dansie said he had prepared a alternate definition that could be used that defined it in terms of square footage and heights if the Planning Commission chose. Ms. Funk asked for any public opinion on that matter.
Mr. Mark Murdock, 3615 East Copoint Drive, he was planning on using something besides the models listed. Ms. Funk asked about the size of his structure. He replied that he would have no problem following specifications outlined in the draft ordinance.
Mr. Dansie noted that if the Commission simply set a size for the structures it would not guarantee quality. However, that would give greater latitude for creativity. But by defining model numbers the zoning administrator could look at another structure, compare it to the models listed and make a judgment about the professional quality.
Mr. Carl Rought, Murray, spoke next. He manufactures the Snowie buildings. He felt it was important that attractive buildings were put in the parking lots. He works with the Health department to meet code, and so expects any other models to have to meet the same codes.
Mr. Chambless asked about the proximity of the structures. Mr. Dansie said there were no specifications about how many structures could be placed in a block or neighborhood. The structures are only allowed on private property.
Mr. Jonas asked if the structures were moved during the five month period. Mr. Rought said they were not moved the entire time they were up.
Mr. Daniels asked if there may be concern that a particular model was being promoted by naming names in the ordinance. Mr. Dansie said it did not restrict other companies because the ordinance says the “equivalent” may be used as determined by the zoning administrator.
Mr. Jonas said he felt the “equivalent” element in the ordinance gave enough latitude for others to come in and did not favor a particular brand. Mr. Dansie also felt it also provided an extra layer of review by the zoning administrator.
Mr. Jonas asked if any other ancillary items were sold in the snow cone shacks. Mr. Rought said occasionally people sold packaged cookies or candy bars. He felt it should be left open for soft drinks, coffee and cocoa, which are considered non-hazardous. The Health Department gets concerned with dairy and meat products that are being cooked.
Mr. Dansie reiterated that the ordinance stated it was for flavored ice only. If a soft drink dispensing machine is used, there would be Board of Health review of that. It is a value judgment as to what items should be allowed, but the more items allowed, the more conflicts there are with permanent businesses and vending carts.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved that with reference to Petition Number 400-02-17 relating to seasonal sales items, specifically snow cones, that the Commission approve the recommendations of Staff with the new ordinance Section 21A.42.070 and 21A.62.040 and 21A.42.070.K as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Chambless seconded the motion.
Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Mr. Muir and Mr. Diamond and Ms. McDonough were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
There being no further business to discuss, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.