SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Diana Kirk, Andrea Barrows, Aria Funk, Fred Fife, Craig Mariger and Gilbert lker. Judi Short and Jim McRea were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Elizabeth Giraud, Cheri Coffey, Margaret Pahl and Robert Glessner.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, January 22, 1998. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk abstained. Ms. Short and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Case No. 001-98 by Post Office Place Associates requesting approval to include the Odd Fellows Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources located at 39 W. Market Street.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Barrows asked if placing the Odd Fellows Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources gives the Planning Commission greater authority over the General Services Administration (GSA) in the use of this property. Mr. Wright stated that there is no greater authority over GSA, however, this will provide some absolute authority for the City to regulate the future alterations and demolition of the building. GSA can decide not to follow the local zoning ordinances if they so choose.
Mr. Byron Barkley, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 001-98:
Mr. lker moved, based on the findings of fact, to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Odd Fellows Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Short and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-294 by Eaton Mahoney Associates Architects requesting a conditional use for a planned development for a place of worship with two primary structures on one lot located at 1041 N. Redwood Road in a Residential "R-1¬7000" zoning district.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Coffey then stated that masonry fences have been required of other places of worship, however, due to the location of the proposed fence being next to a large vacant piece of property and the potential for vandalism of such a wall, staff does not recommend a masonry wall be required. Instead, it is recommended that the applicant be required to erect either a wrought iron or vinyl coated chain link fence with hedge forming shrubs planted along it to provide a buffer between the church parking lot and the southern property. Ms. Coffey then stated that in the "R-1" zoning district, structures are required to have a front door on the street elevation and they are also required to have ten percent architectural features. Ms. Coffey then noted that with the structure setback 63 feet from the front property line and the alter located in the east portion of the church, staff agrees that the requirement for a door on the eastern elevation should be waived as part of the planned development approval. However, staff believes more architectural features should be provided on the east elevation. Ms. Coffey continued by stating that staff recommends that the two stucco panels proposed by the applicant be replaced with glass. Solutions to direct sunlight off of the congregation can be addressed by other means such as curtains or screens on the interior of the structure.
Mr. Wayne Gordon, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations except the recommendation that the two stucco panels be replaced with glass. Mr. Gordon stated that having glass would result in the sun being in the eyes of the congregation for early morning services. Having glass would also result in hearing the noise and seeing the traffic on Redwood Road. Mr. Gordon then stated that he will work with staff to use a fence that is site proof by using a landscaped hedge.
Ms. Barrows noted that a potential alternative to meet the staff's recommendation to use glass would be either stained and/or colored glass. Mr. Gordon then stated that besides the traffic noise concern, there is also a concern that the people have privacy while they worship.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Peter Robbins, an abutting property owner, stated that he would like the property line to be divided with tall shrubbery; not a masonry wall.
Mr. Garth C. North, an abutting property owner, asked if he will have the same opportunity to construct a place of worship on his property. Mr. Wright stated that his property is currently zoned "R-1-7000" which will allow for low density residential uses and that a church would be a conditional use. Mr. Wright then stated that if Mr. North decides to develop his property with a church, he would you have the same opportunity through a conditional use process.
The Pastor of the Christian Life Center, stated that the purpose of the building is primarily for a place of worship as well as a center to serve the community.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith noted that his personal experience with bringing light in behind an alter is that it is disastrous.
The Planning Commission discussed many options for the fencing and the architectural detailing on the east facade. The staff agreed that replacing the stucco panels with glass is not practical.
Motion for Petition No. 410-294:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-294 requesting a conditional use for a planned development for a place of worship with two primary structures on one lot located at 1 041 N. Redwood Road subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with a few changes as noted:
1 Approval is contingent upon UDOT approval for access to Redwood Road as shown on the submitted site plan.
2 The Planning Commission waive the requirement for a door on the street front (east) elevation.
4 The final landscaping plan include a variety of species along the east elevation of the structure to soften the blank walls.
2 The fencing be either wrought iron or vinyl coated chain link with hedge-forming shrubs. The height of the fence be six feet and the shrubs should also be close to the same height at maturity. (added by the Planning Commission)
3 The Planning Commission grant authority to the Planning Director to approve the final landscaping and fence plan.
4 Phase II of the project will require approval by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Short and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-98-06 by Patrick Finnegan requesting a zoning change of a 5.000 square foot lot from Commercial "CB" to Residential "RMF-45" located at 225 East 2100 South.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Patrick Finnigan, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Douglas Winward, an abutting property owner, stated that he is opposed to the request for rezoning because he feels that whatever is built on the proposed property will negatively impact his property due to increased traffic and parking problems. Mr. Winward outlined why his rear yard and side yard are seriously impacted by the abutting apartment complex. Mr. Smith explained to
Mr. Winward that his issues are mostly related to the subdivision petition not the rezoning petition being heard tonight. Mr. Smith then stated that the subdivision petition will be heard at the February 19th Planning Commission meeting and encouraged Mr. Winward to attend that public hearing.
Mr. Mark Bunce, a concerned citizen, stated that he is concerned that the City may be setting a precedent by allowing a 40 foot lot to be rezoned into a "RMF-45" zoning district. Mr. Bunce then stated that he feels that the property in question should be combined with the abutting property before it is rezoned.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that staff attempted to handle the subdivision issues administratively, however, when Mr. Winward's problems came up at the hearing the decision was made to forward this on to the Planning Commission. At that time, the rezoning petition was already scheduled which resulted in the two issues being on different agendas. Mr. Wheelwright then stated that the subdivision petition is scheduled for the February 19th Planning Commission meeting. The subdivision issue cannot be approved until the zoning issue is determined.
Mr. Bunce then asked the Planning Commission to consider approving the request to rezone the property in question with the condition that the Planning Commission first resolve the subdivision issues.
Mr. Wright responded to the issue of a precedent for rezoning the small parcel to "RMF¬45". He stated that the zoning ordinance does allow single family attached dwellings on lots with a minimum of 3,000 square feet and a minimum width of 22 feet.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger stated that after seeing the poor condition of the property that is controlled by the petitioner, he is not willing approve the rezoning which will then grant the petitioner the ability to develop further on this property.
Ms. Barrows stated that she believes the Planning Commission should focus on the land use issue and deal with the subdivision issue later. She stated that it is good land use policy to have this property used residentially rather than commercially.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-06:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 400-98-06 to rezone the lot located at approximately 221 East 21 00 South and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger was opposed. Ms. Short and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Staff briefing and discussion of the proposed Conservation Overlay Zoning District.
Mr. Robert Glessner led the discussion by outlining the process that the Planning Commission Advisory Subcon1mittee went through to create the proposed "East Central Community Conservation District Ordinance", a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Glessner then stated that even though the proposed ordinance is intended to regulate the scale, mass and some design elements, it is also intended to allow flexibility for architectural design and site planning in the East Central Neighborhood. At the present time, the Conservation District would regulate one and two family dwellings within the East Central Community Neighborhood. Exact boundaries of the proposed district are to be determined and will be an issue for the Planning Comrr1ission to discuss. The boundaries have tentatively been South Temple to 1300 South and 700 East to 1300 East. Mr. Glessner continued by stating that more specifically, the ordinance is intended to accomplish the following:
1 Preserve existing neighborhood character and selected architectural features.
2 Require property owners who choose to redesign, add, or build new residential structures to comply with site and architectural criteria designed to preserve neighborhood character.
3 Allow a special exception process for unique circumstances in building design and site planning.
4 Remove a dominant vehicle presence in front yards and provide broader opportunities for pedestrian friendly residential streets.
Mr. Glessner then presented a slide show to help the Planning Commission members get an idea of the types of problems that have been created with infill housing.
Ms. Funk stated that the subcommittee started out with a lot of criteria which was then reduced to only the criteria which the members of the subcommittee could agree on. The subcommittee also wanted to create an ordinance that was "over the counter" possible with the exception of a few unusual circumstances.
Mr. lker stated that he has a major concern with the entire concept of having a conservation overlay zone. Mr. lker then stated that he feels that the language in the proposed document is too vague and subjective. Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that the ordinance will serve a few at the loss of others and does not support this concept.
Ms. Kirk stated that it sounds like there are some of the Planning Commission members who are not comfortable with the proposed ordinance or concept. Ms. Kirk then stated that she feels that the ordinance needs a lot of work because it is too restrictive.
When asked his opinion, Mr. Wright stated that he feels that having a conservation overlay zone is a good goal to improve poor choices made by individuals involved with infill development.
At the close of the discussion, the Planning Commission members directed staff to organize an open house to get some feedback from a handful of neighborhoods. The Planning Commission members also directed staff to organize a field trip so that they can see some examples of poor infill housing choices.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.