SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph
Becker, Ralph Neilson, Kimball Young, Judi Short and Ann Roberts. Cindy Cromer,
Lynn Beckstead, Jim McRea, Diana Kirk and Gilbert Iker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Everett Joyce, Doug Dansie and Cheri Coffey.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Becker called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. since Mr. Howa arrived later in the meeting. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were presented at the meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE
Residential Mixed-Use District
Mr. Michael Danielson, the Director of Salt Lake City's Department of Community and Economic Development, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Danielson explained that he believed the Residential/Mixed-Use district, proposed for portions of the East Downtown area, needed more evaluation and consultation with different constituents than what had occurred to this point. Mr. Danielson stated that many of the largest developers in the area had expressed concern at the requirement for the mixed-use component. He stated that this type of ordinance might work well in larger cities but might preclude development in Salt Lake City. Mr. Danielson stated that he would hate to see development stop in a vital area of the City due to a requirement that might not work in reality. He stated that, as a former banker, he would finance residential projects or commercial projects but not mixed-use projects because there was no secondary market for them. Mr. Danielson stated that he believed a mix of commercial and residential projects worked well in the same neighborhood but not in the same building. Mr. Danielson urged the Planning Commission to take another look at this proposed zone. He stated that it might work to require that a certain percentage of certain blocks be residential with commercial uses contained on the corners to anchor those corners. He added that a gradual phasing of implementation n1ight work in this area similar to what had been designed for parking limits in the Downtown area. Mr. Danielson stated that he understood the planning principle of trying to guide development to the west but added that his previous headquarters had been located on 300 South and West Temple and he had not liked the area because of problems caused by people urinating in the elevators, etc. He stated that he did not like the negative elements connected with the western portion of Downtown and he would not build there at this time. He added that it would eventually be cleaned up but that the natural area of growth at this time was between 200 and 500 East Streets. Mr. Danielson stated that the barrier between residential and commercial uses should begin at 550 East.
Mr. Becker asked Mr. Danielson how he felt about the planning principle of keeping the larger office buildings in the Downtown area, not letting them develop to the east toward the University area.
Mr. Danielson stated that the City had signed a letter of intent this past week with American Stores for a 29 story building in the Downtown area. Mr. Danielson stated that he believed it was appropriate for a structure of that size to be kept within the bounds of the Downtown area but added that the five to seven story office buildings were appropriate to be sprinkled throughout the 200 to 500 East area. Mr. Danielson informed the Planning Commission that the City had just lost a company that had planned to locate on 500 East and 100 South on the northwest corner but would now locate outside the City. He stated that the people who would work in these buildings would be spending a portion of their tax dollars in the City and it would be a shame to lose all of that future business.
Mr. Becker expressed concern that over time, the residential component of many of these neighborhoods would be lost to office development speculation if office development was encouraged for many of these neighborhoods.
Mr. Danielson agreed that the City did not want to encourage that possibility but added that if a certain percentage of a block was designated for residential and a portion for commercial, when the commercial percentage had been realized, no more commercial would be allowed on that block.
Mr. Becker asked what would prevent developers from requesting an expansion to the allowed percentage of commercial development when the commercial development potential had been realized on one of these block and the residential development was lagging behind. Mr. Becker said he could foresee developers claiming that the block just was not going to work for residential development.
Mr. Danielson stated that he could also foresee that happening but added that the City would have to hold firm and deny their requests because the residential component was as vital as the commercial. Mr. Danielson stated that if there were places to work, housing would follow. He stated that to try to force the housing issue would not be in the best interests of the City. Mr. Danielson said he was expressing a personal opinion, not a City opinion.
Ms. Roberts asked why it was not financially sound to ·finance the two uses together.
Mr. Danielson responded that they can't be sold in the secondary market and cited, as an example, a mixed-use commercial project at the 7-21 Plaza wherein attempts to market the project had not been successful. Mr. Danielson added that a project of this nature wasn't able to move through the market and a residential/commercial mix building would be even more difficult to market. He explained that financial institutions did not want to keep projects like this on their "books" and stated that Salt Lake City did not have a secondary market for mixed-use buildings.
Mr. Neilson stated that Seattle had a very successful retail/commercial mixed-use component.
Mr. Danielson stated that Salt Lake City was a very different market from Seattle and that Seattle was more favored by mortgage investors from the eastern United States.
Mr. Becker asked what it would take to change the secondary market.
Mr. Danielson said he thought it would take a couple of successful examples to encourage a secondary market to express an interest in the mix of uses.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission would look more closely at this issue but added that the City Council would be the body making these decisions since the Planning Commission had concluded its public hearing phase of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project.
Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, owner of Artspace, a residential/commercial mixed-use project, stated that he believed the banks and financial institutions were waiting for clear direction from the City by its zoning designations calling for mixed-use.
Mr. Danielson stated that the City needed to be sensitive to those who already owned property in this area.
Mr. Wright stated that the message of the R/MU zone was that the commercial/office uses had already taken their share of this area.
Mr. Neilson stated that however the mix was worked out, it was important to ensure that the host for the area was residential zoning, not commercial.
Mr. Young stated that he believed the desired market could be reached through development incentives.
Mr. Wright stated that the staff would examine this issue and provide additional information for the Planning Commission's review at the next meeting.
CB Zone- Conditional Use Threshold
Mr. Howa arrived at this time.
Mr. Becker informed Mr. Howa that the Planning
Commission had not finished discussing the CB zone.
Mr. Howa responded that he had a conflict of interest pertaining to any discussion involved in the CB zone that related to the University Business District due to his connection with American Stores, Inc., and their interest in the corner of 300 South and 1300 East, and therefore, he would not participate in the discussion or any votes on this matter. Mr. Howa stated that he had notified the Mayor's office of a conflict of interest that he had relative to this matter and approximately one to two weeks later he had received a letter from Ms. Aria Funk pointing out his conflict of interest even though he had already informed the Mayor's Office of this conflict. Mr. Howa stated that he had then expressed his belief that Ms. Cindy Cromer also had a conflict of interest because she had attended meetings on this matter outside her role as a Planning Commissioner.
Mr. Howa left the room at this time and Mr. Becker continued to chair the meeting.
Mr. Dansie used a briefing board to demonstrate the various locations in the City which would be zoned CB.
Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission needed to determine at which point a conditional use would be necessary relative to building size.
Mr. Dansie handed out copies of several of the familiar commercial buildings in the City and their footprint square footage in order to give the Planning Commission a basis for comparison relative to building size. Mr. Dansie stated that the staff felt buildings with a footprint of 15,000 square feet or a total square footage of 20,000 should go through the conditional use process. Mr. Wilde stated that the district size requirement would be abandoned for this zoning classification. The Planning Commission agreed with the staff’s recommendation of building size for this zone that a building with a footprint of 15,000 square feet or a total square footage of 20,000 square feet would require a conditional use. SR-2 Zone
Mr. Wright explained that the SR-2 zone had been designed to deal with the homes in which garages which had been illegally converted into living space.
On a briefing board, Mr. Wilde demonstrated the sites where this zone had been applied in the Glendale area and the Peoples Freeway area.
Mr. Wright stated that the residents of the Rose Park area had mixed feelings on whether or not they wanted this zoning in their neighborhood. Mr. Wright explained that this ordinance would work as an amnesty-type of ordinance and would legalize the existing converted structures but prohibit any additional garage conversions.
Review of the Central Community Map
Mr. Wilde stated that Councilmember Tom Godfrey had expressed concern about the "broad brush" R-2 zoning for the area between State Street and 1300 East and between 900 and 2100 South Streets. Mr. Wilde stated that Council member Godfrey had suggested the area be zoned R-1 rather than R-2. Mr. Wilde pointed out that this area did not significantly differ from other areas zoned R-1.
Ms. Roberts moved to revise the Planning Commission's R-2 recommendation for the area listed above and change it to "R-1/5000". Ms. Short seconded the vote.
Mr. Howa returned to the position of chair at this time.
Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. Becker voted "Aye." Mr. Young voted "Nay." Ms. Cromer, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk, and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wright informed Mr. Howa of the decision on the CB zone relative to the building size that would require a conditional use. Mr. Howa stated that if the conversation included the area on 300 South and 1300 East he would once again have to declare a conflict of interest. Mr. Wright stated that all he was doing was informing Mr. Howa of the decision that had been made.
Mr. Howa pointed out that the Planning Commission would be looking at almost every building application and that this would change the way the Sugar House area developed. Mr. Howa stated that public had been present during a previous meeting when the Planning Commission had voted for the conditional use to be triggered at a building size in excess of 40,000 square feet and now they had changed it. Mr. Howa stated that the staff needed to go back and make sure the right decisions had been made for Sugar House relative to the decision to change the conditional use process relative to the 15,000 square feet footprint and 20,000 total square footage building size.
Mr. Wright stated that the staff would reexamine this issue and bring it back for the Planning Commission's consideration at the next meeting.
Zoning Text of Chapters I. II. and III
Mr. Wilde led a lengthy discussion on the text of Parts I, II and III, Chapters 1 through 16. pointing out the strike and bold text on each page of the ordinance.
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that decisions on this text would have to be made at the next meeting and added that the rest of the text would be provided as soon as possible for the Planning Commission's review.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:10. p.m.