SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph
Neilson, Cindy Cromer, Lynn Beckstead, Kimball Young, Diana Kirk, Judi Short and Ann Roberts. Ralph Becker, Jim McRea and Gilbert Iker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Val Halford, Everett Joyce, Cheri Coffey, and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Neilson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
Mr. Howa was not present at the beginning of the meeting and Mr. Neilson assumed the position of Chair in his absence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Roberts moved to approve the minutes of December 1, December 18 and December 15, 1994 as presented. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Ms. Cromer, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted “Aye”.Mr. Howa, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Neilson, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONSENT CALENDAR HISTORICAL LANDMARK CASES
Mr. Young moved to ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee on their cases from Wednesday, January 4, 1995 as presented on their disposition of cases, a copy of which is 'filed with the minutes. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Cromer, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted “Aye”. Mr. Howa, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Neilson, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
SUBDIVISIONS INFORMAL HEARING - Preliminary plat approval for the River Park Plat "B" Subdivision for 62 lots to be located at approximately 650 South between 1000 West and the Jordan River in a Residential "R-2A" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. LuAnn Fawcett, representing Salt Lake City's Division of Housing and Economic Development, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Fawcett stated that as part of the government grant for this project, twenty of the homes would fall into the "affordable" category and added that Ellis Ivory had taken over Plat "A" of the project. Ms. Fawcett added that as of January 11th Mr. Ivory had received signed agreements to purchase eight of the sixteen lots he had for sale.
Mr. Neilson opened the hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Robert Severan, a resident of the area, asked why a portion of Glen Street on the map was shaded.
Ms. Fawcett explained that that portion of Glen Street had been vacated.
Ms. Barbara Rufenacht, a resident of the area, asked for clarification on what would occur at the end of Goshen Street. Ms. Fawcett explained that that area would be developed with single family houses.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Neilson closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Beckstead moved to grant preliminary plat approval for the River Park Plat "B" Subdivision for 62 lots to be located at approximately 650 South between 1000 West and the Jordan River in a Residential "R-2A" zoning district. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Cromer, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted "Aye"; Mr. Howa, Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Neilson, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS INFORMAL HEARING- Reconsideration of Petition No. 410-149 by Professional Equity Development requesting a conditional use for a Residential Planned Unit Development for 22 single family detached dwellings to be located at 1822 South West Temple in a Residential "R-4" zoning district.
Mr. Val Halford 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. Cromer stated that she was concerned about this project ending up with a "cookie cutter" effect due to the configuration of the houses on the narrow strip of land.
Mr. Wilde stated that that could be prevented by working with the developer to ensure a variety of house facades, colors used and front yard lighting.
Mr. Steve Butcher, representing Professional Equity Development, gave a brief description of the history of this project and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Neilson opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Greg Hawkins, attorney for Blake and Susan Atkins, abutting property owners to the north, handed out copies of an affidavit and objection to this project, copies of which are filed with the minutes. He stated that the general purpose for a planned development was to waive some of the normal restrictions in return for some enhancements or benefit to the community and because of some kind of hardship inherent in the property. Mr. Hawkins stated that a planned development should not violate the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance or the spirit of the main plan of the City. Mr. Hawkins stated that this plan was substandard in every way with no enhancement. He stated that this project was substandard in front, rear and side yard setbacks; that there were no enhancements to the neighborhood in this plan; and this plan would impact
Mr. Atkins' plans to construct a pool in his yard due to the setbacks of this project.
Mr. Hawkins stated that the new ordinance was invalid because it was unconstitutional and he believed the new ordinance would be "shut down".
Mr. Halford stated that the City had attempted to purchase the property to the north of the project site in order to create a more traditional subdivision but had not been successful. Mr. Halford stated that the length of the parcel created any hardship that might be needed.
Mr. Young asked what Mr. Hawkins' clients were trying to accomplish by precluding this development from occurring. Mr. Hawkins responded that they did not want to stand in the way of Mayor Corradini meeting her obligation to replace the seven houses ·from the Franklin Quest project, but something other than 22 houses crammed onto a narrow street with everything substandard would be preferable. He stated that his clients had offered to purchase this property or purchase another property the City could use that might be more appropriate for single family dwellings.
Mr. Hawkins stated that there was nothing about this project that enhanced the area. He added that just completing the Mayor's promise was not sufficient reason for the variances this project needed. He suggested this project go back to the drawing table or another property for this project needed to be found.
Mr. Halford corrected Mr. Hawkins and explained that this project was not just to honor a promise made by the Mayor, that this was being proposed to off-set the seven units lost in the Franklin Quest project. Mr. Halford stated that if the Atkins were requesting something be given back to the community, seven units had been lost, 22 were being returned. Mr. Hawkins said they disagreed that this was an enhancement given back.
Mr. Wilde stated that the new ordinance regulating planned developments required a one acre minimum and this project met that requirement. He explained that this project was being approved as a conditional use and did not require variances to accomplish this design and therefore, hardships were not an issue.
Mr. Hawkins said he believed case law could be used to claim that a hardship was required in addition to the fact that they believed the new ordinance was unconstitutional and invalid. Mr. Hawkins stated that the issue of the validity of the ordinance was a matter for the courts, not the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cromer said it was her understanding that the property to the north, now owned by Blake and Susan Atkins, had traded hands while this project was being negotiated and the information that this project was in the works had been available to them at that time. Mr. Halford said that was correct.
Ms. Diane Chamberlain, a resident of the area, expressed concern about the tight quarter of this project and the safety of the children in the area due to the design of this project.
Mr. Drew Chamberlain, a resident of the area, suggested the 22 units be reduced to 18 and that some open space be added to the project. He expressed concern at the size of the rear yards and stated that everyone would be looking into everyone else's yards. Mr. Chamberlain stated that they would rather have single family homes on this site than an apartment complex but added that 22 units was too high a density. Mr. Chamberlain concluded by stating that he believed this project was substandard in every way.
Ms. Sharon Cummings, a resident of the area, stated that she had attended the previous hearing on this matter where she had stated her preference for single family homes over apartments for this site. Ms. Cummings added that the more she saw of this project, the less she liked it. She stated that the idea of a 12 foot space between her property line and the back of someone else's house was distressing. She added that she did not want to see something like this proposal. Ms. Cummings said she appreciated the fact that the housing lost to the Franklin Quest project needed to be replaced and that she still preferred single family housing for this site but added that she felt the adjoining property owners needed to be shown a little more consideration and the density of this project reduced.
Ms. Fae Nichols, representing the People's Freeway Community Council, stated that they had voted 11 to 4 in favor of this project.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Neilson closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Beckstead asked if there would be any open area for the project.
Mr. Wilde responded in the negative.
Mr. Beckstead asked if there was any way, possibly through the development of a homeowners association, to ensure the homes would be occupied by the owners who would have an interest in the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilde stated that he was not aware of any way to require the homes be owner occupied.
Ms. LuAnn Fawcett, representing Salt Lake City's Division of Housing and Economic Development, stated that there would be no home owner's association because it would drive up the cost of the units and this project was intended to provide affordable housing.
Mr. Wilde reviewed the areas of the project that would be substandard and explained that the plans had been reviewed by the other relevant City departments who had all agreed the project would work even though some areas were substandard. Mr. Wilde explained the reasoning behind the reduced yard setbacks and stated that they believed this configuration worked better than some of the alternatives they had reviewed, such as a project of four plexes with a greater density than this proposal.
Ms. Cromer stated that she had been swayed to vote in support of this project at the previous Planning Commission hearing due to the extensive amount of support expressed for this project by the neighbors.
Ms. Fawcett explained that this project had been put out to bid twice and the only bid that had been submitted had been this proposal.
Motion on Petition No. 410-149:
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 410-149, based on the need for single family detached residential development, the findings of fact contained in the staff report and the public input and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Cromer, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short and Ms. Roberts voted "Aye"; Mr. Beckstead voted "Nay." Mr. Howa arrived at the meeting while this matter was in progress and did not vote. Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Neilson, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Neilson turned the position of Chair over to Mr. Howa who arrived at this time.
HISTORICAL LANDMARK APPEALS INFORMAL HEARING - Appeal of the decision by the Historical Landmark Committee to deny Case No. 054-94 by Lauren Rudd. represented by Attorney Robert Booker. requesting to legalize alterations made to the site, including installation of awnings balcony railing. front porch decking and modifications to existing sandstone retaining wall.
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. Cromer asked what would be resolved if the Planning Commission sent the petitioner back to the Architectural Subcommittee of the Historical Landmark Committee.
Ms. Coffey stated that the Landmark Committee's motion had been to deny the legalization but added that they had discussed how the project could probably be approved if the decking and the shutters were removed, different awnings were installed on the second story and the main story awning removed completely, modifications made to the balustrade and a solution for the fencing agreed to. Ms. Coffey said she believed the Landmark Committee was hoping to see plans incorporating the above revisions come back to them.
Mr. Robert Booker, representing Ms. Lauren Rudd, the applicant, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Booker stated that their position was difficult because the Landmark Committee had shifted its position on this matter. Mr. Booker stated that they had appealed five different issues because the Landmark Committee's motion had been to deny the entire application, rather than to approve the items that were not in dispute and to deny the problematic issues. He stated that the reasons for the fence had been safety issues. Mr. Booker stated that there had been no disclosures indicating that this property was located within a historical district when Ms. Rudd had purchased the property. He stated that
Ms. Rudd had called the City and been misinformed that if all she was doing was putting up a fence and replacing guardrail, no building permit was needed.
Mr. Booker stated that she had invested a good deal of money in rather expensive modifications only to find out because of being within a historical district, she needed approval by the Landmark Committee. Mr. Booker said it made sense to him to try to deal with what currently existed rather than trying to turn this case into an ideal situation. Mr. Booker said it seemed there was no strong opposition to the fence, particularly in light of the fact that more damage would occur by removing the concrete posts than installing the fence. Mr. Booker said he felt they were at a stand-off probably because of the awnings which he believed had triggered the remainder of the denials. Mr. Booker said he did not believe this was fair to Ms. Rudd who could proceed with other issues, if allowed, while the issue of the awnings was being studied. Mr. Booker addressed the issue of the balustrade and stated that whether or not the building was structurally sound enough to support the balustrade was an issue for the building inspector, not the Landmark Committee. He added that if Ms. Rudd could not demonstrate, from an engineering standpoint, that the structure was capable of maintaining that weight, no permit would be issued and the process would end there. He stated that there was no legitimate reason to hold this project up at the Landmark Committee level over building permit issues. Mr. Booker stated that the shutters appear to have been on the structure prior to Ms. Rudd purchasing the home and he did not believe there was any legitimate reason to require her to remove them. He added, however, that she would be willing to remove the shutters if that would allow the process to move forward. Mr. Booker stated that the awnings did appear to be an issue that needed to go back to the Landmark Committee to see if some compromise was possible. If not, that particular issue could then be appealed without the remainder of the issues being held up.
Mr. Michael Stransky, appearing at the request of Ms. Rudd and Mr. Booker, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Stransky stated that he had been approached to help determine the best way for Ms. Rudd to resolve this matter. Mr. Stransky said he had examined the house and had informed Ms. Rudd that if there was any way she could remove the awnings that was probably the most significant issue. He said he concurred that the wall should be retained and added that the wrought iron fence could be anchored behind the posts in such as manner as to not detract from the character of the house while allowing the property to be fenced off. Mr. Stransky stated that the shutters were a non-issue because if they were there when she purchased the house she should be able to retain them whether they were appropriate or not. He stated that he believed a compromise could be made on the rails if the structural elements of the house were carried through. Mr. Stransky stated that he believed the main issue was the awnings.
Mr. Wright asked Ms. Lauren Rudd if she had contacted the awning company about taking the awnings back. She responded that she had not pursued that avenue at this point.
Mr. Booker said they would like to engage in fruitful discussion about issues that were really issues and truly in contention and they would like to be able to proceed with those items that were not seriously disputed. Mr. Booker said they felt the major issue that would need further discussion with the Historical Landmark Committee was the awnings. He stated that the shutters were not really an issue since they had been on the house when she purchased it but she would willing to remove them; that she would be willing to remove the tile risers; and that they did not believe the balustrade was an issue and that it could be approved by the Planning Commission with the revisions Ms. Rudd was willing to make including moving one of the pillars over to line it up correctly and install an additional pillar while ensuring the building was structurally sound. Mr. Booker continued that they wanted to proceed with the fence following Mr. Stransky's recommendations relative to how it should be installed and attached to the sandstone.
Mr. Robert Pett, Chairperson of the Historical Landmark Committee, stated that he did not want to lose sight of the fact that the reason this matter had come before the Historical Landmark Committee in the first place had been due to the fact that no building permit had been obtained for this project and the applicant was now requesting legalization of work that had been done with no permit. Mr. Pett stated that the Landmark Committee had held a lengthy discussion on the issues involved in this matter. He stated that the Landmark Committee did not feel they could legalize what had been done to the house, or allow modifications, including legalizing the shutters regardless of who had installed them, without looking at some of the major issues like how the fencing would be anchored to the sandstone. He added that freeze/thaw, expansion/contraction and rusting needed to be studied, and to suggest that someone could simply install this fence caused them concern. Mr. Pett stated they had denied the entire project requesting the applicant come back to their Architectural Subcommittee so that the major issues could be resolved. Mr. Pett stated that they had discussed that the balustrade might be able to be retained but only with serious modifications. He added that there had been a consensus among the Committee members that the awnings were inappropriate for that style of home, that they were not opposed to some type of a balustrade or a guard rail but the concrete materials and design of the proposed balustrade were not acceptable. He stated that the mass of the proposed balustrade was not appropriate for the size of this home and the materials out of which the home had been constructed. Mr. Pett said they were still looking forward to resolving these issues with the applicant.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Susan Deal, a member of the Historical Landmark Committee, stated that one of their major concerns was sending the message that if no building permit were obtained, a lot of money spent renovating a structure, it would be okay because they wouldn't require it be torn down. She requested the Planning Commission disregard the fact that some of the work had already been completed and look at this request as if it was coming before them for the ·first time, which it should have. Ms. Deal stated that the balustrade was more serious than Mr. Booker believed it to be. She stated that it was highly inappropriate for the scale of the building. Ms. Deal stated that the Secretary of the Interior Standard #3 states that changes that create a false sense of historical development such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken. She added that just because Ms. Rudd had liked this type of balustrade on the Keith Brown Mansion did not make it appropriate for this structure. Ms. Deal said they were not opposed to a balustrade, but rather, this particular balustrade.
Mr. Booker asked if it was the shape of the balustrade Ms. Deal was opposed to. Ms. Deal responded that it was the shape, the material, and the size that were in appropriate. She explained that the shape of a four-square house, which was the style of this house, was characterized by simple, solid massing, symmetry and a sense of a horizontal plane.
Ms. Deal added that Ms. Rudd's efforts, while nice, had been misdirected into trying to soften a building intended to have angles. Mr. Deal stated that a four-square building should never be softened. Ms. Deal added that an original railing would probably have been one by one wood, four inches on center with a cap on top. She explained that the mass of the proposed balustrade in relation to the size of the house was disturbing, while on the Keith Brown Mansion it was appropriate since that building was much larger and constructed of stone. Ms. Deal stated that the amount of structural reinforcing Ms. Rudd would have to do to support the proposed balustrade was an indication that it was not appropriate. She concluded by stating that to allow a four-square building to be softened was exactly what the Landmark Committee was trying to prevent from happening in the entire neighborhood, not just to Ms. Rudd's house.
Mr. David Detienne, a resident in the area, stated that he would like to see the wrought iron fencing allowed. He stated that the neighbors appreciated the renovation efforts of Ms. Rudd though they had varied opinions on the awnings.
Mr. Howa asked his opinion of the awnings.
Mr. Detienne said he felt they were a little too large but added that he would hate to have to see her have to spend money on new ones. He said he was not bothered by the shutters but agreed that removing the front facing tiles was appropriate. Mr. Detienne said he was not bothered by the proposed balustrade.
Ms. Sandra Hatch, a member of the Historical Landmark Committee, stated that legalization was one of hardest issues the Landmark Committee consistently had to deal with. She stated that this case was particularly difficult because of the high profile of the house. She stated that she believed the entire district would be impacted, due to the location of this house, if it were legalized. Ms. Hatch said they had offered to donate their time to work with Ms. Rudd on this matter but she had chosen not seek their advice.
Ms. Kirk stated that she did not like some of the changes to this structure but added that the neighborhood had been improved by this house being improved. Ms. Hatch informed the Planning Commission that not all of the renovations to this house had been made by Ms. Rudd, and added that this house had gone through a painstaking restoration prior to Ms. Rudd purchasing the house.
Mr. Dick Bickerton, Ms. Lauren Rudd's father and the real estate agent who sold the house to Ms. Rudd, stated that they had not been aware that this house was on the National Historical Register and added that even the title company had conducted a search for any indication of this fact. He said the only indication they had was that it was in a historical district.
Mr. Wright explained that they had found the appropriate information when they discovered the house was in a historical district. Mr. Wright stated a house in a historical district was required to meet certain regulations other houses might not have to meet. Mr. Bickerton stated that Ms. Rudd had received a phone call from one of the Historical Landmark staff members who had asked her if she was aware her house was on the National Register.
Mr. Bickerton stated that Ms. Rudd had been told at the Landmark Committee meeting that she could litigate against the real estate people who had sold her the house because they had not informed her of the status of this house on the National Register.
Mr. Howa said he did not believe the house was on the National Register.
Ms. Rudd responded that she had been informed of that status by Ms. Elizabeth Egleston of the Planning Staff.
Ms. Coffey explained that all properties located in national historical districts were technically registered on the National Register even though they might not be individually listed. Ms. Coffey stated that the Avenues Historical District was listed on the National Register, therefore, each structure in that district was automatically included on the Register.
Ms. June Bickerton, the mother of Ms. Rudd, stated that she believed the shutters should be allowed to remain since Ms. Rudd had not been the one to install them.
Mr. Booker stated that he had had to explain to Ms. Rudd on several occasions that what other people in the neighborhood had done illegally and been able to get away with did not matter, relative to the approval of her case. He stated, however, that the flip side of that coin was that the City could not then base their decision on whether or not to legalize these renovations on any influence the Rudd case might have on other cases in the Avenues.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Appeal of Historical Landmark Case No. 054-94:
Mr. Neilson moved that the wrought iron fence be legalized subject to the installation being reviewed and approved by the Historical Landmark Committee; that the legalization of the balustrade be denied and referred back to the Historical Landmark Committee; that the tile on the front porch be legalized subject to appropriate cover or removal of the tile on the riser; that the shutters be legalized; and that legalization of the awnings on the structure be denied and that they be removed. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short; Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Young voted "Aye"; Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Kirk voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, as chair did not vote. Mr. Becker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Howa explained that this matter could be appealed to the City Council.
PLANNING ISSUES
Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Update
Mr. George Hoffman, the Real Estate Construction Department Senior Vice President of Zions First National Bank, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting to discuss financing of nonconforming structures relative to the new proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hoffman stated that he believed the area that would be impacted relative to property owners obtaining financing would be older buildings with a nonconforming status. Mr. Hoffman stated that the costs for rehabbing older structures might be more than the economic value of the structure. Mr. Hoffman added that down zoning older buildings to lower classifications would have a financial impact and said he believed the Planning Commission would be condemning those buildings to slow deterioration.
Mr. Brent Wilde led the discussion on the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project and handed out copies of a new proposed Urban Institutional District to regulate the development of larger public and semi-public uses in an urban context which the Planning Staff felt was lacking in the existing draft. He also handed out copies of a "Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts" and a list of the major downtown issues which the Commission was to focus on at this meeting. The Planning Commission agreed to the relevance of the proposed Urban Institutional District which would be included with the remainder of the ordinance for the adoption process.
Planning Commission recommendations on the Zoning Review Committee input, the public input and staff analysis of that input relative to the downtown area, as well as the proposed Urban Institutional District, were noted by the Planning Staff to be included in the revision of the draft of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.