SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Prescott Muir, Vice-Chair, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Jonas and Commissioner McDonough were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Associate Planner Janice Lew, Principal Planner Joel Paterson; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:47 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, December 10, 2003
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as stated are reflected in the December 10, 2003 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Seelig abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted in favor, and two Commissioners abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
The Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:51 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze introduced Mr. Lex Traughber, Principal Planner, as the newest member of the Planning Division.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the presentation of the Intermodal Transportation Hub/Light Rail extension which is scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting. He said that the presentation will cover the Transit Oriented Development Plan which is currently being developed for that area and the proposed light-rail extension from the Delta Center to the Intermodal Hub. .
Initiated Petitions
Mr. Zunguze requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to define the term “church”. There is currently a broad based definition in the zoning ordinance which covers “religious place of worship” and in that definition the word church is called out; however, the term “church” is not defined. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to create a definition for church within the broad based definition of religious places of worship.
Chair Muir initiated the said petition.
Mr. Zunguze asked the Planning Commission to give Staff direction regarding the process for reviewing the old V.A. Hospital. He said that Staff has received numerous requests for several different types of development. He asked Mr. Wheelwright to give a brief history of the development of the site around the old V.A. Hospital.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, presented a brief history of the site. He said that in December of 2003, Staff received a letter from the current owner of the old V.A. Hospital, Mr. Wally Wright, and an investor requesting to develop a residential condominium project within the two buildings on the site. The two buildings consist of the original hospital and the annex building which was built after the hospital and is connected by a three story enclosed corridor. It is anticipated that the connection will be demolished and the two structures will be converted into two different condo projects. Mr. Wright would maintain control of the annex building and the investor would obtain control of the hospital.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Wheelwright if the request is to convert the buildings or raze the buildings. Mr. Wheelwright answered that the request is to convert the structures.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that Staff’s dilemma is that the approval in 1995 for a planned development clearly authorizes the creation of a 5.1 acre parcel for the two historic buildings which would have street frontage and the new private street; however, nothing else was authorized. Staff has two alternatives in dealing with this proposal, one alternative is to consider the recent request as phase 5 of the original 1995 planned development and proceed through a condominium approval process accepting up to 44 units which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The second alternative is to look at the request as never being finalized in that the last approval was nine years ago which would require that the current zoning be applied to the 5.1 acres which would allow only 18 units. The Applicant could proceed with 18 very large units, because of the square footage available under the current Foothill Residential “FR-3” zoning. A third option is to recommend that the Applicant go through a planned development and rezoning process to rezone the 5.1 acres to a multi-family zoning which would match the density proposed. This may also require an amendment of the Master Plan. Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission as to what process they would recommend that this proposal should proceed under.
Chair Muir suggested that the Applicant come before the Commission and give more detail so they have a better understanding of the issues associated with this proposal. He felt that it would be premature to grant a certain amount of density without understanding the past and present issues. He noted that it is in the best interest of the community for this site to be developed rather than continue to be abandoned. The Commission agreed with Chair Muir’s suggestion.
Commissioner Chambless wondered if the tornado of 1999 which took out a number of trees in that area, left room for potential expansion. Mr. Wheelwright replied that he did not think that the trees that were damaged and removed left more opportunity for expansion.
Commissioner De Lay clarified the procedure by asking if the Commission is requesting an issues-only hearing of the new proposal. Mr. Zunguze said that a new application shall be submitted and then an issues-only hearing will be held to re-discuss the past issues and current conditions.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the proposal go to the subcommittee first. Instead of hearing an issues-only hearing. He felt that the subcommittee may eliminate the need for an issues-only hearing. This would allow the Applicant to come before the Commission for the public hearing.
Mr. Zunguze said that due to the fact that many of those on the Commission were not present for the original presentation and approval, he thought the Commission as a whole may have issues that they may want the subcommittee to address.
Chair Muir agreed that the Applicant should present the information to the whole Commission at a future meeting and then go to the subcommittee for refinement, and finally come back to the Commission for final review. The Commission agreed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-31, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to amend the Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification map of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, to reflect the recent sale and closure of the portion of Main Street between North Temple Street and South Temple streets.
This hearing began at 6:10 p.m.
Principal Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He gave a brief background of the site and said that it is currently privately owned and has been developed as the Main Street Plaza. He said that this action is needed to reflect the private ownership in the Transportation Master Plan. This is a clean up action following the City Council decision and based on the analysis and findings, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to remove the section of Main Street between North and South Temple streets from the Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification map of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-31 based on the above comments, analysis and findings, that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to remove the section of Main Street between North and South Temple streets from the Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification map of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan.
Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Six Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 410-623, by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, represented by Robert Sperling requesting approval to construct a public utility building, to house chlorination and fluoridation equipment for a City well that provides culinary water to the downtown area at peak times of the year. The proposed facility is to be located in City Creek Park, North of Ottinger Hall on the West side of City Creek Canyon Road at approximately 233 North. The property is located in the "OS" Open Space Zoning District. The request also requires a Planned Development approval by Petition No. 410-655 to allow a modification of the front yard setback from 30' to 11' and to allow more than one principal building on a lot.
This hearing began at 6:15 p.m.
Chair Muir noted that Petition No. 410-623 and Petition No. 410-655 have been presented concurrently.
Associate Planner Nelson Knight presented the petitions as written in the staff reports. He described the first petition that requests approval of a conditional use for the utility structure, and the second petition is requesting approval of a planned development to modify the setback requirement and allow more than one principal building per lot. Mr. Knight stated that in 2002 the Salt Lake County voters passed a referendum requiring that all water be fluoridated, and Salt Lake City is making efforts to comply. He gave a brief timeline of how the Public Utilities Division arrived at the proposed location and described the materials to be used for the construction of the structure. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use as designed and reflected in the proposed site and structure drawings to construct a utility building, subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. Based upon the analysis and findings as listed in the staff report, Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development as designed and reflected in the proposed site and structure drawings, with the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the location of the structure be pushed back into the hillside and gave modified design suggestions of the structure. He voiced concern with the width of the structure.
Commissioner De Lay wondered if the Police Department received the proposed information for review. Mr. Knight replied that he was not able to find comments from the Police Department regarding the proposal, and it is unclear if the Police Department received the information for review.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Knight how the Historic Landmark Commission felt about this proposal. Mr. Knight replied that they had concerns with the previous location of the structure. They also had concerns with the overall mass of the building, which was somewhat mitigated by a majority of the structure being buried. As such, the Historic Landmark Commission agreed that it is a reasonable design and approved the proposal.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, referred to the question of which City Departments received the information for review explaining that all City departments received the proposal as the initial routing with exception of the Police Department. He added that the Applicant may have additional information regarding CPTED review.
Mr. Robert Sperling, representing the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, and Mr. Steve England, representing the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, addressed the Commission. Mr. Steve England gave a brief description of the layout of the structure. He said that the intent is to keep the structure as low as possible into the ground. He said that they intend to incorporate landscaping on the roof of the structure as well. Mr. England stated that they have attempted to design the structure to not compete with the existing Ottinger Hall, but to be more of a park structure. He addressed the question of pushing the structure back into the hill and said that if the structure is pushed back further, they may disturb the trees.
Commissioner Seelig inquired as to the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design review of this project with respect to the landscaping and the structure. Commissioner Seelig referred to the past practice when reviewing areas such as Memory Grove, which in addition to housing beautiful monuments and such, host a myriad of criminal activity. She asked the Applicant if this project has been through the CPTED review. Mr. Sperling replied that he was not aware of that review process.
Commissioner Seelig felt that the CPTED review is very important to this project and asked the Commission to support her in requiring an additional condition to have the Police Department review this project.
Commissioner Scott clarified that there is one door leading into the structure and worried that one door may not be sufficient for the workers to exit if there were an emergency. She also asked if that is a standard design. Mr. Sperling stated that the workers would be inside the structure for a short amount of time periodically, only to fill the fluoridation tank and for minor maintenance. Mr. England responded to the question regarding the standard design of such a facility. He said that this is a design specifically to allow for a portion of the structure to be underground which was a request of the surrounding community.
Commissioner Scott asked if the door to the structure will have architectural relief. Mr. England answered that they have designed the structure to fit in with the existing Ottinger Hall and the access door will have architectural relief.
Commissioner Chambless inquired whether or not additional lighting would be proposed. He felt that if there is sufficient lighting there is less crime. Mr. England replied that there will be a shielded fixture at the entrance area.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission stating that she is not taking issue with the current petition itself; however, she is concerned with specific ordinance issues which she felt needed to be addressed with the fine tuning of the zoning ordinance. She referred to the specification in the zoning ordinance which calls out who has the authority to initiate a petition and said that neither Robert Sperling nor the Public Utilities Division has the authority to do so. She asked that this concern be noted and corrected in the fine tuning of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Cromer referred to the two acre minimum requirement for a conditional use or planned development process in the Open Space zone. She said that if the proposal before the Commission were only addressing the parcel that Ottinger Hall is on, there would not be enough space to entertain the said proposal. She argued that the acreage requirements in the Open Space and Institutional zones are too large. She agreed with the comments which address the CPTED review and the door of the structure, and asked that the door have a historic feature. Ms. Cromer suggested motion sensor lights on the structure.
Commissioner De Lay asked Ms. Cromer as a resident of the area, if she felt that the proposed structure would attract crime. Ms. Cromer clarified that she is a landlord not a resident of the adjacent property. She felt that motion sensor lights would eliminate a majority of the crime. Ms. Cromer added that the surrounding neighborhood is very vigilant in protecting the public park.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that he received one telephone call from a property owner in the area in opposition to the fluoridation and loss of open space. He explained their options of submitting written comment and appearing at the public hearing. Mr. Wheelwright said that he gave them his email address and as of 3:00 p.m. this afternoon he did not receive an email.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
The Applicant declined the opportunity to add information to his proposal.
Chair Muir said that it seems regrettable the Planning Commission does not have a better idea of how Ottinger Hall is planned to be reused. He said that if it is a children’s facility, there could be a courtyard between the two structures.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the proposed fluoridation facility is located a safe distance away from Ottinger Hall if it were converted into a children’s facility. Mr. Sperling said that the opinion of Public Utilities is that it is a safe distance away.
Commissioner Seelig referred to Ms. Cromer’s comment regarding who has the authority to initiate a petition, and asked for Mr. Pace’s opinion regarding that matter. Mr. Pace referred to three sections of the zoning code and sited each section. Mr. Pace stated that the section pertinent to this request is Section 21A.54.050, dealing with conditional uses, which reads that an owner or an authorized agent may file a conditional use petition. He would assume that the individuals who have filed the application on behalf of the Public Utilities Division are authorized agents of the City which is the owner.
Commissioner De Lay stated that it is disturbing to receive comments in the staff report stating that “all pertinent City departments have reviewed and approved this proposal”, when in fact not all departments had done so.
Motion
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-623 and Petition No. 410-655, based upon the analysis and findings of fact as listed in the staff report and information presented this evening that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use and planned development to construct a utility structure as designed and reflected in the proposed site and structure drawings, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
1. Final landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
2. Established trees and landscaping, especially those on the hillside west of the proposed building, shall be protected during excavation and construction.
3. Drought tolerant plantings that are in character with plantings native to the canyon or used historically in the area and similar to those used on the hillsides of the canyon as part of the recent Memory Grove restoration, shall be used.
4. Regular delivery, maintenance and repair of the buildings and equipment shall be confined to normal day-time business hours except in the case of an emergency.
5. The Applicant shall carry out a CPTED review of the project.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Diamond requested to add an additional condition that would require the coordination with the Mayor’s Office and Planning Staff regarding the renovation of the Ottinger Hall as it relates to the new fluoridation structure and its appropriateness and proximity the Ottinger Hall. He requested that the coordination take place prior to construction. Commissioner Diamond reiterated his concern with the location of the fluoridation structure as it relates to Ottinger Hall if it is developed as a children’s facility. He felt that the two projects could be developed together.
Chair Muir suggested that the additional condition request that Public Utilities make an effort to coordinate with the Mayor’s Office and if it is found that there is not such an opportunity to develop the two projects together and if the timing precludes that then the Public Utilities shall be permitted to move forward.
Commissioner Scott said that she is inclined to accept Commissioner Diamond’s amendment if there is a timeline in order to not delay the Public Utilities development.
Commissioner Diamond deferred to Mr. Zunguze’s judgment regarding the time that should be attached to the condition. Mr. Zunguze felt that the Mayor would obviously be sensitive to the issues of safety and asked that the Commission make a condition that encourages the Planning Director to enter into discussions regarding those issues.
Commissioner Scott accepted condition number six “That the Planning Director shall enter into the meaningful dialogue with the Mayor regarding safety issues and the proximity of the conditional use structure to the Historic Building (Ottinger Hall) to be used for youth.”
Amended Motion
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-623 and Petition No. 410-655, based upon the analysis and findings of fact as listed in the staff report and information presented this evening that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use and planned development to construct a utility structure as designed and reflected in the proposed site and structure drawings, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
1. Final landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
2. Established trees and landscaping, especially those on the hillside west of the proposed building, shall be protected during excavation and construction.
3. Drought tolerant plantings that are in character with plantings native to the canyon or used historically in the area and similar to those used on the hillsides of the canyon as part of the recent Memory Grove restoration, shall be used.
4. Regular delivery, maintenance and repair of the buildings and equipment shall be confined to normal day-time business hours except in the case of an emergency.
5. The Applicant shall carry out a CPTED review of the project.
6. The Planning Director shall enter into the meaningful dialogue with the Mayor regarding safety issues and the proximity of the conditional use structure to the Historic Building (Ottinger Hall) to be used for youth.
Commissioner De Lay accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-03-27, by the Westminster College, requesting to rezone the properties located at 1182 and 1184 East Blaine Avenue from Single Family Residential “R 1/5000” to Institutional “I” zoning, in order to accommodate the conversion of two existing homes into an Alumni House (structures to be rehabilitated);
Petition 410-653, requesting a planned development approval which would allow for multiple buildings on a single site, increase the height of one building above 35 feet and to modify landscaped setbacks and ;
Petition 400-03-28, requesting that the City close the portion of the alley between 1182 and 1184 E. Blaine Avenue as a public right-of-way.
This hearing began at 7:19 p.m.
Chair Muir noted that Petition No. 400-03-27, Petition No. 410-653 and Petition No. 400-03-28 will be heard concurrently this evening.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He gave a brief overview of the proposals and described the properties included. He stated that in light of the comments, analysis and findings as noted in the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition No. 400-03-27, to update the Sugar House Master Plan and to approve an ordinance to amend the zoning map to change the zoning for 1182 and 1184 East Blaine Avenue from “R1-5000” to Institutional “I”, with the condition that the petitioner complete a storm water drainage plan, approved by Salt Lake City Public Utilities, prior to any ordinance taking effect. Staff is also recommending, based on the findings as listed in the staff report, that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-653 for a planned development of a mixed-use development at approximately 1840 South 1300 East (including parcels at 1182 and 1184 East Blaine Avenue), subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. Staff further recommends, based upon the analysis and findings as listed in the staff report, that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition No. 400-03-28, to close and abandon the subject alley and declare the alley property surplus to the City’s needs as a public alley, and subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Commissioner De Lay disclosed that she is a two-time graduate of Westminster College and past President of the Alumni Association. She stated that she is not currently involved financially with Westminster College in anyway and she did not feel that it is necessary for her to recuse herself from this item.
Chair Muir agreed that it is not necessary for Commissioner De Lay to recuse herself. The Commission concurred.
Mr. Brad Stewart with the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Division addressed the Commission saying that the property complies with current regulations, and Public Utilities supports the petitions.
Commissioner Diamond stated that he is concerned with the impacts that the proposed parking structure may have on the flow of traffic to and from the campus, and how it will affect the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Kevin Young with the Salt Lake City Transportation Division spoke to the Commission to address concerns with traffic impacts and mitigation issues. He said that they expect the traffic impacts on the neighborhood to be minimal.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Young if the Transportation Division has had dialogue with the Fire Department relating to the configuration of the parking structure. Mr. Young answered that the Transportation Division and Fire Department typically communicate with each other and he is not aware of any concerns.
Mr. Steve Morgan, the Executive Vice-President of Westminster College, addressed the Commission asking that they approve the petitions before them. He gave a brief history of the college and stated that the approval of the petitions presented this evening will allow Westminster to improve their campus which would better serve the community. Mr. Morgan stated that the proposed parking structure will eliminate students of the college from parking in the surrounding neighborhood. He added that the college supports the Staff recommendation and asked the Commission for their support. He referred to the concern raised in the planned development staff report of preserving and protecting the Emigration Creek. He said that the creek is one of the great amenities associated with the College. He added that the College is taking steps to correct some of the obvious problems with drainage and such. Mr. Morgan stated that the College has granted an easement to the County in order to work out a plan to clean up the creek. Mr. Morgan stated that the parking structure will have no effect on the Creek and will be located an appropriate distance from the Creek to comply with all City standards. He stated that Westminster will develop a construction mitigation plan to keep construction well away from the stream bank. Mr. Morgan stated that through this process, the City has suggested that Westminster eliminate unnecessary lot lines from over 200 parcels which were part of the original campus by amending the subdivision and creating one lot called “Westminster Campus”. In going about this, all property lines have been surveyed and marked. He referred to one neighbor who disputes the location of one of the said property lines. He said that Westminster is committed to getting that issue resolved. Mr. Morgan said that the proposals meet all setbacks required for the college to move forward with the parking structure, and he asked the Planning Commission to support the proposals before them this evening.
Commissioner Scott referred to the information in the staff report which states that the college is committed to reestablishing the natural grade to the riparian area of the creek. She asked if the college is planning to establish a more gradual grade to that area with natural runoff.
Dr. Ty Harrison, a Professor at Westminster College, stated that the proposed structure is far enough away from the creek that they will not disturb it as part of the construction. He said that they plan to push the pedestrian trail closer to the proposed structure. He said that they will not be expanding the riparian flood zone; however, they will enhance the undisturbed area with native drought tolerant vegetation. Mr. Harrison referred to the diagram of the playing field and described the location of the additional vegetation.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Ms. Susan Petheram, a representative from the Sugar House Community Council, spoke in support of the petition. She appreciated the time and effort put forth by the college and consultants to work through issues raised by the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the community is generally in favor of the Alumni House project. She said that the concerns with the elevated field with the parking structure were the possibility of additional noise and light. She added that the majority of the trusties felt that the college had addressed those concerns adequately. She referred to the Emigration Creek and stated that the Sugar House Community Council was concerned with the conservation of the creek, and after review of the project, the community council voted in favor. She said that the community requests that the public is allowed to continue to access the alley as part of the trail for pedestrians and bicycles only. She stated that the college has done a lot to work with the community and asked the Commission to support the proposal.
Dr. Harrison addressed the Commission saying that the natural creek is an important feature of the property. He said that the proposal is allowing them to correct past oversights associated with the creek. The college has no intention to disturb the creek.
Mr. Ron Weber, an adjacent property owner of Westminster College, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He said that Westminster has been a good neighbor and has lived up to every promise they have made at neighborhood meetings. He sited several measures that Westminster has taken to improve the campus and community. He asked that the Commission support the proposal before them this evening.
Mr. Peter Hoodes, a resident of 1173 Garfield Avenue, addressed the Commission as an adjoining property owner. He complimented the college on the work they have done to improve the facilities on the campus; however, he felt that the elevated soccer field with the parking structure presents problems. He spoke in opposition of the proposal due to environmental concerns which he submitted to the Commission in writing. Mr. Hoodes asked that the college clean and remove the concrete rubble in the Emigration Creek as part of this proposal. Mr. Hoodes referred to a property line dispute he has with the college.
Chair Muir stated that the property line dispute does not fall under the purview of the Planning Commission and is not germane to this body or the decision they have before them.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the consolidation of the lots and said that the Applicant is required to do a survey. He stated that if the Applicant’s survey and Mr. Hoodes survey conflict, then there are processes, including court, that can resolve those conflicts. He said that the Applicant will need to provide a survey of the parcels to be consolidated, and at that time, Mr. Hoodes will have the benefit of reviewing those plans.
Mr. Hoodes inquired as to the height of the proposed fence of the soccer field.
Mr. Steve Crane with VCBO Architecture replied that the height of the structure above existing grade is 8 feet. He said that they are berming up 4 feet to eliminate some of the issues with traffic headlights which will raise the structure a total of 12 feet above existing grade. They also propose a fence around the soccer field which will be 3 feet high. He added that there will be a nylon mesh fabric which extends at the goal areas up to 21 feet.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Crane if there are other structures on campus which exceeds the 35 foot height restriction. Mr. Crane gave several examples of structures on campus. Chair Muir stated that the Wellness Center is compatible with the existing structures.
Chair Muir inquired if the Applicant is planning to include bleachers on the field. Mr. Crane replied that there is a place for temporary bleachers which will be put up for events.
Mr. Hoodes inquired what the overall height of the structure will be including fences. Mr. Crane replied that the total height when the nylon mesh fence is extended at the goals will be about 30 feet.
Mr. Hoodes asked if all standard procedural requirements will be met. Chair Muir replied regulation of requirements is Staff’s responsibility.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the City has several layers of reviews which become more detailed as the Applicant progresses with the approval process. Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Office is open to any questions that the public may have regarding projects.
Mr. Hoodes felt that his property value may be diminished by the construction of the parking structure.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Hoodes to explain how his property value may be diminished. Mr. Hoodes answered that his property is presently secluded. Commissioner De Lay thought more vegetation may give more seclusion. Mr. Hoodes said that he would get a professional appraisal to verify, but he did not agree.
Mr. Hoodes believed that the conditional use approval would be premature at this point. He said that the survey map is not complete and the engineering site plan is not complete or available. He referred to the architectural building sections and said that he was not able to obtain them. Mr. Hoodes felt that there were a few missteps in the application process and that the application was invalid.
Chair Muir said that all of Mr. Hood’s concerns were valid and that the Commission appreciated his comments; however, the Planning Commission is not the body to address most of his concerns.
Mr. Steve Morgan addressed the Commission to rebut the public comment. Mr. Morgan stated that the college does not envision an elaborate fence which is why they propose the nylon mess to catch the balls from going down into the creek. He stated that the staff reports are clear and he asked the Commission to approve the proposals.
Commissioner Seelig asked if the mesh netting will come down during the off season. Mr. Morgan answered that the mesh netting will come down during that time.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Morgan if he has noticed the rise or fall of any surrounding property values as they have been developing this plan over the past few years. Mr. Morgan replied that he has not noticed the devaluation of surrounding properties.
Chair Muir referred to the campus master plan and asked Mr. Morgan if they entertained the notion of moving the parking structure and soccer field out to the perimeter to maintain the core of the campus for future building growth. He said that one more advantage of that is that there will be more eyes on the stream bed for security. Mr. Morgan replied that they explored many different options and the final proposal is a very expensive solution which is intended to hide the parking structure with green space, given the limited space that the college has.
Commissioner De Lay referred to the slabs of concrete in the creek and asked if it is necessary for the concrete to be there.
Mr. Chris Springer, Permits specialist for the Salt Lake County Flood Control, replied that the previous procedure by Salt Lake County was to use broken concrete material to rock the slope and protect it from erosion; this practice was classified as illegal in 1995. The Salt Lake County Flood Control Organization’s responsibility is to identify those areas and when work occurs, they require the removal and replacement of broken concrete. Mr. Springer stated that this may be a case where the replacement of the concrete is necessary; however, he could not be sure until the application is submitted; it is dependant upon what is proposed. He added that there is concern with where one would interpret the top of the bank.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Morgan if they plan to remove the concrete. Mr. Morgan said that they prefer to stay out of the creek; this project stays out of the creek and they would like to keep them as separate projects.
Chair Muir voiced concerns with the location of the parking structure. Commissioner Diamond agreed that the location of the parking structure may not be the best solution. Mr. Morgan restated that this proposal is a very expensive solution and they feel that it is the best because it meets both the parking needs and the need for a playing field.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the history of Westminster and they have always worked to meet the needs of the community. He said that although he understands the point brought up by Chair Muir and Commissioner Diamond, the proposal before the Commission seems workable.
Chair Muir asked the Applicant if the proposed parking exceeds the needs of the college or if it is strictly meeting the criteria set by the City. Mr. Morgan replied that the proposed amount of parking is needed due to the fact that the surrounding neighborhood has imposed a neighborhood parking program to eliminate the students from parking in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Noda stated that she lives in the area and she travels 1700 South to and from work everyday and is on that street often. She felt that there have been problems with students parking in the neighborhood and on the street. She felt that the college is limited in respect to parking and is in need of additional parking. She said that she did not feel that the traffic will be impacted. Commissioner Noda felt that the college is making every effort to mitigate traffic impacts. She felt that the Commission is somewhat bound by the previously approved master plan for the college.
Commissioner Diamond suggested three alternative solutions to the current proposal. One option is to excavate and leave the field above which would allow the option for the field to remain a field or to become buildings in the future. The second option is to leave the parking as is and as future buildings are developed, the parking would be integrated into the structures. The third option would be integrating the parking into the Wellness Center by elevating the building.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-27
Commissioner Noda made a motion based on the comments, analysis and findings of fact as listed in the staff report presented that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding petition number 400-03-27 to update the Sugar House Master Plan and to approve an ordinance to amend the zoning map to change the zoning for 1182 and 1184 East Blaine Avenue from “R1-5000” to Institutional “I”, with the condition that the petitioner complete a storm water drainage plan, approved by Salt Lake City Public Utilities, prior to any ordinance taking effect. The associated Petition 410-653, for a planned development on the site, also lists other conditions of development, including the construction of a solid fence along the west property line of 1182 East Blaine Avenue.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-28
Commissioner Seelig made a motion concerning Petition Number 400-03-28 based upon the analysis and findings of fact identified in the staff report as well as discussions during this hearing that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close and abandon the subject alley and declare the alley property surplus to the City’s needs as a public alley, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The closure is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on, under and over the alley property.
2. Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant city standards and ordinances.
3. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property must be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Scott referred to the comment submitted by the representative of the Sugar House Community Council which requested that there be a pedestrian and bicycle traffic easement across the alley. She asked if Commissioner Seelig would entertain such an amendment to the motion.
Commissioner De Lay asked if that was in Westminster’s plan to allow for the alley to remain open to the public and if the amendment was necessary.
Ms. Janice Lew, Associate Planner, addressed the Commission saying that Staff is of the opinion that an easement is not necessary in this location. She said that the Applicant has indicated in a letter, which the Commission received, that they do not intend to obstruct or restrict pedestrian access to the alley. In addition, Wilson and Blaine Avenues provide access to Emigration Creek which are both within 150 feet of the alley.
Chair Muir asked if the Commission still felt that an easement was appropriate, could they make it a condition of approval.
Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, answered that the Commission can make such a condition. He stated that the Commission should bear in mind that Westminster is an open campus. An easement will also affect the property value. If Westminster is offering to keep the alley open an easement does not give anything more, but will reduce property value.
Commissioner Scott stated that in light of the letter submitted by the college which indicates that they will keep the alley open for the public access, she felt that the amendment was not necessary.
The motion stays. Chair Muir called for the question.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Zunguze requested that the Commission note and include Salt Lake City’s requirement for housing mitigation as a condition of the rezoning request.
Mr. Lynn Pace stated that the housing mitigation is a requirement of the code and the Applicant will still have to comply. Mr. Zunguze said that he appreciated that comment; however, from an enforcement standpoint, he asked the Commission to indulge Staff with this request, so that this requirement is clear from the beginning to the Applicant.
Chair Muir asked the Commission if they would allow the motion for Petition Number 400-03-27 to be reopened. The Commission agreed.
Commissioner De Lay asked to amend the motion of Petition Number 400-03-27 to add a condition that the Applicant shall observe the Housing Mitigation requirements of the City with respect the 1182 and 1184 East Blaine Avenue.
Commissioner Noda seconded the amendment.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the amendment to the motion passed.
Commissioner Daniels referred to Commissioner Diamond’s suggestion of different options of elevating the parking issues. He wondered how much more the proposal would cost to incorporate the parking into the Wellness Center. Mr. Crane replied that having recently completed different projects with parking structures above and below ground, he said that below the surface parking costs about $22,000 a stall. Above grade parking costs anywhere from $9,000-$12, 000 per stall. He stated that with approximately 350 parking stalls, the Applicant would be looking at $10-$15 million additional to the project cost. Mr. Crane stated that he did not feel the community would appreciate additional levels of parking below the Wellness Center structure.
Commissioner Diamond clarified that his thought was not intended to shoehorn 350 parking stalls in the footprint of the Wellness Center. He said that his suggestion was to put as many stalls as possible in the Wellness Center and allow surface parking as it exists. As the campus grows, the parking would be incorporated into those structures.
Mr. Crane stated that the idea was discussed and they appreciated the input and it is unfortunate that the Commission could not have been apart of the discussion which took two years to arrive at a solution. Mr. Morgan added that from an investment standpoint, it would be a serious setback to the college to have to go back to the drawing board on projects that they have solicited support for where they have foundations for. He said that the investors believed these were positive plans, and he asked for the support of the Commission.
Motion for Petition No. 410-653
Commissioner De Lay made a motion concerning Petition Number 410-653, based on the findings of fact, the Staff recommendation and the discussion heard at this hearing to approve the planned development for a mixed-use development at approximately 1840 South 1300 East (including parcels at 1182 and 1184 East Blaine Avenue), subject to the following conditions:
• The City Council approves the zoning map amendment and alley closure.
• The applicant completes the subdivision process to eliminate unnecessary lot lines.
• The developer works with the Public Utilities Department to develop a campus wide stormwater drainage plan.
• The Planning Director is delegated the authority to approve the final landscape plan.
• A solid fence is placed along the west property line of 1182 East Blaine Avenue (Alumni House garden).
• Construction of the parking structure/athletic field should move from south to north to minimize Emigration Creek impacts.
• Any clean up of the creek channel area is coordinated with applicable agencies to protect the channel and flood plain from siltation, erosion and other encroachment.
• Construction equipment for the parking/athletic field structure is confined to the area of the existing parking lot and athletic field, which is presently disturbed, and not extend into the undisturbed area of the Emigration Creek channel unless it is working to remove old debris from the channel. The creek channel should be protected from all new construction impacts and debris.
• The natural screening along the south side of the parking structure is supplemented to further reduce impact on adjacent properties. This supplemental screening will be subject to final review by Public Utilities and final approval by the Planning Director.
• The project meets all other applicable City, County and State regulations.
• The Applicant shall comply with the Salt Lake City’s requirement for housing mitigation requirements.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Scott asked for clarified regarding the condition which states that the parking structure/athletic field should move from south to north to minimize Emigration Creek impacts. Chair Muir answered that it is referring to the sequence of construction.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond voted “Nay”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Six Commissioners voted in favor and one Commissioner opposed, and therefore the motion passed.
*The Planning Commission passed a motion to add an additional condition pertaining to Petition No, 410-653 during the approval of the minutes at the meeting held on January 28, 2004.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.