SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the meeting held
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Aria Funk, Fred Fife, Craig Mariger and Gilbert lker. Diana Kirk and Jim McRea were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Jackie Gasparik, Margaret Pahl, Doug Dansie, Joel Paterson and Elizabeth Giraud.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:15p.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 8, 1998. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-283 by Airport Suites d.b.a. Comfort Suites. requesting a Conditional Use permit to develop a Comfort Inn Hotel at 2100 West 225 North. which is to be located in a previously-approved planned development. in a Business Park "BP" Zoning District.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik 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. Gasparik stated that the applicant is requesting the materials to be a vinyl siding with a brick or stone veneer along some portions of the base. Ms. Gasparik then stated that staff is recommending that the applicant use stucco instead of the siding combined with a full story of brick and/or stone across the entire first level of the building and extending up the projecting gable bays.
Mr. Rikard Pearson, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations except for using a full story of brick along the western elevation. Mr. Pearson proposed two different colors of siding because he feels that using brick will make the building look dated.
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.
The Planning Corr1mission members had a brief discussion regarding the building materials being proposed by the applicant and the staff's recommendation.
Ms. Funk stated that she feels that brick is a timeless building material and that the Planning Commissioners should uphold the staff recommendation.
Motion for Petition No. 410-283:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-283 to allow for a Comfort Inn Hotel at 2100 West 225 North subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 The applicant is required to use a combination of building materials, substituting stucco for the vinyl siding as called out on the elevation drawings, combined with brick and/or stone. A full story of brick and/or stone across the western elevation and extending up the projecting gable bay.
2 Final development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
3 The final landscaping requirement authority be granted to the Planning Director.
4 The project be approved subject to meeting City standards.
5 The project rr1ust meet all sign requirements of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
6 The project must provide an avigation easement.
Ms. Funk further moved to approve the amendment to the planned development and the minor subdivision subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 Final development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
2 The project be approved subject to meeting City standards.
Mr. lker seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No. 410-280 by Jim Johnson requesting a Conditional Use to allow a 16-unit residential planned development. located at 2552 South 900 East in a Residentiai"RMF-30" Zoning District.
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. Ms. Pahl stated that the building height limit under the base zoning district is 30 feet, or two and one half stories. From the rear elevation, one of the buildings (on the southeast corner of the property) will technically show three stories, however, the driveway slopes down in elevation six feet from the street level. Ms. Pahl also stated that minor grade changes in the side and rear yard areas to facilitate site drainage may be permitted with review and approval of the Planning Director.
Mr. James Johnson, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Ms. Barrows stated that this project, being a planned development, could eventually become a gated community by the Homeowner's Association. Ms. Barrows then asked the petitioner to consider granting a pedestrian easement and a sidewalk for the community so that there will be access for the pedestrians if this project were to become a gated community. Mr. Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Carolyn Koplin, an abutting property owner, asked if the large Cottonwood trees along the back property line will be preserved. Mr. Johnson stated that all trees that are not within the building pad will be preserved.
Ms. Debbra Webster, a resident in the area, stated that she has some concerns if the applicant will be using the existing drainage ditch behind the project. She noted that the neighbors were having flooding problems due to the drainage ditch which is why it has been shut off. Mr. Smith stated that flooding should not be a problem because there is a City ordinance that requires that all drainage be contained on the site.
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.
Ms. Funk stated that she feels strongly that there should be a pedestrian access incorporated into this planned development. The Planning Commissioners discussed possible materials that could be used for the pedestrian access.
Motion for Petition No. 410-280:
Mr. lker moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-280 for a planned development subdivision, including the modifications from the base zoning requirements as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1-3 as listed in the staff report with a few additions as noted:
1 The final site plan and plat review approval authority delegated to the Planning Director.
2 The final landscaping plan approval authority delegated to the Planning Director with the instruction that the developer save any trees not within the building pad unless authorized by the Planning Director.
3 The final grading and drainage system plan approval authority delegated to the Planning Director.
4 That there be no gate to the private road.
5 That full pedestrian access be maintained by using some type of contrasting materials within the roadway to designate where the pedestrians may walk.
6 That the sidewalk be continuous from 900 East into the interior with final approval authority delegated to the Planning Director.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant preliminary subdivision approval for the two lot minor subdivision, contingent on the northern "duplex" lot having at least 50 feet frontage on 900 East. Mr. lker seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-301 by Winthrope Court. L. C. requesting a Planned Development at 550 to 558 East 300 South and 326 to 352 South 600 East. in Residential Mixed-Use "RMU" and Residentiai"RMF-75" Zoning Districts.
Mr. Smith declared a conflict of interest for this proposal, recused himself from the Planning Commission and left the room.
Mr. Doug Dansie 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. Jeff Jonas, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. He then stated that the all floor plans and sizes of units have not been finalized and that he would like some latitude concerning the final number of units. Mr. Jonas stated that the proposal consists of 315 units which could vary by 5-10% up or down in terms of the number of units. The footprint and the gross square footage would not change. Mr. Jonas then stated that the budget for the project may also result in fewer stories than has been requested which could also reduce the parking from two levels down to one. Mr. Jonas also stated that he has been negotiating with the property owners on Vernier Place, a private street, to obtain their approval to use Vernier Place as an access to and from the parking garage. He has negotiated with all but one of the property owners.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Chris Quann, a concerned citizen, stated that he likes the project. Mr. Quann then asked where the garbage dumpster will be located, the number of trips this project will generate and he also asked about the sideyard landscaping/tree strip and what elevation it will be on.
Mr. Jonas stated that there will be no trash removal on the surface, it will be under the ground. He then stated that a final landscaping plan has not yet been approved. Mr. Jonas continued by stating that the intent is to get the trees as high as possible. Mr. Wright stated that there will also be a canopy of trees that is higher than the height of the fence.
Mr. Kevin Young, Salt Lake City Traffic Engineer, stated that the traffic report estimated that there will be about a 50-50 split between the two accesses to and from the parking garage. He then noted that the trips may not be as high as normally projected because of the variety of business within walking distance.
Mr. Young stated that there will be an impact to the traffic on the adjacent streets and that there will be some upgrades made to the area to help keep the traffic flowing smoothly. Mr. Young also stated that Vernier Place will need to be improved to accommodate the increased traffic that will be using the street.
Mr. Thomas Mutter, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that the height of the building will be blocking light for the nearby property owners. He also feels that the size of the project will increase the traffic problem that already exists.
Ms. Heidi Sickafoose, a concerned citizen, stated that she is concerned with the amount of traffic that this project will produce and she feels that the traffic problems deserve a lot of consideration. She is also concerned with the disruption and the traffic
(i.e. large trucks) that will occur during construction phase of the project.
Ms. Sickafoose also mentioned that she feels that the buildings appear to be crowded and that they appear to give a "boxed in" feeling.
Ms. Elaine Shepherd, a property owner on Vernier Place, stated that she was concerned about the amount of traffic that would be using Vernier Place because it is so narrow. She asked who would be maintaining the street. Mr. Jonas stated that he would be paying for the improvements of Vernier Place which include widening the street to allow for two way traffic.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that a maximum number of units should be identified instead of approving something that has the possibilities of increasing. Mr. Mariger also stated that he feels that every property owner on Vernier Place should approve of the increased traffic before a building permit is issued because Vernier Place is a private street.
Mr. Wright stated that the City does not have the ability to delegate its approval authority to the properties on Vernier Place. Mr. Wright then stated that Mr. Jonas has a legal right because of his purchase and so the issue of the negotiations with the property owners on Vernier Place is a civil matter.
Motion for Petition No. 41 0-301:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-301 for a planned development with modifications from the zoning standards as outlined in the staff report with the follow conditions as listed in the staff report with a few additions as noted:
1 The project meet all requirements of the Transportation Division.
2 Right-of-way issues on Vernier Place be resolved prior to issuance of a building permit.
Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1998
6
3. The project meet all other applicable codes.
4. All demolitions required for this project receive approval from the Historic Landmark Commission.
5. The reuse plan receive final approval from the Historic Landmark Commission.
6. Rezoning be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. Planning Director approval of final site and landscaping plan and the design of the Vernier Place parking entry.
8. Planning Director approval of any changes to the proposed project (i.e. fewer stories).
9. That the approval is not more than 330 units.
10. That the approval is conditioned upon the applicant reaching an agreement with all of the property owners on Vernier. Place for access to the parking structure onto Vernier Place and for the cost of present and future improvements to Vernier Place.
11. That there be no exterior dumpsters.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Mr. Smith was recused. Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
This portion of the meeting ended at 7:00 p.m. for a dinner break.
PLANNING ISSUES
PUBLIC HEARING -A proposal by the General Services Administration (GSA) to expand and alter the Frank E. Moss Court House building. at 354 South Main Street. which is located in the Downtown "D-1" Zoning District and the Exchange Place Historic District.
The meeting reconvened in Room 315 at 7:30 p.m.
The Historic Landmark Commission joined the Planning Commission for this public hearing. The joint meeting was called to order by the Chairperson of the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith. He stated that this public hearing was convened to review a proposal by the General Services Administration (GSA) to expand and alter the Frank E. Moss Court House Building at 354 South Main Street, which is located in the downtown "D-1" Zoning District and the Exchange Place Historic District.
Mr. Smith announced that prior to the presentation, there would be introductory remarks by the Planning Director, Mr. Wright. Mr. Smith said that after the presentation, the public would be allowed to comment, then the joint Commissions would be asked to respond.
Mr. Wright introduced Mr. Thomas Phifer of Naylor Wentworth Architects, who had been contracted by GSA to design the preliminary concepts of the court house building and collaborate the efforts of the various government offices throughout the process.
Mr. Wright stated that there would be three design concepts which would be presented to the Planning and Historic Landmark Commissions, and the public at this meeting.
Mr. Wright expressed appreciation to GSA for agreeing with the City to go through this procedure. He said he believed that the public hearing process was important to the citizens of Salt Lake City so they would have an opportunity to have a good understanding of the design approaches that were being pursued by the architects and GSA for the renovation and the annex addition to the court house building.
Mr. Wright said that the City had strong planning and preservation policies and
recognized the importance of keeping the federal, state, and local governments'
presence in the downtown area which he said was the central core of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Wright said that there would be additional public meetings to further develop the alternative design concepts in February, then a follow-up meeting in April where Mr. Phifer would present the final solution.
Mr. Phifer explained the details of the three schematic design concepts. Mr. Wallace Cooper of Cooper Roberts Architects discussed the preservation issues that surrounded the historic Odd Fellows Building, which was part of the expansion and alteration of the court house building project.
Members of both the Planning and Historic Landmark Commissions had the opportunity to respond after hearing the public comments. The meeting concluded with an overview by Mr. Phifer.
Public comments and questions were received by the Planning and Historic Landmark Commissions. Members of both Commissions had the opportunity to respond after hearing the public comments. The meeting concluded with an overview by Mr. Phifer.
A complete transcript of the proceedings will be provided by the Federal Court Reporter and filed with the minutes of this meeting, along with the written public comments.
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.