SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the meeting held
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Max Smith, Jim McRea, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Aria Funk, Fred Fife, Carlton Christensen. Gilbert lker was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright and Doug Dansie.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00p.m. by Mr. Young. 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. Smith moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, January 9, 1997 as presented. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted II Aye." Mr. lker was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan to delete the western extension of Amelia Earhart Drive (350 North), west of 6400 West (John Glenn Road).
Mr. Carlton Christensen declared a conflict of interest on this matter, since his employer is an adjoining property owner. Mr. Christensen left the room at this time and did not participate in the discussion or the vote.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright 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. Kevin Young, representing the Transportation Division, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Kimball Young 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.
Ms. Kirk moved to favorably recommend, to the City Council, the proposed amendment of the Transportation Master Plan by deletion of Amelia Earhart Drive as an arterial street west of 6400 West, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted "Aye." Mr. lker and Mr. Christensen were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-255 by the Nextel Communications requesting a conditional use for a wall mount telecommunications antenna located at 420 East South Temple Street in a Residential "RO" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. Smith requested more information about the housing apparatus for the mechanical equipment. Mr. McCandless explained that the housing apparatus, on the roof, would only be about five feet high, that it would be located behind the building's two foot parapet, and that visibility from the street would be minimal if it existed at all.
Ms. Sandra Smith, representing Nextel Communications, Inc., was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Young 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.
Mr. McRea moved to approve Petition No. 410-255, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted "Aye." Mr. lker was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-51 by Aline White requesting Salt Lake City to rezone the properties at 563 and 575 South 700 East and 703 and 705 East 600 South from a Residential "RMF-45" to a Residential IIRB" zoning district.
Mr. Max Smith declared a conflict of interest on this matter and left the room at this time. He did not participate in the discussion or the vote.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff's recommendation to deny this request. A copy of the staff report is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Wright stated that the Housing Authority, the development entity for the Hawthorne Court housing project near this parcel, had studied the land use issues for their property for a considerable length of time and had concluded the best use for their site was commercial. Mr. Wright said the staff had maintained the position that residential use was the best use for that site and pointed out that residential use now occupied that site.
Mr. Christensen asked if the properties to the east were owner-occupied.
Mr. Dansie responded in the affirmative and added that it was his understanding that they were not interested in selling their properties in the future.
Mr. Lincoln White and Mr. Michael Leventhal, representing the petitioner, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Leventhal stated that this parcel on 700 East was unique since it was directly across the street from Trolley Square and near one of the busiest intersections in the community and the scale of the surrounding properties was significantly larger than the scale of the petitioner's properties. Mr. Leventhal stated that Mr. White wanted to keep the buildings he owned, keep them in their present physical shape, but utilize them in such a manner as to see a return on his investment.
Mr. Leventhal explained that Mr. White was fully aware of the noise and traffic conditions surrounding this property since he resided in the center structure where his jewelry business was located. He added that Mr. White had experienced difficulties in getting tenants for his other properties due to rental costs.
Mr. Leventhal stated that Mr. White wanted to be able to develop his property in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not as suggested in the 11RB" zoning regulations. Mr. Leventhal gave a brief history of the petitioner's requests to develop this property and his attempts to get it placed on the Historic Register or to establish a Tenth Ward Historic District for this area. Mr. Leventhal stated that lacking an historic designation, Mr. White's development options were limited. Mr. Leventhal stated that the five small residential properties in this area, three of which belonged to the Whites, were now isolated from the remainder of the projects on the block which were much larger in scale and because of the massive wall surrounding the Hawthorn project. He explained that Mr. White had hired Mr. Max Smith to design a project for this site but it had been determined the project would require $800,000 in funding.
Mr. Leventhal stated that Mr. White would be willing to accept restrictions on what could be developed on this property, through self-imposed limitations, but they had been informed by the Planning Staff that that would not be possible.
Mr. Leventhal said he believed there must be a way to allow Mr. White to develop the kind of project he wanted to develop within the parameters of the zoning regulations.
Mr. Young asked how Mr. White wanted to use this property. Mr. Leventhal stated
that Mr. White had been approached over the years by people interested in setting up a law practice, insurance office or a retail art works shop at this location. He added that Mr. White's own trade was wholesale jewelry. Mr. Leventhal stated that in the past, these structures had housed a furrier company, a notary public office and a small music shop for many years, therefore, the precedent supported commercial use.
Mr. Wright stated that the petitioner had the right to seek a home occupation for these sites.
Ms. Short stated that the buildings had maintained a residential appearance even though they might have been used commercially.
Ms. Kirk stated that the zoning during that history had been the same as it was now.
Mr. Leventhal agreed but pointed out that the visual aspects during that time frame were significantly different and Mr. White's properties had fit in better at that time.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Nancy Saxton, representing the East Central Community Council, stated that the petitioner had presented this proposal to them in June, 1996. She stated that they had moved to deny this proposal for rezoning because they had learned
through experience that the long term effects were the most important issues to
consider.
Ms. Saxton stated that zoning for this area had been diligently studied during the zoning rewrite process and the master planning process for this area, and that residential zoning had been determined to be the best zoning for this area. She stated that their motion had been pulled with no vote and this matter had been sent to a subcommittee to study the relevant issues in greater detail. Ms. Saxton stated that the subcommittee had found that no hardship existed for this site and that the problem was a property management problem, not a zoning problem. Ms. Saxton said they agreed with the staff recommendation to deny this request. Ms. Saxton stated that the amount of rent Mr. White would be able to get for these properties would be 110utrageous" at this time.
Mr. Ron Love, a long-time member of the East Central Community Council, stated that the community council usually had to deal with people who wished to degrade their community, not their friends, and added that Mr. White was their friend.
Mr. Love stated that in the past, they had l/given in" to their friends but said they no longer could afford to do so. Mr. Love requested the Planning Commission support the staff recommendation to deny this project.
Mr. Wally Wright, a nearby resident, stated that he supported Mr. White's request and believed Mr. White should be able to develop his property as he desired. He asked why Mr. White couldn't provide a long term guarantee to the City that the site would only be used for compatible uses. Mr. Wally Wright stated that from his experience, this was not a good location for residential use due to the high volume of traffic in the area.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a former member of the Planning Commission and a member of the East Central Community Council, stated that the IIRB" zone had been tailormade for certain portions of the City such as 11 00 East and 900 South and 900 East, but added that she did not believe it was appropriate for this particular site.
Ms. Cromer stated that the already intense traffic on 700 East would only get worse with the 1-1 5 reconstruction project. Ms. Cromer said she believed the Planning Commission's earlier decision not to zone this area "B-3" had been the right decision. Ms. Cromer said she felt the Landmark Committee had been preoccupied with architectural detail when they had considered placing this site on the Register. Ms. Cromer suggested this structure deserved to be placed on the Register because of its date of construction, and its social and cultural history and its association with events and people. Ms. Cromer said she also believed the visual interest of these buildings reflected the history of our City and should be preserved. Ms. Cromer also said she believed these buildings were threatened with demolition. Ms. Cromer stated that she would not take on a residential project at this location because of the traffic on 700 East and the huge wall behind this project. Ms. Cromer said she believed it was important to retain the little structures like these to remind us that things weren't always on the scale they are on now and because these little houses said something about what our community used to be. Ms. Cromer urged the Planning Commission to use their authority to resolve the problems associated with this site and preserve as much of this property as possible.
Mr. Young asked Ms. Cromer if she believed all three structures should be preserved. Ms. Cromer said she didn't believe enough evaluation had been conducted to answer that question but added that the direction this project seemed to be headed would probably result in none of them being preserved.
Mr. Leventhal stated that they had approached the Planning Staff with the concept of restrictive covenants and/or preservation easements but had been informed that they could not be used for zoning. Mr. Leventhal said they were not opposed to those approaches but had been informed they were not possible.
Ms. Funk asked if all three buildings could be preserved if they were allowed to be used for commercial purposes.
Mr. White responded that the middle house, where he resided, had already been preserved, and until more evaluation had been done, he was not sure. Mr. White said, however, it was his intention to retain all three
structures, if possible.
Mr. Leventhal stated that some of the buildings had severe problems and that that issue was not one of property management. Mr. Leventhal stated that the buildings would have to be brought up to current code specifications.
Mr. Christensen stated that he was not convinced Mr. White couldn't make a success of the structures as 12 residential units, based on the calculations Mr. Christensen had just done. Mr. Christensen said he believed Mr. White would have a harder time bringing these structures up to code.
Ms. Kirk said she did not believe this site should be rezoned.
Mr. McRea asked if the main issue was to preserve density or the actual structures or their functions. Mr. Wright explained that if this house were not placed on the Register, it could not be considered for any nonresidential use and in 1989, the Landmark Committee had not been willing to approve its nomination to the Register. Mr. McRea said a high density residential use seemed less desirable to him than a small-scale commercial use that appeared to be residential.
Mr. Wright stated that there were no guarantees the structures would not be demolished and added that he had seen site plans reflecting the corner lot as a parking lot. Mr. Wright stated that if the higher goal was to preserve the look of a piece of history, there was a process to accomplish that primary goal with the use of the building being a secondary goal.
Ms. Funk asked if there was any way the City Administration could devise a specific set of guidelines for this property if none of the zoning regulations fit its particular needs. Mr. Wright stated that these decisions had to be handled in a fair and proper way and could not be done through 11COntract" law.
Ms. Saxton, speaking personally, stated that there were other small houses in this area presently owned by Trolley Square and that Trolley Square would be watching the decision on this matter with great interest. Ms. Saxton requested they not set a precedent for commercial use of residential properties.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young
closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to deny Petition No. 400-96-51 based on the findings of fact and
the information provided at this meeting.
Mr. Christensen seconded the motion.
Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short and Ms. Kirk voted II Aye." Mr. McRea voted //Nay." Mr. lker and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Update on the City Design Workshop scheduled for January 27. 28 & 29. 1997.
Mr. Wright explained the //City Design Workshop" schedule to the Planning Commission and invited them to join the workshop team for lunch on Tuesday, January 28th at Noon at the Garden Restaurant. Mr. Wright added that the workshop team would be having breakfast with the Historic Landmark Commission on the 29th. He explained that the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have an opportunity to discuss and express their views pertaining to issues being addressed by the Design Team Members during those times. Bequest for Planning Commission to Sponsor a Petition
Mr. Wilde requested the Planning Commission sponsor a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory uses on adjacent properties as conditional uses.
Ms. Kirk moved to sponsor such a petition. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. McBea voted II Aye." Mr. lker was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.