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 Chairperson Tim Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, Craig Galli, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Deputy (Acting) Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey, Zoning Administrator Kevin LoPiccolo, Senior Planner Elizabeth Giraud, Principal Planner Ray McCandless, Principal Planner Wayne Mills, and Acting Planning Commission Secretary Shirley Jensen.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:45 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 FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2005
(This item was heard at 5:47 P.M.)
Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to approve the minutes, as presented. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner McDonough abstained. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:48 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless explained that he and Vice Chairperson Noda had not met since their last report, and they had no matters to report at this time. He noted that he did not have a confirmation date to meet with the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the City Council.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:49 P.M.)
Mr. Wheelwright announced that Mr. Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, and Mr. Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, were attending a “Smart Growth Conference” with the Mayor in Miami, Florida. He mentioned that Ms. Cheri Coffey and Mr. Kevin LoPiccolo were in attendance to assist in any technical matter if needed.
Mr. Wheelwright pointed out the copy of the memorandum which was a brief statement about the settlement negotiations with Romney Lumber Company on the 300 acres of property located east of the Benchmark Subdivision. He added that the Planning Office was awaiting a new draft of the settlement agreement from the Romney’s legal representative.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures were approved at the last Planning Commission meeting and a formal copy was provided to Commissioner Chambless, Chairperson, for his signature. He reminded the Commission that the new policies are now in place and will be followed.
In answer to questions regarding the American Planning Association (APA) Annual Conference in San Francisco, Mr. Wheelwright said that there was enough money in the budget to send one Planning Commissioner, and the decision would be made Tuesday, as to which Commissioner would be invited to attend.
Mr. Wheelwright introduced the new Planning Commission Secretary, Ms. Andrea Curtis, to the Commissioners and Staff. He noted that Ms. Curtis will start Monday, January 31, 2005.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(These items were heard at 5:51 P.M.)
a. PRISA Hotel LLC and Salt Lake City Property Management Division - PRISA Hotel LLC has purchased the Hotel Monaco and is requesting that they be allowed to continue the encroachment rights, previously granted under a long term lease agreement with the City, by entering into a new lease agreement with the City, for the existing under sidewalk vaults on both 200 South Street and on Main Street, as well as for 14 overhead window canopies. The Hotel Monaco is located at 202 South Main Street, and has been purchased by PRISA Hotel LLC, and is located within the Central Business District D-1 zoning district. Property Management intends to approve the new lease to allow the existing encroachments to continue with the new ownership.
b. Petty Investments and Salt Lake City Property Management Division - Petty Investments is requesting approval of a new lease agreement to allow new encroachments, in the form of two decorative columns being added as architectural elements to the face of the existing building located at 26 East 600 South Street, which are proposed to encroach approximately three (3) feet into the 600 South Street right-of-way. The existing building is currently located abutting the street right-of-way line, and is being remodeled for a new tenant. The property is located within the Central Business District D-1 zoning district. Property Management intends to approve the lease request to allow the proposed encroachments.
It was noted that these items are published for the benefit of the public and no action is required by the Planning Commission. Any public comments or concerns may be directed to the respective department managing the project. Chairperson Chambless asked if anyone on the Commission or from the public had any questions or wished to comment on the public notice agenda items. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless moved to the first public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-04-18, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting a modification to the Zoning Ordinance to address the review of movie/film locations. The proposed text would shift the review responsibility from the Development Review Team to the City Special Events Staff.
(This item was heard at 5:52 P.M.)
Planner Elizabeth Giraud explained that the petition was a “house keeping” matter. She said that the proposed change would shift the review responsibility from the City’s Development Review Team (DRT) to the City Staff who regulates Special Events. Ms. Giraud noted that because the Special Events Coordinator, an employee of the Public Services Department, already administers the movie/film permitting process, the Planning Division found that the language in the zoning ordinance and requiring DRT review is redundant. Also, she said that the responsibilities associated with the movie/film permitting extend beyond the scope of the zoning ordinance; however reference would still be included in zoning ordinance. Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Boyd Ferguson, from the City Attorney’s office, who is working on the revisions, as well as Ms. Shawn McDonough, the Special Events permitting Staff, were in attendance. Ms. Giraud concluded by saying that the majority of other pertinent departments concurred with the revision. She added that Public Utilities offered additional observations.
Chairperson Chambless asked who constituted the membership of the Development Review Team and the City Events Staff. Ms. Giraud said that the DRT is triggered by requests for building permits and composed by a representative from Transportation, Engineering, Permitting, Zoning, and Public Utilities. She said that Ms. McDonough coordinates movie/film and special events permitting.
Ms. Giraud suggested that Ms. Shawn McDonough respond to a question asked by Commissioner McDonough. Ms. McDonough said that Public Utilities would be involved with the permitting process if the request for a permit involved the use of property owned by Public Utilities.
There was no one from the respective Community Council or public to speak to the issue.
The public hearing was closed to public comment and there was no further discussion.
Motion for Petition #400-04-18
Commissioner De Lay moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the proposed text amendment, as presented to the Planning Commission in the staff report. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 490-04-43, by KFR Utah/Forest City, requesting preliminary approval of a 2-lot minor subdivision located at approximately 550 South 5900 West in a Light Manufacturing (M-1) Zoning District.
(This item was heard at 5:57 P.M.)
Planner Ray McCandless stated that the applicants are requesting preliminary approval of a two-lot industrial minor subdivision located at approximately 550 South and 5900 West at the former location of the “Grand Salt Lake Mall”. He said that typically a minor lot subdivision would be processed administratively but given the history of this property, the Administrative Hearing Officer opted to forward the request to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Mr. McCandless said that Lot 1 is the proposed location of the Costco distribution warehouse. He pointed to the location of the Kern River high-pressure natural gas line which bisects Lot 2 on the site plan. He said that the lots would be accessed by a proposed extension of 300 South Street on the north side of the property. Mr. McCandless noted that the improvements and extension of 700 South would not be made at this time; however, the City Engineer requested that the applicants bond for future improvements. He explained the future improvements to 700 South.
Chairperson Chambless noted that the petition number in the staff report and the number on the agenda were not the same. Mr. McCandless recognized the error and said that the petition number on the agenda was correct.
Commissioner McDonough stated that there would be significantly more traffic to the area and inquired if the improvements to the streets would be given urgent consideration. Mr. McCandless said that 5600 West is a State road and one of the requirements before improvements can be made is completing a traffic study to determine the impact of the development on the road. He added that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has preliminarily approved the location of the intersections at 300 and 700 South Streets on 5600 West.
Commissioner Scott asked about the structure west of Lot 1. Mr. Wheelwright said that the Developer’s engineer may have some input on the structure. He believed that the article is a concrete foundation which is the remains of a building that was once there.
Mr. Everett Shine, the applicant, stated that he is the vice president of Forest City Development, and along with KFR Utah, would be the developers of the industrial park. Mr. Shine talked about the expansion of Forest City and some of its major clients and developments. He said that when the industrial park is completed, it will consist of over 300 acres of commercial, warehouse, industrial, and light manufacturing businesses, which will bring a significant number of new jobs to the valley and will be a catalyst for the development of many new businesses in the Salt Lake Airport area. Mr. Shine introduced Mr. Peter Kohn from Costco.
Mr. Kohn said that he was Costco’s Real Estate Development Manager for the proposed project. He indicated that the facility would be the regional distribution depot for the Costco warehouse outlets from various manufacturers. Mr. Kohn pointed out that the depot would contain cold storage and dry storage areas, as well as office space and employee amenities.
Mr. Kohn stated that by processing the minor subdivision, it would allow Costco to take ownership of the parcel (Lot 1) and get a jump on the building season.
Commissioner De Lay inquired if the applicants knew of any vacant building in Salt Lake City large enough for their facility. Mr. Kohn said that he did not because the building would have to be unique to Costco’s depot operation.
Responding to questions from Commissioner Scott, Mr. Wheelwright explained that the property now owned by the Kern River Gas was originally configured as a large single agricultural use parcel with the potential to be subdivided into smaller parcels. He added that the gas company is using the entire parcel for a compressor station.
There was no one from the respective community council or public to speak to the issue.
The meeting was closed to public comment and there was no further discussion.
Motion for Petition #490-04-43
Based on the recommendations and findings of fact in the staff report, and the discussion at this meeting, Commissioner Seelig moved for preliminary approval of Petition No. 490-04-43 by KFR/Forest City of the two-lot subdivision and concept approval of the future lots and streets west of Lot 1 subject to conditions Nos. 1 and 2 found on Page 8 of the staff report. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-04-51, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, requesting that Salt Lake City declare the southern half of the closed section of Edison Street (approx. 150 East) located between 600 South and 700 South, as surplus property. The subject property is currently used as a driveway for the Deseret Industries store located at 131/141 East 700 South. The petitioner proposes to purchase the property and combine it with the Deseret Industries property.
(This item was heard at 6:13 P.M.)
Planner Wayne Mills stated that Edison Street was closed as a public right-of-way in 1987 by ordinance. Mr. Mills noted that it is City policy when a street is closed it is sold at a fair market value to abutting property owners, but in this case, the City-owned (and still owns a portion of) the property containing the City-County Health facility and the property owners along the southern half of Edison Street had no interest in purchasing the property. He pointed out that the properties to the west are owned by a private investment company, Salt Lake County, and the LDS Church; Mountain America Credit Union owns the property to the east.
Mr. Mills explained that the LDS Church is requesting to purchase the southern portion of the Edison Street parcel that abuts its property and combine it with the Deseret Industries’ parcels. He indicated that according to the LDS Church’s representative, there are no immediate plans for the development of the property.
There was no one from the respective community council to speak to the issue.
Chairperson Chambless recognized Mr. Lou Barrett who wished to make public comment. Mr. Lou Barrett stated that he has an adjoining property under contract to purchase that has an historic right-of-way on Edison Street and if the City “gives that property away” that would eliminate the right-of-way. He asked if there was a title search done on any of the adjoining properties. In response to Chairperson Chambless’ question, Mr. Lou Barrett said that he has had no property interest from 1987 until just recently in 2005. Mr. Lou Barrett said that he was considering the purchase. He felt that if the City failed to research the titles of the adjoining properties, the street closure in 1987 should be nullified.
Chairperson Chambless asked Mr. Mills to respond. Mr. Mills said that he did not know if a title search of the adjoining properties was done in 1987 because the only documents of record is the ordinance. He pointed out that those properties have access by way of Stringfellow Court. Mr. Mills said that the City makes certain that another access is available to properties before a street is closed, so land locked parcels would not be created. Chairperson Chambless commented that the physical access has not changed since 1987. Mr. Mills concurred.
In response to some questions and comments made by Commissioner Scott, Chairperson Chambless recognized Mr. Perry Bolyard, who stated that he was a real estate broker representing the LDS Church in this matter. Mr. Bolyard said that the iron fence mid-block built across the Edison Street property was installed in 1987 after an agreement was made with the County and the City, which solved many problems that were happening on the parking lot. He added that there have been no complaints about the closure until now.
Mr. Lou Barrett stated that there had been a walking easement through Edison Street accessing 600 South and 700 South, according to some employees of Deseret Industries and Deseret Paint who used the easement. Because there was some confusion, Mr. Lou Barrett pointed out the properties on the site plan of which he was speaking. It appeared that Mr. Barrett’s proposed property is abutting the property on which the Deseret Industries building is located.
Chairperson Chambless recognized Mr. Gerald Barrett, who is part owner of the property on contract. He talked about the dealings with Deseret Industries and the nine-foot walking easement on the property, and that the iron fence was set back five feet. Mr. Gerald Barrett explained that he had written a letter to the real estate representative of the Deseret Industries’ property and a copy was sent to Mr. Perry Bolyard requesting to purchase the parcels abutting his property to expand his parking area for the property he owned on State Street. He said that the County blocked all access with a fence but gave Mr. Gerald Barrett a key to the lock on the gate so he could drive his trucks through the area.
Chairperson Chambless inquired if the Barrett’s have had any interaction with the City in the last 15 months. Mr. Gerald Barrett said that they have not. Mr. Lou Barrett said that they tried to buy a portion of the County’s property, but the County would not take an offer on the property. He said that when the City and the County was approached, each entity claimed that there was no use for the property.
There appeared to be a discrepancy and Mr. Mills pointed out the ownership by the County, the City, and the LDS Church of the parcels of record in Salt Lake County on the site plan.
Commissioner De Lay spoke of the land use and the possibility of an historic easement that is not being observed and has not been recorded with Salt Lake County. She asked who had the purview to do the research. Commissioner Muir said that that was a property rights issue and the acquisition may or may not prevail. Commissioner De Lay asked if that knowledge would be relevant in determining if the southern half of Edison Street could be declared surplus property.
Commissioner Galli said that he was troubled, procedurally, with this discussion. He extended his appreciation to those who were concerned; however he pointed out that the Barrett’s were not able to provide any proof of the easement. Commissioner Galli indicated that the Planning Commission had a petition to review and the Barrett’s claim that it would impact a private property right but they are not demonstrating the existence of that private property right. Commissioner Galli said that the Barrett’s were challenging an action that took place almost 20 years ago, which is not related to the petition before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to the copy of the ordinance, which accompanied the staff report that closed Edison Street between 600 and 700 South Streets. He said that the document terminated all public access (the public is everyone, a public citizen, as well as a property owner) in 1987, and was subject only to a reservation for all public utility easements and access to maintain public utility easements. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Barrett’s raised a moot point. He added that the subject property will be sold at a fair market value and not given away. Mr. Wheelwright suggested that the Planning Commissioners consider the matter before them and move forward with the petition.
Mr. Matt Williams, from the City’s Property Management Division, said that at one time, a strip of land was sold to an adjoining property owner due some issues regarding water drainage; however that right-of-way no longer exists since the closure in 1987.
Chairperson Chambless encouraged the Barrett’s to keep the line of communication open with the County, City, and the LDS Church regarding this matter. Mr. Gerald Barrett claimed that he could not get an “honest” answer from the County, the City, or the LDS Church.
Commissioner Scott asked the Barrett’s how their contract property would be affected by a decision made by the Planning Commission on the closure of the southern half of Edison Street. Mr. Gerald Barrett said that they own property on State Street that needs additional parking.
Mr. Wheelwright said that he had just checked with Mr. Matt Williams and these gentlemen had not contacted the City relative to the notice that was sent out two weeks ago on this matter and they have waited until this public hearing to raise these issues. Mr. Wheelwright said, “I resent the insinuation that the City had a back door deal with anybody. We encourage you to contact the City Attorney’s office and pursue that. If you wish to pursue title action, we encourage you to do that. Please don’t insinuate that City Staff had anything to do with any special deals with anyone.”
Commissioner Diamond said that he wanted to go on record by saying that one of the problems with planning the city is that there are gigantic blocks of 800 feet and when streets like Edison Street are closed, there is a lost opportunity to create some interest to reduce the scale of the blocks by keeping those mid-block streets. He believed that it is a mistake. Commissioner Diamond stated that in the future he hoped that the Commissioners can do more as a Commission and the City to encourage those streets to stay in place.
Commissioner Diamond asked what plan the City has for the property north of the section of Edison Street that is closed. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that there has been an east/west fence at mid-point for some time and the City maintains the property. He noted that the credit union parking structure building does not have access to Edison Street.
Commissioner De Lay inquired if the City would eventually sell portions of the property that the parking lots are on, separated by a fence, to adjoining property owners. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that the County has apparently been buying property on the west side of the north end of Edison Street. He added that at some time there may be an interest to acquire the City’s interest in the parcel on which the City-County Health Department building is located.
Commissioner Scott stated that if the Planning Commission approves the south half of Edison Street as surplus property and then it is sold, there would be some urgency for the property owners along Stringfellow Court, who believe they have ingress/egress rights on the northern part of Edison, that a title search be completed by the City. She asked if the Planning Commission could make that recommendation. Mr. Wheelwright said that any Planning Commissioner could make a recommendation but it would have to be linked to the petition before the Commission. Commissioner Scott said that it would not be linked to the current petition. She pointed out that it might be at some time in the future. Commissioner Scott added that since it has been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission it would be remiss to ignore the situation.
Mr. Wheelwright said that easement rights are a bit of a “red herring” in this situation. He stated that if Commissioner Scott was talking about some easement across someone else’s property between Stringfellow Court and Edison Street, that easement’s access to Edison Street went away when the City closed the street. He concluded by saying that this is a non-issue to the petition at hand.
The meeting was closed to public comment as there was no further discussion.
Motion for Petition #400-04-43
Based upon the analysis and findings of fact set forth in the staff report, Commissioner Noda moved to approve Petition No. 400-04-43 by declaring the southern half of the closed portion of Edison Street, located between 600 South and 700 South, as surplus, subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report Nos. 1 and 2. Commissioner Galli seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
It is noted that a discussion regarding the comments and conflicting statements was held after the motion was voted upon:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(These items were heard at 6:46 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was any unfinished business.
Commissioner Seelig stated that she had a follow up question to one that was raised at the last meeting concerning an action item that the Planning Commission was going to pursue, as per the discussion at the retreat last year. She said that it related to a letter to the City Council, as well to the Mayor concerning some issues that the Commission wanted to raise relative to the budget process. Commissioner Seelig asked if anything had been done since the City is currently going through the budget process.
Commissioner Noda said that the Planning Commission should form a subcommittee to write the letter because it would be a conflict for the City Staff to draft the letter since the content would be budgetary matters related to Staff’s funding. She said that the Planning Commission would be requesting additional funding for the Staff. Commissioner Noda said that she would be happy to serve on the subcommittee to draft a letter and submit it to the full Commission for final review. Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig, and Chairperson Chambless also offered to serve on a subcommittee.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any other dates that the Commission should be aware of.
Commissioner Scott inquired if there was a date set up to meet with the City Council members. Mr. Wheelwright said that he did not have any information on that issue.
Mr. Wheelwright mentioned the date of February 8, 2005 for the City Council to review the Historic Landmark Commission Legislative Initiative response that the Planning Staff worked on one year ago.
Commissioner Muir asked about the state legislation that would take houses of worship out of any land use oversight that is currently working its way through the process. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the sponsor of the bill agreed to major concessions to the original draft of that bill which would allow suits to be heard in state court rather than federal court. He said that it is an attempt to adopt a bill that Congress passed relative to this issue.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:52 P.M.