SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Gregory DeMille, Arla Funk, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Diana Kirk, Gilbert Iker and Craig Mariger were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Merrill Nelson, Bill Allayaud and Everett Joyce.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as the Planning Commission heard cases. 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
Arla Funk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, December 17, 1998. Judi Short seconded the motion. Mr. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Steed, Mr. Snelgrove voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING: – Petition No. 410-330 by U. S. West Wireless requesting a conditional use to allow for roof mounted cellular telecommunications antennae located on the building at 1407 West North Temple in a Commercial “CC” zoning district
Mr. Merrill Nelson 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. Dale Larsen of U. S. West Wireless, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Ms. Barrows asked about the other antennae on the building.
Mr. Larsen stated, the antennae are not cellular, and they belong to Utah Power & Light.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Douglas Jackson, Chair of the Northwest Community Council, stated that the Northwest Community Council’s Executive Committee approved this request.
Upon receiving no further request to address the Planning commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-330:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-330 to allow a roof mounted cellular telecommunication antennae located on the building at 1407 West North Temple, subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report. Greg DeMille seconded the motion. Mr. Snelgrove, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, and Ms. Short voted “Aye” Mr. Mariger, Mr. Iker, and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
1. Painting the roof mounted antennas a flat medium-gray color and painting any wall mounted antennas to match the building.
2. No horizontal cross bracing will be used.
3. Meeting all requirements of the various City departments.
PUBLIC HEARING: Petition No. 410-331 by Cavanaugh Hospitality Corporation requesting a conditional use for an addition to an existing hotel located at 161 West 600 South that will exceed the 100 foot height limit in a Downtown “D-1”zoning district.
Mr. Merrill Nelson 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.
The staff is supporting the request to construct a parapet wall to obscure existing stair towers, mechanical rooms, heliport structure, and mechanical equipment on the roof. However, the staff is not supporting the request to approve the proposed plans to put a flat building orientation sign on the proposed parapet. The increase in the height to support a sign does not conform to urban design objectives.
Mr. Steed brought to Mr. Nelson’s attention that the total height of the building would be 148 feet 8 inches instead of 143 feet 8 inches as stated in his report.
Mr. Kent Smith of Smith Layton Architect’s, is representing Cavanaugh Hotels tonight. There is a little bit of confusion; the existing building by the heliport is 135 feet high. They are not proposing to exceed this height. They just want to continue on with the screen. There are other buildings around town that have similar situations. They have a list of at least 15 buildings that have signs either the same size as what they are proposing or larger in the Downtown “D-1” area.
Ms. Barrows asked if the height at the top of the penthouse and the Mullboon’s sign is 135 feet. Also, he mentioned that Mullboon’s has agreed to move their sign, she would like to know where.
Mr. Smith replied, there has been some discussion as to where to place that sign, and they are not sure at this time.
Mr. Kirk Brimley of Young Electric Sign Company is representing Cavanaugh Hotels tonight. They have surveyed what the common practice is within the downtown area as far as identifying major buildings. Generally, people use landmarks or visible areas to find their way around and many of the building access long distance like Beneficial Life, Embassy Suites, First Security Bank, Hilton Hotel, etc. All of these buildings have letters set on a similar portion of the building and most all of them are on parapet walls so that there is access for service, maintenance and structural repairs. Their goal was to give the building some personality and make it more attractive. The letter size they are requesting is approximately 5 feet. Referring again to existing signs Beneficial Life new letters are 8 feet, Questar are 6 feet 8 inches, Airport Hilton, are 10 feet, Downtown Hilton are 8 feet, First Security Bank is an 8 foot 6 inch letter. They feel the design is good and the letter size is not obtrusive. He also wanted to clarify that there is no additional height to the building.
Mr. Snelgrove asked if the parapet wall would be built if the sign were not allowed? Is the purpose of the parapet wall really to obscure the mechanical equipment, or is it being built for the signage.
Mr. Brimley stated, he did not know, and that would be up to the hotel management. This is a package that they put together to help them re-identify the hotel and to give it a new personality. He doesn’t feel there is an ulterior motive, he feels this is a good design.
Mr. Snelgrove also asked about a letter from the Community Council, he didn’t have a copy of it in his file. Has this been presented to the Community Council and how did they feel about the sign?
Mr. Smith stated he did present it to the Freeway Community Council and was unanimously accepted with the signage and they wrote a letter to that affect.
Mr. Nelson stated he does have a copy of the letter.
Mr. Snelgrove also asked Mr. Smith if he has talked to management about putting the parapet up without the sign.
Mr. Smith stated they have not addressed that with the management as the Cavanaugh signage they are requesting is in compliance with the City’s signage standards and they felt it was a mute point when they made their initial presentation. They were just requesting approval to do the screen. The management is going to a lot of expense
they would certainly like to get something out of it, and they want to clean up the building and they feel this is a good design.
Mr. Max Smith asked staff, since we are not exceeding the height of the existing building is a conditional use still required?
Mr. Wilde stated it is a new structural element that is in excess of the 100 feet, so they interpreted that a conditional use is required for this addition.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Brimley of Young Electric Sign Co. how the sign will be lit and the color of the sign.
Mr. Jeff Cranz of Young Electric Sign stated the letters are a burgundy color, which is a corporate color, there is some neon inside of the letter when it is lit at night it will almost look red.
Mr. Michael Schaffer, Cavanaugh’s Hotel General Manager wanted to comment on the proposed changes. The purpose for redesigning the roof is to hide some of the ugliness of the building. They want to bring some beauty to the building and to give some finish to it architecturally. The purpose of the signage is to identify your product to your customers. They are also renovating all the rooms in the building. He would like to encourage the Commission to approve the design and signage to allow them to beautify this building and identify themselves as a company.
Ms. Barrows asked, since this hotel is classified as a mid block building, she would like to know who owns the corners.
Mr. Schaffer stated, Sinclair Oil owns the northeast corner, the northwest corner is owned by Circle K the southwest corner there is Iggy’s, Brewvies and a collection of small stores, and on the southeast corner is a car wash. Cavanaugh’s owns everything else.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Chris Quann, wanted to know if the new parapet is also on the North and South sides of the building.
Mr. Kent Smith stated it goes around the whole building.
Mr. Duncan Lambert, representative for Quin Star Management, they own the southwest corner of the block where Iggy’s and Brewvies are located. They don’t have a problem with this, would like to encourage the Commission to approve it with the sign.
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. Short asked what other alternatives there are to place the sign?
Mr. Nelson stated, they would be able to put a sign on the façade where it is now.
Mr. Steed stated, that he is confused, they keep saying that at the top of the helicopter pad is 135.8 feet and they are not going to exceed the parapet higher than the helicopter pad and they are just going to finish wrapping the parapet.
Mr. Wilde stated, the basis for the staff recommendation was not to use the conditional use process to obtain additional height for signage purposes only.
Mr. Steed stated, his questions are then technically we are not extending the buildings height to 148 feet we are staying at 135.8 feet?
Mr. Snelgrove stated, he doesn’t have an objection to the sign; he feels that if the parapet was put up and the sign was put on the little strip where it is now he feels it wouldn’t look right. He would have more objections to that than putting the sign on the parapet.
Mr. Steed agreed with Mr. Snelgrove why can’t we give them both? They are going to clean up the building and give it a better design, they are not increasing the height of the building, they are giving it a better look, and he feels we should reward them by doing both.
Ms. Barrows asked about the vertical sign that is on the North side of the building.
Mr. Cranz stated, there is a temporary banner identifying Cavanaugh’s on the North side of the building, there is no vertical sign.
Mr. DeMille has a question on procedure; we have before them a request for a change in the height of the building, but nothing about a sign. Does that take a separate action?
Ms. Short stated, Mr. Nelson made reference in his staff report that there be no sign approval. She feels we need to change that.
Mr. Wilde stated, they could do that.
Motion for Petition No. 410-331
Ms. Short made a motion to approve Petition No. 410-331 for Cavanaugh Hospitality based on the Findings of Fact as outlined in the staff report. She would like to recommend that they approve the addition of the parapet wall to the hotel rooms tower at 161 West 600 South and approve the sign as described by the petitioner.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion.
Mr. Wilde suggested, to support the motion, they take the statement just above the Findings of Fact in the staff report that the sign is consistent with the urban design objective.
Ms. Short added to her motion, finding of Fact that adding a sign to the building does conform to the urban design objectives of Salt Lake City.
Ms. Short, Mr. Steed, Mr. Snelgrove, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, voted “Aye” Ms. Barrows voted “Nay”, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, and Mr. Iker were not present Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-98-80 initiated by the Salt Lake City Council requesting a City wide analysis of the areas zoned Community Business “CB” and Neighborhood Commercial “CN” to determine consistency with existing master plans and appropriate zoning. In response to the city council’s request, the Planning Staff is recommending text amendment to both the “CN” and “CB zoning districts and map amendments that include changing some “CB” (see attached maps), one “RB” property to “CN” at 989 East 900 South and one “CB” property to “RMF-35” at 1587-1599 South Foothill Drive. The Staff’s recommendation also includes appropriate master plan amendments.
Mr. Smith, Chair, explained to the public that it is not the intention of the Commission to make a decision on this petition. More input needs to be received by staff and the Commission. Tonight they will be hearing from the staff and the public on their issues and concerns.
Mr. Bill Allayaud 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. Barrows stated, that in the informal discussion she asked about the exception of glass on a business in a building that looks like a residence.
Mr. Allayaud stated, they added the glass requirement to two other zones, Sugar House Business District and the Downtown “D-1” zone. They are also adding exception to the fine tuning so people can get out of that through the special exception process, which is handled through the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if everyone would limit their comments to two minutes when they address the Planning Commission.
Alan Mueller, 2510 E. Skyline Drive, - His remarks are directed to the rezoning of the Lamplighter Square. He likes the view he has from his home and the family oriented neighborhood. If they increase the building height by 10 feet he will loose his view. He would like the zoning to remain Commercial Neighborhood and not have it upgraded to Commercial Business.
Cindy Cromer, 816 E. 100 S., - She would like to compliment the staff for their hard work. She supports neighborhood businesses. She would like to make a request to examine the 1300 East Business District between 2nd and 3rd South. Residents were not happy the way it was handled during the zoning rewrite, and they feel the CB zone is not appropriate. She would like to have this be a part of this process. The small area master plan for 1300 East business area has more pedestrian language in it than any other master plan. She would like the Commission to look at Allen Johnson’s comments, particularly on storage being converted to commercial use and his comments on bed and breakfasts. She would also like to see that 9th & 9th and the 1300 East rezones go before the East Central Community Council for their input.
Chris Quann, 936 Princeton Ave., - He agrees with most of the proposed changes. He would like to see the 15 foot front set backs removed from the CN zone at 9th & 9th. He feels a movie theatre should be allowed by a conditional use in these areas. Agrees with the removal of the 90,000 sq. foot limit to the CN district size. If we continue to focus on the CN as pedestrian oriented, it clarifies the choices as to what should and should not be allowed. He also agrees with Allen Johnson’s letter except for the removal of plant and garden shops with outdoor retail sales area.
Rawlins Young, 2135 South, 1900 East - He would like to introduce the idea of some of the ideas that are coming out of the Livable Communities Initiative of the U.S. Department of Transportation. He was able to get a map and put a quarter mile buffer around these areas, which is walking distance. He feels it would be useful if we zoned these areas as walking distance areas, then it would be easy to distinguish between the CN and CB zones. He would also like to make sure that public transportation would be available to those areas for people who need to use public transportation.
William Connelly, 850 South Lincoln Street – He is delighted with the changes in the 2100 South and 2100 East and 2300 East areas. He is here tonight as a representative of Rowland Hall St. Marks School. Mr. Alan Sparrow, headmaster, sent a letter which was included in the Commission’s packet. The would like to keep their property zoned as Commercial Business, as in the future they would like to purchase the rest of the properties on 900 South for use by the school. They feel when it comes time for them to build a new gymnasium it would be easier to get it rezoned into an Institutional use from a Commercial Business zone rather than a Commercial Neighborhood zone.
James Ack, 965 East 900 South – He is representing the University Pet Clinic at 965 East 900 South. He is opposed to rezoning of the 9th & 9th area from CB to CN. It is not because of any opposition the clinic has to pedestrian traffic, which is of great benefit to their business. It is because he has reviewed the small area master plan and he didn’t find that the most significant issue raised by the plan is addressed by the proposed rezoning. He would like to support the staff recommendation concerning the
maintenance of a Veterinary Clinic as permitted use in the CN zone. If the down zoning of the clinic from CB to CN occurs it would result in a substantial diminishment of the property value. The Veterinary Clinic is a highly specialized facility with highly specialized capital improvements.
Thomas Hill, 924 South 1000 East – He would like to know what the master plan for the 9th & 9th area is and who is coming in?
Mr. Smith replied, there has been numerous rumors in the neighborhood that something is going to happen there. However, the intent of this effort is to make whatever could happen in the area much more limited in its scope or scale. This initiative came from the City not from the outside.
Homer Smith, 2514 Skyline Drive – Abutting property owner to Lamplighter Square. They have had first hand experience on what is involved in living next to commercial zoned property. They are opposed to changing this property from CN (Commercial Neighborhood) to CB (Commercial Business). This affects our property value, our views, traffic, noise and safety.
Joe Mirci, 2286 East 2100 South – He just purchased the property at 2090 East 2100 South, which on December 23rd it was zoned CB (Commercial Business) and the following Monday, he received a letter changing the zoning. He is a Dentist and is going to put a dental office at that address. He was caught in the middle and he feels the change in the zoning would affect the price he paid for the building.
Barbara Basmadjian, 2518 Skyline Drive – Abutting property owner to Lamplighter Square. She is opposed to changing the zoning from CN to CB. Lamplighter Square is completely surrounded by residential homes. If it goes to CB (Commercial Business) a private club could be allowed. She already lives next to a restaurant that uses an outside patio in the summer, so they are subjected to the noise, smell, and music. They feel they are lucky as the restaurant closes at 10:00 p.m. and only serves dinner five nights a week. However, a private club can serve alcohol and stay open until 1:00 a.m. This is just one issue of one business that is allowed in a CB zone.
Mike Zuhl, 2676 Comanche Drive, Indian Hills Community Council Chair, which incorporates the area of Foothill Boulevard. He is pleased to hear that no decision was going to be made this evening. He has a concern with the process, until a week ago he did not know that this was under review. They have not presented it to their Community Council and would have liked to have some input before they saw recommendations. This area is not in need of additional commercial business. They have Foothill Village, K-Mart Property, and Sugar House close by. In the staff report on page five there is a comparison of commercial areas and the east bench has the second largest amount of CB property and have very little CN property. He doesn’t feel there is a need to change it. He feels that will be the consensus of the residents in the area. After he has an opportunity to take it to his council he will be able to present it to the Commission in a formal way.
David Burnham, 517 E. 900 S. – He appreciates the work the staff has put into this rezoning. He would like the staff to be aware that they are not making text changes or map changes. They are changing property owners lives and their property values. These changes are affecting their future and their retirement plans. The City is changing the value of his property without compensating him.
Duncan Lambert, 77 West 200 South, Suite 200, - One of the Association owners of Lamplighter Square. Lamplighter Square has been in existence since 1959 and is currently owned by the Lamplighter Square Association. The square is in need of repair, they are not going to build it higher, they are limited by parking as to what they can do. The association would like to remodel the square and support the zoning change.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and turned it back to the Commission for discussion.
Ms. Barrows wanted to bring to Mr. Allayaud’s attention that in the letter that Allen Johnson wrote she liked the wording of his Amendment #1 The Purpose Statement should read, “The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to provide for small scale commercial uses that facilitate a pedestrian-oriented environment located within residential neighborhoods without having significant impact upon residential uses.”
Mr. Allayaud stated, he has not had a chance to thoroughly go through all of the letters, he didn’t think it was any major change, and he will look at it.
Mr. Demille asked, if we could let the public know where they can obtain a copy of the master plan if they are interested.
Mr. Wright stated, we have copies available at our office, and we also have planners who are assigned to different communities and if you call and make an appointment with them, they will sit down and talk with you. The phone number for the office is 535-7757.
Ms. Short would like to comment on community council input. Sugar House Community Council has had an extensive briefing. She is worried about East Central Community Council and some of the others. She would like to know what the time frame is, as she feels it is important to meet on a neighborhood level to talk about these issues.
Mr. Allayaud stated, the City’s Community Councils are set up for that very reason. He did brief the council chairs at the Mayor’s morning meeting in November. There were about 20 of the 35 community councils represented. This is one of the reasons we have extended this hearing into February, as we want to attend the community councils for their input.
Mr. Wilde stated, as Mr. Allayaud indicated, there was no intent to circumvent the community council process. When they took this issue to the Mayor’s morning meeting, the council chairs did not show any interest in this rezone; all of this has evolved since.
Mr. Allayaud stated, one of the ways you get people interested is by sending out notices directly to their homes. The City sent out 1,600 notices about this hearing.
Mr. Steed made a motion to reopen the public hearing.
Mr. Smith reopened the public hearing.
Ester Gross, 2500 East Skyline Drive – They have lived there before the road was paved. Then the apartment came. It was going to be a short apartment and would not disturb the view. Now they have a wall to look at and have no view of the City. It is just the little changes have made a great difference and they change the value and the enjoyment of living.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and turned it back to the Commission for further discussion.
Mrs. Funk stated, this has really been complicated to try to digest for tonight. Some of her comments may or may not reflect what was in the report. She would like to request the consideration that the service stations are included in the CN district and that the parking area is restricted when it is in CN districts. There are other factors that need to be considered when looking at CN vs. CB districts. When we look at the quality of life in building these districts there are several things that need to be looked at. Such as noise, hours of delivery and operation, smell, trash, the amount of foot traffic, parking availability, height and type of street that is in front of them. These items are difficult to write into an ordinance. It would be nice if there was some type of scale to look at to evaluate whether it is CN or CB? For instance, do they abut residents? We know if you have a restaurant next to a residential area, there will be a large dumpster, there will be a smell, and there will be early morning pick up and delivery. Truck size for delivery purposes would be different in the CB vs. CN. Example: 1300 East between 2nd and 3rd South this truly is a walking area. Probably 80 per cent of their business is foot traffic from the University. The outlook for these businesses are different, they do not have drive through service. Except for Market Street the businesses are served by foot traffic. Today on the field trip we looked at the area of 2100 South and 2300 East where Rino’s Restaurant is located. As she looked at the businesses on the South side of the street, she feels that this is a good example of a drive-in area, as the streets are busy and the crosswalks are not frequent enough. She feels that they need to look at the factors of who uses the businesses, and what the neighborhood situation is. She would like staff to look at some other ways to evaluate whether they should be CN or CB.
Ms. Barrows stated, she would like to add to what Ms. Funk has stated, most people look at CB as being “B” for big. When Ms. Funk brought up Rino’s Restaurant as being CN, from the prospective of the neighborhood they don’t want it to be CB. She is right, it is not a 9th and 9th area, and it is not a 13th East and 2nd South. Is there a way we can do something with the words, maybe making some distinction in the CN, it may be a size issues.
Mr. Allayaud stated, instead of trying to squeeze something between CB & CN, there is a possibility of dividing them down a little more to pedestrian and automobile oriented.
Mr. Smith stated, he feels that something wonderful is happening in the City, and there is a resurgence of interest in traditional neighborhood patterns. The little neighborhood nodes we could walk to have been lost for a number of years. He wanted to commend the staff for being on the cutting edge of a movement that is probably taking place across the country. These do need to be looked at and they are very complicated. We need to make the changes that will further enhance the ability of these neighborhood centers to develop.
Mr. Smith asked the staff if they needed a specific date for the continuance.
Mr. Wright stated, they better not set a specific date as they need to interact with some of the Community Councils, and they need time to do some more research. There is also the issue of sending out 1600 notices. He asked the public to make sure they sign the roll or make sure Mr. Allayaud has their address if they would like to receive notice for the continuance of this item.
Mr. Allayaud wanted to make it clear to the public that if they wanted to receive a notice for the continuance, when a date is set, they need to sign the roll or make sure he has their name and address.
Ms. Funk asked everyone to refer to table 5 in the staff report where the distribution of the commercial districts are around the City, and where there are high numbers in the commercial districts the intensity of the districts need to by reduced where it is appropriate.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-80
Ms. Funk made a motion to continue the discussion on Petition No. 400-98-80 at the appropriate time the staff designates they are ready with more information.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Steed, Mr. Snelgrove, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Mr. Mariger were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.