SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33:05 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Michael Gallegos; Commissioners Lisa Adams, Angela Dean, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Michael Fife, Clark Ruttinger, Marie Taylor, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Vice Chair Emily Drown was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Anna Anglin, Principal Planner; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary and Paul Neilson, City Attorney.
FIELD TRIP NOTES:
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Commissioners Michael Fife, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Clark Ruttinger and Mary Woodhead. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris and Ray Milliner.
The following locations were visited:
• Nicohol’s In line addition- Staff gave an overview of the project. The Commission asked what part was keeping with the ordinance. Staff stated all but nine feet on the south side. The Commissioners asked why were the steps used to determine the setbacks. Staff explained the steps were originally covered and the setback was measured to that covering. Staff explained the definition of an in line addition. The Commissioners asked if it could be modified. Staff explained that was a question for the Applicant. Staff stated the issue with the overall building height had been resolved.
• Liberty Height Fresh- Staff gave an overview of the petition. The Commission asked if the parking would be on the other side. Staff stated yes it would. The Commissioners asked how the second stories were oriented. Staff stated set back from the front.
• Rezoning on 500 East- Staff gave an overview of the project. The Commissioners asked how conditions were put on property to begin with. Staff stated property was split zoned, the previous owners petitioned for an amendment and the Council rezoned to CN with conditions.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 12, 2012 MEETING
MOTION 5:33:20 PM
Commissioner Woodhead made a motion to approve the December 12, 2012 minutes. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:33:53 PM
Chairperson Gallegos stated he had nothing to report at this time. He asked the Commission to answer the email regarding the quorum count in a timely manner in order to ensure a quorum would be present at the meeting. Chairperson Gallegos stated he would like an email confirming a quorum was available prior to the meeting. He stated Vice Chairperson Drown was excused from the meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:53 PM
Mr. Wilford, Sommerkorn, Planning Director, stated the City Council approved the vacation of the Pier Pont Avenue easement and also the Home Occupation ordinance changes.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:35:25 PM
PLNPCM2012-00615 The Lays Over Height Fence – A request by Ron Lay for a Special Exception for a fence that exceeds the six foot height limit of the zoning ordinance by two feet located at approximately 1351 West Arapahoe in the Single Family Residential (R-1/5000) zoning district in Council District 2, represented by Kyle LaMalfa. (Staff contact: Anna Anglin at 801-535-6050 or anna.anglin@slcgov.com)
Ms. Anna Anglin, Principal Planner reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated it was Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the petition as presented.
Mr. Ron Lay, Property Owner, reviewed how the proposed project met the standards in the ordinance and explained there were other tall fences in his neighborhood, similar to what was being requested. Mr. Lay stated a six foot fence would not provide adequate privacy for the intended use of his back yard. He stated an eight foot fence would not detract from the area, would not affect the light or shade in the yards as there currently are trees that change the light and shade for the properties. Mr. Lay asked the
Commission to take into consideration that the eight foot section would be between two houses and not detract from the neighborhood.
Commissioner Ruttinger asked the location of the other eight foot fences in the neighborhood.
Mr. Lay stated there was one or two within a walkable distance from his home.
Commissioner Dean stated the open lattice portion of the proposed fence did not provide privacy therefore; it was not an issue of privacy but of height.
Mr. Lay stated someone could look through the lattice work if they were standing next to the fence but from a distance it would be difficult to see through the lattice work. He stated a solid eight foot fence would not be attractive.
Commission Woodhead stated there were many people with outdoor kitchens and Jacuzzis and asked why this proposal was different from those.
Mr. Lay stated other neighborhoods may have more hills and the nature of their lots accommodated privacy for a Jacuzzi, in his neighborhood the lots were flat and did not provide for privacy.
The Commission asked why a gap was being left between the existing fence and the proposed fence.
Mr. Lay stated it was to prevent a problem with his neighbor and building next to the existing fence. He stated he was able to mow the three foot gap between the fences and maintain the area.
The Commission and Applicant reviewed the location of eight foot fences in the area.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:55:18 PM
Chairperson Gallegos opened the Public Hearing.
The following individual spoke in opposition to the petition: Mr. Gaylen Young,
The following comments were made:
• Eight foot fence is too tall and too close to neighboring properties
• Wood fence would be hard to maintain.
• Would be an eyesore for the neighborhood.
• A six foot fence would be more appropriate for the area.
• Could the Jacuzzi be lowered in the ground to allow the extra privacy
• Eight foot fences are not present in the area
• Would cause more shade in the area and the trees are trimmed to allow the most light onto the property.
Chairperson Gallegos closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Lay stated the fence would not be as tall as the posts currently in place as they were two feet higher than needed. He stated it would not be imposing to the neighborhood and he was not aware of a Jacuzzi that could be installed below ground.
The Commission and Applicant reviewed the location of the Jacuzzi and the concrete pad.
DISSCUSSION 6:01:46 PM
Commissioners Dean and Woodhead stated many fences were addressed by the Planning Commission and eight foot fences were not generally approved. They stated they were not convinced that a six foot fence would not provide enough privacy for the property.
MOTION 6:02:31 PM
Commissioner Dean stated in regards to PLNPCM2012-00615, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, she moved that the Planning Commission deny the Special Exception for the property located at approximately 1351 West Arapahoe. Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion.
Commissioner Woodhead stated she understood the concern with privacy but there was nothing outstanding with the property that made an eight foot fence relevant.
Commissioner Taylor stated the fence was next to the house, not in the front yard and that the Planning Commission was able to make exceptions at times for people who wanted to improve their houses.
Commissioner Ruttinger stated he agreed that the fence was not imposing.
Commissioner Dean, Fife, Woodhead, Adams, Wirthlin and Flores-Sahagun vote “aye”. Commissioner Taylor and Ruttinger voted “nay”. The motion passed 6-2.
6:04:45 PM
PLNPCM2012-00796 Nichols Special Exception for an “in line” addition - a request by Amy & Scott Nichols, represented by Stan Avery (contractor), for approval to construct an addition to the existing single family home that would not comply with the required 10-foot side yard setback on the south side of the home located at approximately 2675 South 1500 East. The addition would encroach less than one foot into the side yard, in line with the rear porch steps. The property is located in the R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning district, in Council District 7, represented by Soren Simonsen. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (801) 535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com)
Mr. Casey Stewart, Senior Planner reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission deny the petition as presented.
The Commission and Staff discussed why the proposal was originally permitted and then issued a stop work order. They discussed the definition of an in line addition and if the proposal followed the definition in the ordinance. The Commission and Staff discussed the setbacks as indicated on the presented drawings and what would need to be done if the petition was denied. Staff stated the height issue was resolved without a Special Exception.
Mr. Stan Avery, Project Contactor, stated the information in the Staff Report was not correct and bias. He reviewed the distance from the property line to the in line addition and explained the addition encroached on the setback roughly nine inches. Mr. Avery discussed the standards listed in the Staff Report and how the proposal met those standards. He stated the addition was not imposing on the neighbors and the extra nine inches did not give the applicant additional space nor was it really that big of an issue to require its removal.
The Commission and Mr. Avery discussed what was meant by keeping with the character of the neighborhood and how character was determined.
Mr. Alex Schiel, Architect, reviewed how the property line was measured and the confusion with the actual location of the property line. He explained that the addition was lined up with the bay window and the porch which justified the encroachment.
The Commission and Mr. Schiel discussed issues with initially locating the property line, how much the addition encroached on the setback and when the issues were discovered. They discussed the survey that was conducted on the property to determine the actual property line.
Mr. Scott Nichols, Property Owner, stated the proposal did comply with all the standards of the ordinance and in all reality the issue was nine inches of encroachment on the setback. He stated the Mayor was working on an ordinance that would allow leeway in the setbacks which would make the proposal comply. Mr. Nichols stated the nine inches were virtually imperceptible to the casual observer and it was unlikely that anyone would notice the change in the setback. Mr. Nichols stated he did not agree that the size of the building was out of character with the neighborhood and was not the reason the project was under review. He stated that the addition was in line as defined in the ordinance and therefore, should be approved. Mr. Nichols reviewed the history and time table for the proposal. He read letters from neighbors that supported the proposal (located in the case file). Mr. Nichols presented a model of the home and reviewed what the proposal would require.
Ms. Amy Nichols, Property Owner, explained the reason for the remodel and the process taken to make it visually fit the neighborhood. She read letters from a neighbor in opposition of the remodel and explained her distain for the comments contained in the letter. Ms. Nichols stated they have followed the rules and process required for the project and should be allowed to construct the addition as proposed.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:45:43 PM
Chairperson Gallegos opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council, stated the Community Council did not support the project as it was overbearing in the neighborhood and took all the privacy away from the property to the rear. She stated approving the petition would set a precedent in the area and was not a positive thing. Ms. Short stated the project should be made to fit the standards.
Commissioner Ruttinger asked if Ms. Short felt the nine inches would make a difference in the look of the home.
Ms. Short stated it would especially in the rear of the home.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposal: Ms. Janice Gordon, Mr. Ron Gordon, Mr. Russell Pack, Mr. Steven Lester, Mr. Andrew Kope, Ms. Sarah Price, Mr. Curtis Clark, Ms. Bonnie Clark, Ms. Bonnie Clark and Ms. Sarah Price.
The following comments were made:
• Structure was not in character of the neighborhood
• The project would set a precedent in the area
• The project would be a detriment to the neighborhood
• The project would invade the privacy of the abutting neighbors
• The project should comply with the codes in place and no exceptions made
• In line additions should be in line with the outside wall not a porch or window.
• Code should be enforced not changed
• Correct information should be presented in the beginning of an application therefore allowing for proper measurements and codes to be followed.
• Type of addition was not common in the area and should not be allowed.
• Neighbors’ requested a survey be done at the beginning of the project but it was not done until after the code was questioned.
• Project was still in the stage where the nine inches could be addressed.
• Driveway was only seven feet wide
• Blocks sunlight to neighboring properties
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposal: Mr. Dennis and Mrs. Annette Weight, Ms. Virginia Wilson,
The following comments were made:
• Would like to see resolution to the problem and move on with the project.
• Addition does not block views from other properties
• Great addition to the area.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed when surveys were required for projects and when it was requested for the proposed project.
Chairperson Gallegos closed the Public Hearing.
7:06:52 PM
The Commission and Staff discussed how an in line addition was defined in the ordinance and if it was meant for an addition to be constructed in line with an outside wall or a building element. Staff explained the porch was covered therefore, was the point from which the setback was measured and allowed the in line addition to be constructed to that point. They discussed the possible need to address the definition of an in line addition. Staff stated the City Council had initiated a petition to address the definition.
Mr. Nichols stated the project satisfied the code and ordinance requirements. He stated the reduction of the nine inches would not make a large enough change in the look and size of the structure to cause the petition to be denied.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the eve measurements and how the changes that would be made if the nine inches were removed. They discussed what the Applicant would do if the nine inches were required to be removed and how/if the design would be changed. The Applicant stated they would move the wall back the nine inches, nothing else would be changed. The Commission and Applicant discussed if work was continuing even though a stop work order had been issued. The Applicant stated there was a permit issued for two days that allowed work to be done as well as the replacement of some windows and doors to the original structure.
DISCUSSION 7:13:56 PM
The Commissioners stated that the Planning Commission was not reviewing the design or if it fit into the neighborhood. They said the issue was the encroaching nine inches into the setback requirement and whether or not it should be allowed to remain. The Commissioners discussed the issue of setting a precedent in the area and whether or not making the Applicant remove the nine inches would make a discernable difference in the appearance of the structure. It was stated that comments from the Public indicating the Planning Commission should never allow exceptions to the rules was not a reality as the rules allowed for exceptions to be made. The Commission discussed the process for an in line addition and stated the process was being followed. They discussed whether or not the additional nine inches would have been approved if the proposal was brought in front of the Commission prior to construction.
The Commission discussed the initial thoughts of the Contactor as to where the property line was located and the vague language in the ordinance determining where an in line addition was allowed to be constructed. The Commission and Staff discussed the building line definition and its interpretation. It was stated that the house was in compliance with the ordinance and the regulations in place which allowed for the additions construction. The Commissioners and Staff discussed the determination of precedents in the area and how a precedent was set. It was stated that the structure was on average under the overall setbacks as to the building footprint and would not greatly impact the neighbors.
MOTION 7:27:21 PM
Commissioner Wirthlin stated in regards to Special Exception PLNPCM2012-00796, Based on the findings made by the Commission, contrary to some findings in the Staff Report, and based on the Public testimony, it was the Planning Commissions opinion that the project did adequately meet the applicable standards therefore; he move that the Planning Commission approve the request. Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion.
Commissioners Wirthlin, Flores-Sahagun, Adams, Ruttinger, Woodhead and Dean voted “aye”.
Commissioners Taylor, Fife voted “nay”. The motion passed 6-2.
7:39:31 PM
PLNPCM2012-00588 Lobb Zoning Amendment 1321 South 500 East - a request by Michael Lobb, property owner, to include “mixed use” as an allowed use at the subject property in anticipation of a 7-unit attached townhome live/work project. The property is located at 1321 South 500 East, in the CN (neighborhood commercial) district, within Council District 5, represented by Jill Remington Love. (Staff Contact: Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com)
Mr. Casey Stewart, Senior Planner reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed if there were restrictions in the CCNR zoning. Staff reviewed the restrictions on use, new construction renovation, restoration, maintenance, and repair and stated there were no restrictions on setbacks or building height.
Mr. Michael Lobb, Property Owner, reviewed the history of the property and his intentions for the development of the property. He stated the property was not usable in its current condition.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Gallegos opened the Public Hearing
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposal: Ms. Kathy Byers, Mr. John Francis
The following comments were made:
• The property would need off street parking
• A four or five-plex would be ideal for the property
• Variance in height should be kept as it was a residential neighborhood
• Anything would be an improvement to what was currently in place and would improve the area greatly.
Chairperson Gallegos closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the possible height of any developments. The Applicant stated he was proposing a structure lower in height, than the current structure, and would comply with all height requirements.
MOTION 7:53:43 PM
Commissioner Fife stated in regards to the Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2012-00588, 1321 South 500 East based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, the testimony and plans presented, he move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the requested Lobb Zoning Amendment to dissolve the prior agreement of 2005 between Salt Lake City Corporation and the property owner that instituted covenants, conditions, and restrictions, on property located at approximately 1321 South 500 East, and zone the entire property simply CN (Neighborhood Commercial) as proposed. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Taylor asked if a drive-thru would be an option for the property.
Mr. Norris stated a drive-thru was not allowed in the CN Zone.
Commissioner Ruttinger asked if the parking would be onsite.
Staff and the Applicant stated yes all the parking would be onsite.
7:57:45 PM
Commissioner Wirthlin excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Norris stated there was an error in the noticing for the next item and explained the error. He stated Staff would present the petition to the Commission and a Public Hearing could be held but a motion could not be made until the January 23 meeting. Mr. Norris reviewed the recommended approvals/ denials for the petitions and how the petitions would be addressed. He stated the Applicant would be available via telephone to answer questions during the January 23 meeting.
PLNPCM2012-00608 Liberty Heights Fresh Master Plan Amendment - A request by Steven Rosenberg to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map at approximately 1073 East 1300 South from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the removal of a single family home on site that would be replaced with a mixed residential/commercial use on site. The subject property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) and is located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at (801) 535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com).
• PLNPCM2012-00610 Liberty Heights Fresh Master Plan Amendment – A request by Steven Rosenberg to amend the Central Community Zoning Map at approximately 1073 East 1300 South from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). The purpose of the amendment is to allow the removal of a single family home on site and replace it with a mixed residential commercial use on site. The subject property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) and is located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at (801) 535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com).
• PLNPCM2012-00607 Liberty Heights Fresh Master Plan Amendment - A request by Steven Rosenberg for a Minor Subdivision Amendment to combine the lots at approximately 1073 East 1300 South and 1290 South 1100 East into one lot of record. The reason for the request is to allow for the expansion of the existing commercial use on site. The subject property at 1073 East 1300 South is located in the R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District), and the property at 1290 South 1100 East is located in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial District) and is located in Council District 5, represented by Jill Remington Love. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at (801) 535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com).
• PLNPCM2012-00609 Liberty Heights Fresh Master Plan Amendment - A request by Steven Rosenberg for a Conditional Building and Site Design Review application that would grant an exception to reduce the required corner side yard setback on the south from fifteen feet (15’) to one foot (1’) and the front setback on the east from fifteen feet (15’) to three feet six inches (3’6”) at approximately 1073 East 1300 South and 1290 South 1100 East. The purpose for the request is to allow the redevelopment of the existing commercial business. The subject property at 1073 East 1300 South is located in the R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District), and the property at 1290 South 1100 East is located in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial District) and is located in Council District 5, represented by Jill Remington Love. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at (801) 535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com).
Mr. Ray Milliner, Principal Planner reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated it was Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council or approve the petitions as stated in the Staff Report.
Mr. Steven Rosenberg, Applicant, reviewed the history of the business and the property. He reviewed the development of the property and his intentions.
The Commission and Staff discussed if portions of the zoning would revert back to the current zoning if no action was taken.
PUBLIC HEARING 8:11:30 PM
Chairperson Gallegos opened the public hearing
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal: Ms. Besty Burton, Mr. David Nimkin, Mr. John Bogart, Mr. John Francis and Mr. Christopher Spear.
The following comments were made:
• Business was iconic, needed the changes in order to grow and remain in the area.
• Proposal is key to the growth of the area
• Zoning will help revitalize the area and draw business in to the area.
• Petition is appropriate for the area
• Changes in zoning provide for a dramatic economic advantage to an existing business which will allow it to grow in ways that are necessary for everyone.
Chairperson Gallegos stated the Public Hearing would be continued to the January 23, 2013 meeting.
The Commission stated they would continue the discussion and make a motion at the January 23 meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:22:02 PM
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:36:37 PM . Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Michael Gallegos; Vice Chair Emily Drown; Commissioners Lisa Adams, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Michael Fife, Clark Ruttinger, and Marie Taylor. Commissioners Angela Dean, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Michael Maloy, Principal Planner; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary and Paul Neilson, City Attorney.
FIELD TRIP NOTES:
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Commissioners Michael Fife, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Clark Ruttinger and Mary Taylor. Staff members in attendance were Joel Paterson and Michaela Oktay.
The following location was visited:
• Alta Club Parking Structure- PLNPCM2012-00788- The Commission asked questions about the property of the request; the proposed parking structure design, egress, ingress and proposed landscaping. The Commission discussed the proposed landscape trellis/wall along the South Temple Street frontage and the need to screen the parking structure from the right of way. The Commission discussed the importance of the pedestrian experience on South Temple and the existing architecture along the south side of South Temple and noted character defining elements of the architecture.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 9, 2013 MEETING
MOTION 5:37:23 PM
Commissioner Fife made a motion to approve the January 9, 2013 minutes. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. Commissioner Drown abstained from voting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:37:47 PM
Chairperson Gallegos stated he had nothing to report at this time.
Vice Chairperson Drown stated she had nothing to report at this time.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:37:55 PM
Mr. Wilford, Sommerkorn, Planning Director, reviewed the Master Planning process that will be the template used for all future master planning processes in the City. He stated the proposal would be brought to the Commission at a future meeting for a briefing. Mr. Sommerkorn reviewed the items the City Council had discussed at their last meeting such as the sign ordinance and on premise signs.
PUBLIC HEARING
5:39:28 PM
PLNPCM2012-00788 Alta Club Parking Structure – A request by the LDS Church for a Conditional Use permit to demolish a principal building (Mr. Mac building) to construct a parking structure that will be used for off-site parking for the Alta Club. The site is located at approximately 160 E. South Temple in a D-1 Downtown Central Business zoning district, and Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff Contact: Michaela Oktay, AICP, at (801) 535-6003 or michaela.oktay@slcgov.com)
Ms. Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated it was Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
Mr. Bill Williams, Director of Architecture for the LDS Church, and Mr. Vasilios Prishos, Alta Club President, reviewed the history of the properties and the reasons for the proposal. They discussed how it would add to the area and allow for better use of the properties. They discussed the proposal as stated in the Staff Report and how it would benefit the Property Owners as well as enhance the look of the street.
The Commission and Applicants reviewed the design of the proposed parking structure.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:54:43 PM
Chairperson Gallegos opened the Public Hearing seeing there was no one from the public to speak for or against the petition; Chairperson Gallegos closed the Public Hearing.
DISSCUSSION
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the streetscape along South Temple and how the proposal would address the current urban design to keep with the character of the area.
Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed landscaping between the parking lot and the street that would help disguise the parking lot. He gave the example of the Governor’s Mansion and the parking lot behind it. He reviewed the necessity to improve the property and stated they felt this was the best option.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed what could be done to soften the look of the parking lot from the street. The following comments were made:
• The properties are in a very visible part of the city and need to architecturally fit with the surrounding buildings
• It needed to be more than just a hole in the street
• In essence the parking lot was moving from one side of the street to the other so it was not creating a new parking lot in the area
• Putting a wall along the street would not be the safest way to disguise the parking lot
• Proposed landscaping would be similar to that at the Governor’s Mansion allowing a soft barrier between the parking lot and the street
• It was better to have a parking lot than an empty retail building
• Current parking lot would become a temporary park and be developed into apartments in the future as the market demanded
• Elk’s building needed to be revamped into something more functional
• The property next to the Alta Club did not allow for residential development due to the lot size
• Proposal would enhance the property and develop the area
The Commission discussed if Staff would give the final approval for the screening of the parking lot or if the petition should be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. They discussed the pros and cons of the proposal and what would be best for the two properties.
MOTION 6:14:16 PM
Commissioner Fife stated in regards to PLNPCM2012-00788 the Alta Club Parking Structure at 160 E. South Temple, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the three conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Adams seconded the motion.
The Commission discussed adding a fourth condition regarding the design for the area between the parking lot and the street. They discussed the Historic District boundaries in the area.
Commissioner Fife amended the motion to add a fourth condition as follows:
Direct Planning Staff and Urban Design Planner to work with the Applicant to come up to with screening that related to the mass, scale, style, design and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures and allow Staff to give the final approval for the design.
Commissioner Drown seconded the amendment. Commissioner Drown, Fife, Adams, Ruttinger and vote “aye”. Commissioner Taylor and Flores-Sahagun voted “nay”. The motion passed 4-2.
6:21:51 PM
Liberty Heights Fresh Mixed-use Project – A request by Steven Rosenberg to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map, and to consider preliminary subdivision amendment approval and Building and Site Design Review for proposed new construction of a residential/commercial mixed-use project located at approximately 1073 East 1300 South and approximately 1290 South 1100 East. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the removal of a single family home and the new construction of a mixed-use building on site. The subject properties are zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) and CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and are located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at (801) 535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com).
• PLNPCM2012-00608 Master Plan Amendment – A request to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map to change the designation from low density residential to low density residential/mixed-use.
• PLNPCM2012-00610 Zoning Map Amendment – A request to amend the Zoning Map from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial).
• PLNSUB2012-00607 Minor Subdivision Amendment – A request for a Minor Subdivision Amendment approval to combine the lots into one lot of record.
• PLNPCM2012-00609 Conditional Building and Site Design Review – A request for a Conditional Building and Site Design Review that would grant an exception to reduce the required corner side yard setback on 1300 South from fifteen feet (15’) to one foot (1’) and the front yard setback on 1100 East from fifteen feet (15’) to three feet six inches (3’6).
Mr. Ray Milliner, Principal Planner reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission take the following action:
• Forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Zoning Map amendment to rezone the portion of the property zoned R-1-5000 to CN.
• Forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the amendment to the future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan.
• Approve the Conditional Building and Site Design Review application with the conditions in this staff report.
• Approve the Minor Subdivision with the conditions in this staff report.
Mr. Steve Rosenberg, Applicant, via telephone, stated he did not have anything to present.
Mr. Kenneth Pollard, Pollard Architects, stated he did not have anything to present.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:26:44 PM
Chairperson Gallegos opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposal: Mr. John Francis and Mr. Casee Francis
The following comments were made:
• The project will be a great addition to the neighborhood
• Project would help other business benefit as well
Chairperson Gallegos closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 6:30:02 PM
Commissioner Drown stated regarding PLNPCM2012-00608 and PLNPCM2012-00610, based on the testimony, plans presented, and the findings written in this Staff Report, she moved that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a positive recommendation to approve the proposed master plan amendment and zoning map amendment for the Liberty Heights Fresh project. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION 6:31:49 PM
Commissioner Drown stated in regarding PLNSUB2012-00607and PLNPCM2012-00609for the Subdivision and Conditional Building and Site Design, based on the testimony, plans presented (at both meetings), and the findings written in this Staff Report, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the Liberty Heights Fresh project. The proposal meets the standards for a Minor Subdivision Amendment and Conditional Building and Site Design Review subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6:33:22 PM
PLNPCM2009-00484 Subdivision Ordinance Amendment – A request by Mayor Ralph Becker, in behalf of Salt Lake City, requesting to amend the existing Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance in order to incorporate provisions toward the Mayor’s Sustainability Code Initiative and update the subdivision review process with the intent to make it more efficient and comprehensive. The amendment will affect all of Title 20 Subdivisions. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning and Title 18 Buildings and Construction may also be amended as part of this petition (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (801) 535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com)
PLNPCM2009-01339 Site Development Ordinance Amendment – A request by Mayor Ralph Becker, in behalf of Salt Lake City, requesting to amend the existing Salt Lake City Site Development Regulations, particularly those portions dealing with subdivision design, and update the regulations in conjunction and association with the Subdivision Ordinance amendment project. The amendment will affect chapter 18.28 Site Development Regulations. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning and Title 18 Buildings and Construction may also be amended as part of this petition (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (801) 535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com)
Mr. Casey Stewart, Senior Planner reviewed the petitions as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for both petitions.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the following areas of the proposal:
• If future cul-de-sacs would be an issue- Staff reviewed how cul-de-sacs would be addressed and be encourage to have pedestrian connectivity to their surroundings such as a park or rear access.
• Was the term “Minor Subdivision” being discarded- Staff stated yes the term was going away but anything ten lots or less would follow the Notice of Subdivision Approval process and anything greater than ten lots would go through the Plat process.
• How would one know what the required street widths were for a subdivision if there were no standards - Staff stated there are standards but more flexibility was allowed than in the past. He explained the process a subdivision would go through to determine the required street width.
• What brought about the proposed changes - Staff reviewed why the proposed changes were being addressed at this time such as the Mayors Sustainability Plan and some issues with the language in the ordinance.
• Was there a limit to the lot consolidation – Staff stated in the Zoning Ordinance regarding Single Family and Two family residential districts there is a maximum lot size allowed for new lots which would provide limits to consolidation of new lots. Staff reviewed the regulations on lot consolidation as per the zoning ordinance.
• Are illustrations being provided for the public regarding some of the concepts- Staff stated they would be willing to add illustrations in the final draft.
• Are minimum lot sizes being suggested or is it subject to the individual subdivisions - Staff stated the zoning would continue to establish the minimum lot sizes and proposal would be required to follow the process for review and approval.
• Would privately owned streets be included or just City owned streets - Staff stated the provisions did not preclude privately owned streets and could be commercial and residential.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:00:37 PM
Chairperson Gallegos opened the Public Hearing seeing there was no one from the public to speak for or against the petition; Chairperson Gallegos closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 7:01:15 PM
Commissioner Fife stated regarding PLNPCM2009-00484, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report and the testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the requested subdivision ordinance amendments and related chapter 21A.56 (condominiums) of the zoning ordinance, as proposed. Commissioner Drown seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION 7:02:02 PM
Commissioner Fife stated regarding PLNPCM2009-01339, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report and the testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the requested Site Development Regulations amendments, and the codification of the remaining Site Development Regulations into chapter 18.28 of the city code as proposed. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:02:50 PM
Chairperson Gallegos stated the Public Hearing was held at two previous meetings and had been closed therefore, public comments would not be heard for this item.
PLNPCM2011-00640 Form Based Code for West Temple Gateway – Consideration of Forwarding a Recommendation to the City Council. No Public Comments will be Heard – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will consider a petition submitted by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Title and Map from D-2 Downtown Support District and RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family Residential District to FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District for properties located approximately between 700 South Street and Fayette Avenue (975 South), and between West Temple Street and 300 West Street. The purpose of the zoning amendment is to ensure future development will enhance residential neighborhoods and encourage compatible commercial development in compliance with the City Master Plan. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The subject properties are located in Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott, and Council District 5, represented by Jill Remington Love. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at (801) 535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com)
Mr. Michael Maloy, Principal Planner reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated it was Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Commission and Staff discussed the ingress and egress for properties along 300 West and what would be allowed. The Commission and Staff discussed the maintenance of alley ways in the area and how it should be addressed in the ordinance. Staff stated it was a policy issue that needed to be addressed by the City Council. The Commissioners and Staff discussed the need to address these issues and indicate who was responsible to take care of the alley ways.
The Commission and Staff discussed the definition of food processing and if it was correctly used. Staff stated the definition came from the new Land Use Table that was approved by the Planning Commission. They discussed the difference between the definition for food processing and a restaurant.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed if the regulations would transfer to new or future property owners or if other standards would apply. They discussed the compliance regulations and when they would apply to new or future construction.
The Commission and Staff discussed garages on alleys and how to enforce access to those areas. Staff stated it was an enforcement issue and that the City Council would help to address the policy issues included in the proposal.
The Commission discussed adding language to the motion requesting the City Council to review and consider how alley ways are used and maintained.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed if more than a one foot setback should be required for garages. Staff stated one of the reasons behind the proposed one foot setback was so the streetscape along the alley ways would not become unfavorable. They discussed the area and regulations for parking a vehicle in front of the garage and what would need to be addressed to allow such parking. Staff stated most of the concerns would be addressed during the project review period.
MOTION 7:29:59 PM
Commissioner Flores-Sahagun stated regarding to PLNPCM2011-00640, based on testimony received, plans presented, and the findings listed within the October 18 Planning Commission Staff Report, He moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council relating to Petition PLNPCM2011-00640 to adopt the Form Based Districts ordinance, and amend the Zoning Ordinance Map from D-2 Downtown Support District, RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family Residential District, and T Transitional Overlay District to FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District for properties located approximately between 700 South Street and Fayette Avenue (975 South), and between West Temple Street and 300 West Street, excluding properties located between 700 South Street and 800 South Street, and between West Temple Street and 200 West Street, as illustrated in Attachment C – Proposed Zoning Map Amendment. .
Commissioner Flores-Sahagun asked to amend the motion to include requesting the City Council to consider the issues with the maintenance of the alley ways.
Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Adams abstained from voting as she was not at the Public Hearings regarding the petition.
The meeting adjourned at 7:32:51 PM.