SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Laurie Noda. Kay (berger) Arnold was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright and Planners Greg Mikolash, Doug Dansie, Marilynn Lewis, and Everett Joyce.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 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 from Thursday, June 20, 2002
Jeff Jonas referred to page 5, last paragraph, 5 lines from the top and requested that the word study be inserted so the sentence would read, “There was also concern about the area north of Elm and whether the RB zone was appropriate for extending the Sugar House rezone to the entire study area north of Elm.” In that same paragraph, third line from the bottom, he requested that the language whole area be replaced with a single zoning area, so that portion of the sentence would read, “.with dividing zones by existing land uses vs. trying to create a single zoning area there.” Mr. Jonas referred to a sentence in the middle of page 11 that reads, “Mr. Wilde mentioned it at the last meeting as a way to work with developers so that, if there was an intrinsic problem, the conditional use method would be an option for reevaluating the requirements.” He recalled from the discussion that it was not to address the issue of an intrinsic problem as much as to address a potential creative development idea that may not involve residential. He requested that the sentence be revised to read, “.intrinsic problem or creative development options.” Referring to page 12, second line of the second paragraph, Mr. Jonas requested that the words Sugar House be added to read, “zone Sugar House 5 and Sugar House 3.” Mr. Jonas referred to page 13, the motion for Petition 400-01-32, and asked if the Planning Commission would see the opt-out language and whether it should be part of the minutes. Mr. Wilde noted that Line 8 of the same paragraph discusses the opt-out language for a conditional use for non-residential uses. Mr. Jonas stated that he would like to see the actual opt-out language before it is included. Mr. Wilde referred to the recommendation Mr. Jonas made to the City Council in that same paragraph and suggested adding language directing the Staff to bring the draft ordinance back to the Planning Commission before it goes forward. Mr. Jonas stated that he was satisfied with that direction. Mr. Jonas referred to page 13, the motion for Petition 400-02-08, and requested that the word testimony be deleted since no testimony is contained in the staff report. On the same page, second line from the bottom, he requested that the language be modified to read, “.modified to reflect the changes made to the zoning map as outlined in the motion for Petition 400-01-32.” Mr. Jonas referred to page 14, Finding of Fact 1, second sentence, and requested that the word resulting be changed to related. The corrected finding would read, “Amending the zoning and future land use map will ensure the policies relating to neighborhood stability.” He believed the findings of fact were confusing as written and felt that Findings 2 and 3 under Area IV were more general findings. After discussing the format with Mr. Wilde, it was agreed that Findings 2 and 3 would be included under the first finding of fact before starting with Area 1. Mr. Jonas was concerned about the finding in Area II that the proposed zoning R-1-5000 and land use is consistent with the existing single-family and duplex homes. He requested that duplex homes be stricken because R-15000 does not allow duplexes. Mr. Jonas noted that the finding under Area IV mention live-work units, and that wording should have been changed to residential mixed uses. With regard to the reference to additional height on page 15, he noted that Marriott is incorrect and should read Myriad. The same applies in the next sentence and on page 16.
Prescott Muir referred to page 8, second paragraph up, third line from the bottom, and requested that the word Smith’s be replaced with residential. The corrected sentence would read, “He felt the Staff had a different logic for commercial than for residential.”
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to approve the minutes as amended. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Ms. Fund were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-597, requested by Wildor Rivera for a Conditional Use for outdoor auto sales at 830 South State Street in a “D-2" zoning district.
Planner Doug Dansie reviewed the petition as presented in the staff report. He noted that 830 South State Street is a former car wash, and a car wash is not listed specifically in the D-2 zone as either allowed or not allowed. A cursory review of the site showed that it has operated as a car wash, and questions of non-conformity will be addressed through a separate process. The site is owned by Ninth Street Development Corporation, which is subleasing to Ben Framer who wishes to re-open the car wash. He, in turn, wishes to sublease 3,500 square feet on the north border of the property to Wildor Rivera for auto sales, which is listed as a conditional use in the D-2 zone. The site does not abut any residential, and the proposed auto sales area abuts Taco Time to the north. The site is presently paved, and Mr. Rivera will conduct the auto sales along the north end of the lot and sublease a small portion of the existing car wash building for his office. No new construction, pavement, or physical changes will occur on the site. The D-2 District does not require landscape setbacks except for automobile dealerships, and the petitioner has agreed to a five-foot landscape setback on the north side where the auto sales are proposed. The petition was reviewed by the development review team which suggested that the site plan be revamped to show specifically where cars will be located on the site. The Staff recommended approval of this request with review of the final landscape design being delegated to the Planning Director.
Wildor Rivera, the petitioner, stated that he is trying to lease a piece of land from Ben Framer for a small auto dealership. He indicated that he would be willing to do whatever the Planning Commission wanted because he was anxious to move forward.
Ben Framer, the lessee, stated that he intends to open a hand car wash in the same location where Big John’s used to be. Mr. Rivera is trying to start a new business and would like to park 15 to 20 cars on the property.
Chair Daniels noted that the previous use sold gasoline, and he asked about the underground tanks. Mr. Framer replied that two 4,000-gallon tanks were upgraded to fiberglass in 1992. He has temporarily shut off the gas tanks for this year and will only use two tanks next year. He indicated the location of the gas tanks and noted that they are on the other side of the lot from where the auto sales will be located. Mr. Framer stated that he did not want a regular gas station. His intent was to provide high-octane gas for snowmobiles, jet skis, boats, etc. Two islands have been removed, and he only intends to use one. His business will be an upscale hand car wash.
Tim Chambless asked about hours of operation. Mr. Framer replied that the hours will be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and the business will probably be closed during the winter.
Mr. Jonas verified with Staff that this application is only for auto sales, not for the car wash. He asked for a better explanation of the site plan. After discussing the site plan, circulation, and access, Mr. Dansie explained that one reason the DRT asked for a more defined site plan was to be able to see the location and number of parking stalls for the auto sales.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Samantha Francis, representing the People’s Freeway Community Council, reported that, when this item came to the Community Council, they did not know about the gas tanks, and she was glad Chair Daniels had raised the question. Ms. Francis stated that landscaping was one issue raised during the Community Council meeting. As Council Chair, she asked the Staff to encourage applicants to bring drawings and site plans to community council meetings, because it is hard to approve something they cannot see. She emphasized the importance of seeing that the landscaping gets done and stated that the Community Council voted to support this project.
Doug Dansie commented on a note from DRT about landscaping. Interior landscaping is not requested, but if Mr. Rivera plans to have more than 15 cars for sale, there is a landscaping requirement. He explained that the petitioner is aware of this requirement.
Ms. Francis asked if it would be possible to require the applicant go through the CEPTED process. Chair Daniels stated that could be suggested and encouraged at community council meetings.
Chair Daniels asked Staff to provide a brief description of the CEPTED process for the record. Mr. Goldsmith explained that CEPTED is a community policing investigation that looks at the environment of a project to determine whether it is policeable. The investigation focuses on hazards, landscaping, lighting, fencing, etc., to help police and developers understand that the area will be safe. Chair Daniels noted that this process is free to the developer.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Chair Daniels asked for an explanation of the process for gas tanks that are temporarily out of service. Mr. Framer explained the process and stated that he could verify that he followed the process through the permit he obtained from the State. Chair Daniels requested that Mr. Framer make the permit part of this application. Mr. Framer was willing to provide a copy of the permit.
Mr. Chambless asked if the tanks are totally dry with no fumes. Mr. Framer replied that they could take off the caps and there would be no smell.
Chair Daniels recommended that a motion this evening include a favorable recommendation for the SEPTET process and that verification that the tanks check out as Mr. Framer has set forth be included with the packet.
Mr. Jonas asked if this was being treated as one parcel or if the Planning Commission would be approving only 3,500 square feet of the parcel. Mr. Dansie replied that it is one large parcel with multiple uses on the site. Mr. Jonas asked if the Planning Commission could put conditions on other portions of the property not included in this petition. The proposal is for two strips of landscaping within 3,500 square feet, whereas the rest of the site is a mess. Mr. Framer has indicated that a significant portion of the remainder of the site would be used for auto sales, customer parking, and offices, and Mr. Jonas believed the entire frontage should be cleaned up.
Mr. Framer stated that the front is new blacktop and looks very nice. He understood Mr Jonas’s concern, but Mr. Framer had taken measures to clean up the front. Brent Wilde explained that the Planning Commission could ask Mr. Framer if he would be willing to run a 5-foot landscaping strip across the front of the property. Mr. Dansie clarified that D-2 zoning does not require landscape setbacks unless the use is auto sales.
Mr. Jonas asked about ingress and egress on the other portion of the site. Mr Dansie replied that there are three driveways, and the two arrows for ingress and egress are extraordinarily large. A small curb separates the driveway.
Mr. Jonas asked why the Transportation Department felt this was acceptable. Mr. Dansie replied that the cuts currently exist, and the Transportation Department felt that access to the site was adequate.
Prescott Muir stated that, if the curb cuts remain as they are, they would gain only one small portion of the site to be landscaped. Mr. Jonas agreed that they would have to reduce the size of the curb cuts to allow for more landscaping.
John Diamond expressed frustration that the focus was only on auto sales, and he felt the petition should include more of the property use. Mr. Wilde commented that the car sales portion of the lot will be on 3,500 square feet, and the Planning Department can insure that the strip along the front of the property devoted to car sales is landscaped.
Mr. Jonas expressed frustration and found it counter-productive to look at a proposal with an inadequate site plan. Things are sketched in that are not accurate, and it is not fair to the Planning Commission to have to guess what the applicant is proposing.
Mr. Muir asked if the Planning Commission’s concerns and intent were clear enough to remanded this to the Planning Director. Mr. Goldsmith replied that the intent is clear from the discussion, but he would prefer that it be made distinctly clear in a motion. Mr. Muir stated that he liked the proposal and the fact that Mr. Framer was cleaning up the property. He agreed that the plans could be better, but he supported the initiative and commented that a start-up business is always welcome in the community.
Motion for Petition No. 410-597
Based upon the findings of fact, Prescott Muir moved to approve the conditional use for auto sales on the combined property located at 830 South State Street with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant work with the Planning Director and the Staff in the Transportation Division to come up with the proximity of curb cuts, one to each other and to maximize the amount of landscape frontage across the entire combined parcel;
2. That the applicant meet with SEPTET and meet the conditions of SEPTET;
3. That the applicant provide appropriate certificates and permitting for the maintenance and continuance of the existing underground gasoline tanks.
Findings of Fact
A. The conditional use is authorized by the zoning ordinance.
B. The use is consistent with the master plans, zoning, and adjacent land uses.
C. The means of access to the property are adequate.
D. Internal circulation is adequate.
E. Public utilities are adequate.
F. Buffering is adequate.
G. The architectural details of the property are not being altered.
H. The landscaping will be increased from present conditions to meet code.
I. Operating hours are compatible with the adjacent businesses and the Central Business District in general.
J. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses in the Central Business District.
K. The auto sales lot will meet all other city codes prior to receiving a building permit.
John Diamond seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas asked if the entire 1.25-acre parcel could be used for auto sales with the conditions proposed in the motion. He was concerned about the amount of land not being addressed or identified.
Mr. Framer stated that there is 116 feet from the sidewalk to the fence. He was willing to provide five feet of landscaping where the customer parking is proposed, but he was not willing to do it across the front of the property, because he liked the idea of open driveways for RV’s and boats that will use the car wash.
Chair Daniels noted that the Planning Commission is dealing with a petition for outdoor auto sales, not a car wash. He understood that the Planning Commission would like to put limitations on the amount of land that can be used for auto sales and the number of vehicles that can be on the property at any given time. Mr. Goldsmith stated that Mr. Framer is willing to stipulate that only the 35 x 100 foot area will be used for auto sales. Ms. McDonough felt that limitation should be included in the motion.
After further discussion with Mr. Framer, Mr. Jonas amended the motion to add the following condition:
1. 20 feet from the south property line and 20 feet from the south border of the 35-foot frontage, a 5-foot landscaping strip will be required on the frontage, and the applicant also shall create a 5-foot landscape buffer running east and west on the south line of the 35-foot frontage. Only the area 35' x 116' from the curb can be used for car sales.
Mr. Muir accepted the amendment. Mr. Diamond seconded the amended motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “AYE.” Ms. Arnold and Ms. Funk were not present. Robert “Bip”Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Goldsmith shared the concern about the quality of the presentations submitted by the petitioners. He noted that not everyone has the capacity to hire an architect, and he offered to talk with Staff to see what they can do to help enhance the quality.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-565, requested by DeWayne Iverson of Iverson Homes L.C., to change the Conditional Use for the Madison Estates Phase 3 Subdivision, a 27-single family dwelling unit Planned Development in an R-1/7000 Zone, approved at the January 31, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. This request specifically concerns the method in which the City calculates density when open space is provided as an amenity to a planned development subdivision.
Chair Daniels stated that Mr. Iverson requested to speak before the Staff presentation, and he agreed to grant that request.
Mr. Iverson distributed copies of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Section 21-52, that he recently learned about and explained that he had underlined the specific paragraph he wished to address. Mr. Iverson addressed the issue of density and the calculations prepared by Staff. With that density and based on the information in the ordinance, there is enough land to accommodate the 27 lots being requested. In the past, the Staff has not used this information, but it does state what is and is not allowed. Mr. Iverson stated that the other issue is the permitted use to use property should there be an issue with the area within the property he owns. Salt Lake County only issues a revocable permit, and that permit can be revoked at any time. Mr. Iverson stated that he had 82 permits issued to Salt Lake City since 1983 that are revocable. This is the same kind of permit he was requesting and was granted. He remarked that, with the issuance of that permit, he had the ability to landscape the levee, irrigate it, maintain it, and use it to walk up and down the levee. If Salt Lake City can have the same ability he is requesting, he felt he was entitled to a permitted use for his property. If Salt Lake City’s permit can be revoked, then anyone’s permit can be revoked. He asked that the information provided this evening be incorporated into the final density calculation. If that is an issue, he requested that the Planning Commission consider as an alternative that the permit he requested and received from Salt Lake County allowing him to use the slope of the levee as part of the area be calculated in density. Based on this information, Mr. Iverson believed he was entitled to the 27 lots he initially requested.
John Francis, representing Desert Design, explained what has happened to parcels outside the boundary and some within the boundary to show why they have enough property to support 27 units.
Arla Funk joined the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Mr. Francis answered questions raised by the Commissioners, and after some discussion, Mr. Muir asked how much of the property contains the County right-of-way. Mr. Francis replied that the Salt Lake City right-of-way parcel is from the west side of the levee road to the edge of the new construction portion of Utah Street, all within the Utah Street right-of-way and all city-owned and dedicated. Mr. Muir asked if the City had any interest in selling that property to Mr. Iverson. Mr. Francis stated that they had never approached the City with the idea of buying that portion of the property. Mr. Muir felt that owning a piece of property fee simple, paying taxes on it, and using it as credit for undevelopable ground was different from property they do not own. Mr. Iverson understood that if he paid for the infrastructure that tied Utah Street to High Street, it would be allowed as credit toward open space, which is not in writing, but the plans show that he agreed to do it.
Ms. Funk felt that building a road was part of planning a subdivision and asked if the building of a road is often traded for property rights. It was noted that the ordinance specifies that roads must be built within the development and immediately adjacent to development, and the south 180 feet is not immediately adjacent.
Mr. Jonas asked what portion of the space is being used in the applicant’s density calculation. Mr. Francis replied that it is the landscape portion between the edge of the new street that will be constructed and the canal levee road. That portion is a dedicated right-of-way owned by the City. Mr. Jonas asked who would maintain that portion of the property. Mr. Francis replied that it will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Jonas asked if there was an agreement with the City to maintain that portion. Mr. Francis replied that it is in the Restricted Covenants and Homeowners Association Maintenance. The areas to be maintained will also be delineated on the plat. Mr. Jonas referred to the calculations presented in the applicant’s letter dated July 11 and asked what areas were calculated. Mr. Francis indicated what streets were taken out. Mr. Jonas asked why Lot A was being removed. Mr. Francis explained that was requested by the Planning Department because the area was undevelopable due to flood issues and could not be included. Mr. Jonas felt that a precedent had been set throughout the City of not including undevelopable land in density calculations. Mr. Wheelwright explained that applied only in the foothill districts. Mr. Jonas noted that the definition reads, “covered by water.” Mr. Wheelwright explained that that definition of undevelopable area refers to the foothill zoning district. The portion of the ordinance distributed by Mr. Iverson was the definition of undevelopable area used elsewhere in the ordinance which has nothing to do with density. Referring to the July 11 letter from the applicant, Mr. Jonas asked for an explanation of the levee parcel. It was explained that the levee parcel is the sloped area at the back of Lot 6 down to the edge of the right-of-way parcel beyond the common area Lots 1 through 6 and the sloped portion of the Levee Road and east side of the Levee Road. This area is covered by the flood control permit for maintenance and access.
Planner Greg Mikolash referred to the density calculations on page 6 of the staff report. He explained that the calculations presented to the Planning Department from Desert Design on July 1 most adequately represent what is going on with this plan and reviewed them. The staff report contains a breakdown of the two plans and a worst-case scenario if the Planning Commission does not agree to allow the area, known as revocable, to be calculated as density.
Mr. Muir referred to a piece between Lot A and the other parcels showing a boundary line along the west edge of the road. He asked where the piece of property east of that line was itemized and whether it qualifies. Mr. Mikolash replied that it would be included in the 17,000 square feet for the entire parcel. He referred to page 2 of the staff report and reviewed the original calculations on January 31.
After discussing the calculations and hearing from Mr. Iverson, Mr. Wheelwright explained that from the beginning of this project, the Planning Department never agreed to include the area of Lot A in the plat for any reason. That part of the County’s easement for the surplus canal is exclusive, and no one else can use it. It is a flood area that cannot be developed and has never been included in the calculations. He clarified that Mr. Iverson’s reference to the definition of undevelopable area that only applies in the Foothill Districts is a complete disregard for what he was told by Staff, and the Staff rejects his statement as an illogical assumption. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the first part of the staff report reviews the density definition. He explained that, if this were a straightforward subdivision in the R-1-7000 zone, the requirement under State law and City Ordinance would be that every lot be at least 7,000 square feet exclusive of any dedication for public purposes. The only flexibility to that rule is through the planned development process. When this was initially proposed to the Planning Commission, the Staff made it clear that it would be a departure from past practice in a way that would help facilitate this development if they accepted in the density calculation publicly-owned open space that would be permanently maintained by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Wheelwright believed that, in hindsight, that recommendation was a mistake. The developer always assured the City that he could deliver dedication to the public in perpetuity for the public to use the canal levee road and the slope. Mr. Iverson believed he could increase the density by using this area in his calculations, and the Staff could not support the inclusion of the described area. Since Mr. Iverson is unable to dedicate that land to the public, it should not be counted in the density calculation. Mr. Wheelwright stated that this subdivision does not comply with the zoning requirements if that area is excluded.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification that the excluded land belongs to the County, so it already belongs to the public. Giving Mr. Iverson a revocable permit to landscape and maintain that property would not change the fact that it is still public land. Mr. Jonas believed what the Planning Commission had approved was Mr. Iverson’s ability to get the permit and to allow it to be open to the public. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that it needs to be open to the public for perpetual pedestrian and open space use. Mr. Jonas stated that could only be changed by the County if they revoke his permit. He stated that he did not understand why they were penalizing the developer for something the County would not give him so he could give it back.
Mr. Muir asked if the City had ever approved a qualified property for density calculations that were not owned in fee simple. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the City never has, and they were very clear about that when this was presented.
Chair Daniels asked Mr. Mikolash to clarify the difference in density. Mr. Mikolash replied that the difference is 14,000 square feet.
Mr. Diamond asked if this development was required to all be single family. Mr. Goldsmith explained that the Planning Department explored mixed uses two years ago, and that idea was rejected by the property owner.
Mr. Mikolash read the Staff recommendations and the three options available. Mr. Muir verified with Staff that, if the Planning Commission follows the Staff recommendation to deny, the developer would still have options available to proceed, and it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission to dictate those options.
Ms. Funk asked if the developer would still be responsible for maintenance of the land if the Planning Commission did not allow him to include the area in his calculations. Mr. Mikolash replied that the County would be responsible for the area outside the applicant’s boundaries. Ms. Funk felt it would be safe to assume In that case that nothing would be done and that the area would remain in weeds.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Jay Ingleby, representing the West Salt Lake Community Council, stated that he has lived in this area since 1954, and if the Planning Commission denies this request and the land goes back to the City for maintenance, it will be no different than it has been since 1954. There is no maintenance, and the land continues to grow weeds. He stated that this project has been going on for three years, and every time they turn around there is a stumbling block with Salt Lake City. A month ago, 27 houses were approved, and the land they are discussing is a dump. Mr. Iverson is willing to take it over, landscape it to make it look nice for the community, and take care of it, which would cost the City less money. Mr. Ingleby stated that he faulted the Planning Staff for allowing this to drag on and making Mr. Iverson go through unnecessary exercises. Mr. Iverson has turned in eight sets of plans, and one set was lost by the City, which equates to incompetence in his mind. Mr. Ingleby believed the City was holding Mr. Iverson to one standard but allowing any standard for the rest of the City. He felt this was an issue of east side versus west side of Salt Lake City, and once again there is a dividing line.
Ms. Funk stated that she was offended by Mr. Ingleby’s attack on the Staff and Planning Commission. They are here to discuss whether Mr. Iverson should be allowed to build this subdivision. She stated that she was interested in hearing Mr. Ingleby’s comments if they pertain to the matter at hand but not his criticism of the process.
Mr. Ingleby asked the Planning Commission to approve this project to the betterment of the Glendale Community and Salt Lake City which will not have to maintain the land. He stated that the Army Corps of Engineers has not mowed the weeds along the canal since 1954. He asked the Planning Commission to allow Mr. Iverson to build his houses and pick up the additional land to maintain. Ms. Funk asked Mr. Ingleby for his report from the Community Council which he represents. Mr. Ingleby replied that the Community Council voted unanimously for the project and believed it has been dragged out way too long.
Mr. Jonas explained that Mr. Ingleby and the Community Council asked the Planning Commission to approve this once before, which they did. The project has changed, and they are here tonight to talk about whether those changes are acceptable. The Staff is doing their job, and it was Mr. Iverson who asked for the changes. Mr. Ingleby stated that his criticism comes from the fact that this project has taken three years. Mr. Jonas agreed that it had gone on too long. The City needs housing on the west side and Mr. Iverson is trying to provide it. Mr. Ingleby stated that the land is currently nothing but weeds, and it will remain weeds if the Planning Commission does not approve this request.
Linda Morgan, a resident of Madison Estates, stated that she believed Mr. Iverson and his salespeople had sold the Planning Commission a bill of goods the same as he did her and other homeowners. She stated that she had spoken with people throughout the neighborhood and asked if they were told that the subdivision was a planned unit development with a Homeowners Association. Most of the people she spoke with said they were not told. She invited several people to attend the meeting this evening to speak to the Planning Commission and made arrangements for an interpreter to aid those who do not speak English. Ms. Morgan commented on the promises made by Mr. Iverson and Iverson Homes and that those promises were not kept. Mr. Iverson set up a Homeowners Association meeting on April 18, and only nine homeowners attended. She encouraged Mr. Iverson to schedule another meeting before voting on officers to allow for better representation. Mr. Iverson agreed to schedule another meeting in four weeks, which would have been May 18. She called him on May 19 and left a voice mail, and he has not returned her call. After finally reaching him on his cell phone two weeks ago, he informed her that he had sent letters out to people but did not send her a copy. She asked Mr. Iverson if he had received a certified letter she sent him. knowing that he did not because it was returned to her stamped “refused, unclaimed.” Ms. Morgan stated that Mr. Iverson ignores phone calls and letters and does not follow through on his promise to the Planning Commission or the Homeowners. She believed Mr. Iverson should be stopped on the current phase until he corrects the problems in Phase 1 and 2.
Ms. Garcia, a homeowner at Madison Estates, stated that she and her husband were promised many things, but the promises were not kept. They never received a letter about the Homeowners Association and were there when a second meeting was announced. Ms. Garcia felt she spoke for many of her neighbors as they all have many problems with promises not being kept. She did not think Mr. Iverson should be allowed to construct more houses until he kept the promises made to them. The guarantee they have on their homes is for ten years, but Mr. Iverson has done nothing to fix the problems.
Archie Archuleta interpreted comments from a homeowner who said he had many problems with the home he bought on the south end. He had problems with the paint on his walls, and his air conditioner was never installed. The doors in his home do not close well.
Mr. Muir asked Chair Daniels to instruct the audience in both languages that, although they respect their concerns regarding past performance issues, this is not the forum for breach of contract and title related issues. There are options for remedy, but this is not the appropriate body. Mr. Muir did not want the public to have false expectations about what the Planning Commission could do to help them.
Mr. Archuleta replied that the people are suggesting that the problems in Phases 1 and 2 should prevent Mr. Iverson from obtaining approval to build more.
Ms. Funk asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to prevent development on Phase 3 until problems are cleared up in the Phases that have been built. Mr. Wheelwright felt it would be difficult to make a rational connection between problems with a prior project and the building of this project.
Ms. Morgan felt that past performance should be indicative of what could be expected in the next phase. She asked people to attend this evening because most cannot speak English, and she felt this was a good venue. They all have a communication problem with Mr. Iverson, including those who speak English, because he does not return phone calls. If Mr. Iverson does not understand the people who speak Spanish, she wondered how they would get their complaints heard. That was why she asked Mr. Archuleta to attend this evening.
Chair Daniels felt it was within the Planning Commission’s purview to listen to everyone who came to speak as long as they did not expect the Planning Commission to fix their problems. He explained that the Planning Commission is here this evening to decide on this particular project, not the phases that have been completed.
Samantha Francis, a property owner on Mead Avenue, stated that she plans to construct three homes on that property, and Mr. Iverson will be the builder. She stated that they are here to discuss the property issue, and if the Planning Commission does not allow Mr. Iverson to use the property, they should not allow Salt Lake City to use the property next to hers on Mead Avenue for the Jordan Parkway. If there are flood plains and the City has a permit to use it for a parkway, she did not understand why Mr. Iverson could not do the same thing in his development. Ms. Francis believed there was some kind of vendetta going on with this subdivision. She believed three years was absolutely ridiculous, not to mention the added cost to the developer. Mr. Iverson wants to build 27 homes, and they need homes on the west side of Salt Lake in order to get stores like Wal-Mart or K-Mart to move west of the Jordan River.
Mr. Archuleta interpreted comments for Maria Rivera, a homeowner who stated that she had problems with her yard when she moved in, but no one came to fix them, and they did not pay any attention to her. She has no air conditioning, and her rugs rise up on the first and second floor. The Formica is coming up in her kitchen. Ms. Rivera stated that, within a year, they have not fixed her yard, and she does not know what to expect with the rest of the house.
Tobi Rios stated that she also purchased a home four months ago in the area and never knew there was a Homeowners Association. She was never told when she first looked at the lots, and it was never mentioned at the time of closing. She has children and lives on a corner. In order to protect her children, she put up a fence. The person who sold her the home was there when she had her fence measured and told her there would be a white vinyl fence installed that would cover the back of her home. Once her fence was installed, she was told she needed to remove her $1,300 chain link fence because she was not allowed to have it, which was the first time she had heard anything about that. She put in a fence because of the crazy drivers who speed up and down the roads and the number of cars parked all over the street.
Mr. Archuleta clarified that the Planning Commission is not empowered to deny this request on the basis of past performance. When he was told this was correct, he asked for the opportunity to explain this to the public in Spanish. Mr. Archuleta asked what options the homeowners have in this type of situation.
Carl Alvarez read a letter from him and his wife stating that he bought his home from Mr. Iverson. There are cracks in the driveway, and the cement is cracking in other places in his home. Inside the house, the cabinets and kitchen walls have holes. The holes were there when he moved in, and the real estate agent told him they would be fixed. It has been over a year, but nothing has been fixed, and the problems keep growing. The garage door is hard to close, and the top of the garage keeps bending. They have tried to get the problems solved, but nobody seems to care, and nothing gets done.
Jill Jensen, a lot owner, stated that there are eight homes in the subdivision, and they cannot have snow plows come down their street because the houses are too close together. Fire trucks will not come into their area because there are too many houses for the area. No one has been told where they can and cannot park, and no one has been told what the center area is used for. Speed limits are not posted. With all these problems, they are still expected to look across the street at 27 more houses built that close together. She commented that, if there is a fire in the area, it will be a domino effect, and nothing will be saved. She understood the need for housing on the west side because she lives on the west side. She did not have a problem with her house, because it was one of the first houses built. She works for a contracting company, so she had problems fixed as they went along. They should consider the people who cannot speak English and who were sold houses so someone could make a lot of money in a short period of time. These people were not told the truth, and they were not given the opportunity to read the fine print.
Vanna Wynn, a resident in the Prospect Street area, stated that the houses are so close that when her neighbors park their cars on the street, she cannot see the kids when she backs out of her driveway. Kids walk everywhere, and they have no place to go. There are bugs and trash, and she cannot live in that environment. She invested a lot of money in her home, and she would like to see the problems fixed.
Ralph Anderson, a 50-year resident in the area abutting Utah Street, was not concerned with the density problem unless it would add more safety problems that need to be addressed. He commented on the children waiting to catch the school buses and explained the problems that occur. Another problem is the revocable position of Salt Lake County to use public funds and maintenance for the right-of-way and flood control area. The fact that the revocable part has never been enforced against other areas is immaterial. They want the area protected. Mr. Anderson opposed the extension of Utah Street because it narrows down and goes into a right-of-way turn. The Army Corps of Engineers should have a statement for the Planning Commission if they intend to go that far. He understood that a fence would be installed along the canal, and he thought the Homeowners Association should get this in writing to make sure it is enforced. Mr. Anderson believed the water disposal pond at the south end at the point would create a lot of problems. He asked the Planning Commission to make sure that agreements for fencing and landscaping are put in writing so people do not have to take the developer’s word for it and noted that his comment is directed to all developers, not just Mr. Iverson. They should get things in writing to make sure they are enforced.
Ana Jerome, a homeowner in Madison Estates, was concerned about how Mr. Iverson keeps talking about the Homeowners Association maintaining the common area. A homeowners association is yet to be established, and she has lived there for more than a year and a half. Many of the homes have multiple families living in them. The roads are narrow, and people drive very fast. Kids run around everywhere. Ms. Jerome stated that she was most concerned with the Homeowners Association that was supposed to be formed and still has not happened.
John Noorda, a resident at 1425 Utah Street, believed the road would be too narrow and would come within six feet of his property line, which is a safety hazard because people went down that road 60 mph when it was accessed through. When it is developed, it will become a worse problem. The width of the road also makes it hard for him to get in and out of his property.
Michael Polacek, a resident of Utah Commons stated that he did not intend to speak this evening, but the concerns expressed by people in the first two phases brought up issues that need to be addressed. He commented that the original plan for the land was for 44 homes, and over time and with negotiations between City Planning and Mr. Iverson, it was slowly whittled down to 27 units which were approved by the Planning Commission. Originally, everyone living directly across Utah Street would have preferred a mixed-use development with mixed residential, multi-family, and small-scale commercial included in the area to make it a walkable community. However, the developer was not interested in doing that. They all came to the conclusion that 27 homes was something they could live with along with the design they agreed on. Mr. Polacek noted that the Planning Commission added conditions to the approval regarding porches, driveways, etc. Some of the problems with Phases 1 and 2 made him realize that anything required of the new development needs to be enforced either by the City or the developer. He was unsure how this could be done, but it is necessary. He stated that Phase 3 was never discussed or agreed to at the Community Council. However, the City and Mr. Iverson have been able to negotiate things over time.
Naomi Franklin stated that she was confused as to why this was still an open issue. The land is no longer a weed patch, and a lot of infrastructure is in place. The project is well under way and is supposedly being built in agreement with what the Planning Commission previously approved. She asked why there was still a question as to how many units could be put on the property.
Joanne Lovejoy submitted her comments in writing. She was concerned that if Mr. Iverson got extra land, he would try to increase his density. She believed the people had been misled with regard to the Homeowners Association, and there is no commitment to care for this space.
Mr. Iverson addressed some of the comments. He stated that he sent to everyone the notice of a homeowners meeting. More than nine people showed up, but he could not hold the meeting because less than 50 percent attended. Two letters were returned because the people no longer live there. Regarding the man who complained about not having air conditioning, Mr. Iverson stated that he had worked with him and promised air conditioning if he closed within a certain time. He has only been in the house three weeks, and Mr. Iverson had heard nothing from him about issues other than the air conditioning. The other people who complained that there was no air conditioning probably did not buy air conditioning, and this is the first he had heard that there was an issue with the carpet. He stated that he has a man working full time to take care of problems. He stated that, when he goes into the houses of some of the people who have called, he finds that kids are swinging on the doors and breaking them off. He commented on the traffic issue and stated that he had the police department come down and issued tickets so they could get people to park in the right direction and limit the number of cars parked on the street. This worked as long as the police were there, and he did not understand why they did not come back. Mr. Iverson commented that the man who said he was too close to the road built his fence too close to City property.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jonas focused on the density issue and what the Planning Commission will accept for this project. The Planning Commission already accepted 27 lots based on a certain configuration, and they asked the developer to modify his original plans to add open space. They also asked that the project have a connection into Utah Street, which was added. Mr. Jonas reviewed the calculations and stated that, leaving out the issue of Lot A, the one area referred to in the July 11 letter is the Salt Lake City right-of-way parcel which the City owns but has no use for and which would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. He stated that he was not opposed to including this in the calculations and felt they should not drag this on any longer. He preferred to have the parcel maintained by the Association rather than not maintaining it at all. The development is a positive addition to the west side, and he believed they could find ways to allow 27 lots and move the developer forward.
Mr. Muir stated that he agreed in principle but did not see how the Planning Commission could legitimately allow it unless the developer owns the property fee simple and uses that to qualify. If he were able to purchase the Salt Lake City right-of-way parcel and then include landscaping along the levee on property he did not own, Mr. Muir felt that would be enough inducement to allow 3,500 feet and give the developer an additional unit. He believed that discussion could be held another time, but this evening he could see no other option but to deny.
Ms. Noda agreed that it comes down to the fact that Mr. Iverson does not own the property in fee simple. The Staff’s analysis is sound on that point, and she did not see how they could get around it. She commented that the Staff had no control over this in any way, and she felt it was inappropriate for anyone to blame them for this. The recommendation has to do with the County and the issue of revocability.
Mr. Chambless agreed with Ms. Noda and Mr. Muir. The developer does not own enough property to justify the density. He also agreed that the matter needs to be resolved, because it has gone on for three years, and they need housing on the west side. Given the circumstances, he felt they should uphold the Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Jonas asked about the fee property Mr. Iverson does own that will not be included. Mr. Wheelwright did not think there was any way to say that undevelopable land could meet the density requirement. There is a specific process for that in the foothills where lot sizes are larger and the issues are different. Mr. Jonas asked why the ordinance says “covered by water,” because there is no “covered by water” in the foothills. Mr. Wheelwright replied that it could mean a landscaped fountain entry feature like the one at Federal Point. It could also be a detention pond that was developed as an amenity.
Ms. Noda agreed with Mr. Wheelwright that the provision was written for the foothills. As much as they would like to do this, she did not see any way around it. It was her opinion that it is an issue of revocability, because it gives them no assurance and leaves the City vulnerable. She also had concerns with the problems some of the people have experienced with the prior subdivision. She understood that the Planning Commission could do nothing about it, but she wanted Mr. Iverson to know that it left her very concerned. She encouraged him to try again to work with these people to address their grievances.
Mr. Diamond stated that the Planning Commission does have the opportunity to approve this project for 25 lots based on the density and square footage. He believed they could learn something from the comments heard tonight regarding narrow streets, parking, vehicular access, line of sight, and other issues, all of which need to be addressed. He believed it would be helpful for the developer to submit a site plan so they could see these things and noted that his suggestion applied to all developers, not just Mr. Iverson. Mr. Diamond stated that he could not stand behind this request, because it is too dense for the site. However, it does meet the calculations at 25 lots.
Mr. Chambless stated that he wished the developers could live in the community in which they develop property. If a developer lived among the neighbors in that neighborhood, he would have greater empathy and concern for the problems people experience living in the community. At some point, the developer needs to be held responsible. At this point, the Planning Commission must make a decision about whether Mr. Iverson can build a faulty project that can benefit the entire area.
Mr. Jonas stated that he had worn a developer’s hat, and he has taken complaint calls. He knows which calls are fair and which are not. Some are legitimate and some are not, and he did not want to cast blame on either side.
Mr. Muir asked if the Planning Commission could approve 25 units and remand it back to Staff
to determine which lots should be dedicated as open space. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Staff thinks it is already approved, and the number of lots falls out of the zoning analysis. The Planning Commission has already approved 25 lots, and it would be helpful for them to reaffirm their policy on what kinds of open space in the planned development they will accept toward density.
Motion for Petition No. 410-565
Prescott Muir moved to deny the petition based upon the Staff’s report and the inability of the developer to qualify enough acreage to justify a PUD of 27 units. Tim Chambless seconded the motion.
Ms. Funk was concerned with a straight denial and stated that she would prefer to move ahead with the 25 units. Mr. Muir clarified that approval for 25 units has already been granted. Mr. Jonas asked if they should allow the developer to acquire more land. Mr. Muir felt that would be a separate recommendation to the Staff. Mr. Jonas asked if the benefit of Mr. Iverson’s care of the levee would be a way to allow flexibility in density. He saw that as a real benefit, particularly when the temperatures are high and the weeds and ground are dry. It is a fire hazard, and Mr. Iverson has presented a way to take care of that problem. Mr. Muir shared that incentive and felt one option would be to see if the developer could strike a deal to swap the right-of-way ground at the end of Utah Street for Lot A. After discussing allowing credit for landscaping, Mr. Wheelwright noted that they have required developers in the past to landscape property they did not own as a condition of approval, but they have never entered into a density credit for it. He was unsure how a credit for landscaping could equate to meeting the zoning requirements for overall density.
Chair Daniels stated that if the motion on the floor passes, the planned development still has options. Ms. McDonough clarified that the motion to deny is based on 27 lots and the calculations being proposed by the developer.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-10, by Deanna Todd requesting a zoning change from RMF 30 to CN, to facilitate a change of use of an existing residential structure to a hair salon located at 704 East 900 South.
Planner Marilynn Lewis reviewed the request for a zoning map amendment and an amendment to the adopted Central Development Plan. She outlined the findings, issues, and recommendations as presented in the Staff report.
Ms. Funk asked how long the City had been studying non-conforming uses. Mr. Wilde replied that it has been a long time. Based on this, Ms. Funk requested a time line if the City planned to recommend that they hold a decision until the study is completed.
The petitioner was not present. Ms. Lewis reported that she spoke with the petitioner last week, and she was notified of this hearing. The petitioner did not indicate whether she would attend but wanted to be sure the process moved forward.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Dennis Guysell, Chairman of East Central Community Council, stated that East Central has expressed reservations about this petition in the E-mails attached to the staff report. It appeared that considerable misunderstanding and misrepresentation had pervaded the purchase of the property, but the neighborhood should not suffer the result of any change in existing uses. Mr. Guysell requested that the Planning Commission not approve this petition.
Marsha Thomas, a resident in the house adjacent to the property in question, opposed the change in zoning. There had been a for sale sign on the property for the last two months, which led her to believes the hair salon was questionable. It appears to be the current owner’s intent to sell that property, and the change in zoning could bring in something completely different than what is being proposed. Ms. Thomas believed changing the zone to neighborhood commercial would change the flavor of the neighborhood.
Paul Trentelman stated that Marsha Thomas is his wife, and their property is the only one with common property lines with the property in question. He voiced his opposition and agreed with the East Central Community Council. He questioned why the neighborhood should suffer when the applicant made a mistake a year ago. They only needed to call the Zoning Board to ask if the current zoning would allow a hair salon. They went by the Realtor’s recommendation, and it turned out to be a bad move on their part. Mr. Trentelman reiterated his opposition based on traffic, noise, and parking issues.
Al Mueller, the realtor who sold the property, stated that the property in question has been used commercially for 38 years, so he did not understand what the neighbors meant when they talked about their peace and quiet on 700 East and 900 South. He stated that the information he received from the Zoning Department was that a planned change of zoning was in the works which would take approximately two years. The zoning was called Neighborhood Business, and that was the basis on which Deanna Todd purchased the property. Because of this lengthy process and the frustration involved, the Todds have decided against using that property for their new salon and day spa and are looking for new property elsewhere. Mr. Mueller felt that harping about residential values on that corner was somewhat overdone. He stated that he spends a lot of time in that area, and he did not think that residential was the best use.
Margaret Brady, Vice-Chair of the East Liberty Park Community Organization, felt the staff report summarized most of their concerns. They do not oppose non-residential use for buildings, but they do have a problem with 900 South and have many concerns about the 900 South corridor. The small area plan for Ninth and Ninth does not go as far as 700 East, and before zoning changes are made, that plan needs to be looked at in terms of what will happen with the rest of the corridor. They definitely do not want to see a strip mall. Ms. Brady stated that changes of zoning along that corridor without an overriding document or plan would be problematic.
Andrew Fletcher stated that he is a resident in the neighborhood, a small business owner on the corner of 900 East and 900 South, and Vice-Chair of the East Central Community Council. Mr. Fletcher spoke against the petition. He stated that he sees the parking issues that result from his store when employees and customers have to park in the neighborhood streets. A day spa where people will go in and out on hourly appointments will clog up already congested neighborhood streets that are filled with children, families, and people walking pets. The corner is extremely busy, and reports show that the police have issues with children crossing and additional traffic. Mr. Fletcher asked that the Planning Commission deny this petition based on the impacts to the neighborhood.
Irwin Hunsaker, a resident on 700 East, stated that he did not have an opinion on the zone change, but he wanted to know what would happen if the zone were changed to commercial and the people decided they no longer wanted a salon. He expressed concern about upkeep of the property and whether it would stay grass or be changed to cement.
Mr. Wilde replied that if the zoning is changed to CN without any restriction, the CN zone allows for retail service, retail sales, and restaurants subject to meeting parking and other zoning requirements. A person could either use that building or replace it with a new building unless a restriction is placed on it.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Funk felt that the answer was clear cut since the petitioner did not bother to come and the Realtor said they intended to move on. In addition, it was clear that the community and Staff opposed this petition.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-10
Arla Funk moved to deny Petition 400-02-10 for an amendment to the community zoning map to change from RMF-30 to CN based on the findings of fact as presented in the staff report and the testimony before this Commission. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed amendment works against the strategies of the adopted Master Plan to provide continuity to residential neighborhoods. One of the main policies of the Central Community Development Plan is to protect and enhance neighborhoods and to restrict the creation of commercial strips. The plan states, “cutbacks on excessive commercial zoning will strengthen the existing commercial centers and is the major short range implementation measure.” These elements of the plan should not be amended to support rezoning a single corner property.
B. There are no businesses allowed in the RMF-30 zone other than home occupations as identified in the Zoning Ordinance. A day care facility is an example of a “home occupation.” Changing the zone in one location along 700 East would set a precedent to allow the same type of change to occur on other 700 east properties in the Central Community residential neighborhood as well as corner properties in other neighborhoods throughout the City.
C. Residents are concerned that a business of this nature, a hair salon, will produce more on-street parking as a result of overflow from the designated parking lot. Furthermore, rezoning the property may lead to impacts to the abutting residential properties with future commercial uses allowed in the CN zone.
D. A proposal for development of the site was not included with this petition. Any development proposal must meet City standards relating to the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay.
E. The Department of Public Utilities is not adamantly opposed to the hair salon. However, all new businesses, especially those that will contribute to chemical discharge within a drinking water aquifer recharge area, are subject to State law covered by City Ordinance 21A.34.060 of the Salt Lake City Code, and must submit plans for review. Business owners are responsible for ensuring that all materials are disposed of properly.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Referring to the Iverson matter, Mr. Jonas asked why, when they were doing the road strip, they did not include the last little piece as surplus. Mr. Goldsmith offered to find out and report back at a future meeting.
Mr. Goldsmith stated for the record that the three years being blamed on the Planning Department for taking so long was not accurate. The Planning Department works very closely with developers to get things developed expeditiously. This particular developer is of the opinion that the Planning Department has deliberately dragged this out, which is not true. Mr. Wilde expected Mr. Iverson would come back to explore his options to recapture Lot 27. Ms. Funk stated that she had watched Mr. Iverson work over the years, and his typical pattern is to try to get more and more.
Mr. Muir stated that he suspected many of the complaints heard this evening were social issues, but if there are fundamental physical issues related to the first two phases that the City could change in an effort to improve the life of the residents, he believed they should glean what they are. Mr. Goldsmith replied that having Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, and Ms. McDonough as Planning Commissioners would help with some of those issues. The Planning Commission has been without the eyes of professional designers, and he believed these Commissioners could help identify density issues and different ways to construct subdivisions.
Chair Daniels noted that the issue of enforcement kept coming up this evening. Once there are items and agreements in place, the City should see that they are enforced. As they look at other phases, he hoped the right people would have the right information and that someone would follow through to make sure things are done right. Mr. Muir was interested in knowing why the homeowners association was not working in that neighborhood. Mr. Goldsmith replied that Mr. Archuleta is head of the Mayor’s Office for Minority Affairs, and Mr. Goldsmith has promised him that he will look into the problems raised this evening. They were taken by surprise this evening because they had no idea that the neighbors were coming with their grievances. Mr. Goldsmith suggested meeting with the head of City Housing to discuss the homeowners association problems. Mr. Muir felt this information was important. If the formula is not working because of social dynamics, they should think twice about PUD’s as a viable option.
Mr. Jonas suggested that the Planning Commission consider moving its retreat back to September due to the number of meetings scheduled for July and August. Mr. Goldsmith stated that he was comfortable with that suggestion and offered to schedule a time in September if this would be best for the other Commissioners. The Planning Commissioners favored postponing the retreat until September.
Reconsideration of the Planning Commission decision to deny Petition No. 410-588, by Zions Securities Corp., for a surface parking lot located along 100 South (north side of the street) between State and 200 East Streets.
Planner Dansie stated that he did not have much new information because the Planning Commission requested that this be called up for re-consideration. One question raised previously was whether to demolish the parking lot at the same time the buildings are demolished. He re-affirmed the building permits for everything along First South and found that the Key Bank building was built in the early 1950's when parking was not required, so it was built without parking. The existing parking lot with 92 stalls was built as a parking lot and was owned separately from the Key Bank Building. There was a Board of Adjustment decision which allowed the Lawyers Building to be built without parking. The Fire Station was built with minimal parking. The question about whether the parking should be torn down when the buildings are is answered by the existing parking being permitted and built completely separate from any of the buildings. All the buildings could be torn down and still keep the existing 92-stall parking lot. The issue is whether the Planning Commission wants to keep the existing lot in its existing configuration or the proposed lot in the new configuration. Mr. Dansie commented that sometimes conflicting messages are sent to the community as to where they want to go with parking lots.
Chair Daniels felt there was confusion when this petition was considered previously about parking lots in general. One of the Commissioners had commented that the Planning Commission cannot allow this to be another parking lot. He also heard that it would be better as a cleaned-up and landscaped parking lot rather than a piece of ground that does nothing and looks awful. For this reason, he was glad that the Planning Commission voted to bring it back.
Mr. Muir stated that the master plan discourages surface parking lots as a conditional use, and typically they would grant a conditional use only if it were not in conflict with the master plan. He clarified that the recommendation to approve is based on the fact that the configuration of the lot and the landscaping is better than the underlying grandfathered parking that would exist otherwise. Mr. Dansie noted that the master plan discourages surface parking lots but does not prohibit them, and there was a question about their validity for interim use. There are approved surface parking lots elsewhere in the downtown area. Mr. Muir asked if the master plan addresses interim use. Mr. Dansie replied that it places priority on structures and structure parking.
Ms. McDonough commented that the master plan does not directly address interim use. It addresses parking, but not how the land is best used while waiting to be developed. She believed a better option would be to request that the Staff add text and re-examine interim use on the site. She believed the choices of a post-demolition state or surface parking were very limited alternatives, and talking about green space and landscaping might be better uses. Mr. Goldsmith favored the suggestion of drafting language into the master plan, because it could address many situations.
Mr. Diamond agreed and felt they had a responsibility to the urban fabric of the City and needed to do something about it. He personally preferred no parking and all landscaping until someone chooses to develop. He asked how the number of proposed parking spaces was reached. Mr. Dansie replied that 92 parking spaces exist, and approximately 163 are proposed in the new configuration. He stated that he has no mechanism to stop the demolition or force landscaping, and the applicant has a right to a 92-stall parking lot. Denial of this request will not stop the demolition nor force the landscaping.
Mr. Chambless asked if they would get nothing but a sheet of asphalt if the Planning Commission does nothing. Mr. Dansie replied that they would get the existing sheet of asphalt.
Motion for Petition No. 410-588
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 410-588 by Zions Securities for a commercial surface parking lot along 100 South between State and 200 East. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond voted “Nay.” Ms. Arnold was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Briefing on Central Community Master Plan
Mr. Goldsmith commented that the investment on the part of the community to write this master plan cannot be overstated. It is truly a community master plan, and hundreds of hours have been invested over many years to develop a plan that reflects the right of self-determination on one hand and the City’s policies and goals on the other. After inheriting this plan two years ago in poor condition, he spent a year working with Staff to get it back on track. It has now been through months of re-writing and editing, much of which was done by the community.
Mr. Wilde stated that the purpose of the discussion this evening is to prepare the Planning Commission for the public hearing and answer any questions.
Planner Everett Joyce indicated a number of incorrect page numbers and noted that a neighborhood evaluation map was left off the master plan. He reported that an open house was held June 27 on the master plan, and nine issues were raised at that meeting. He distributed his responses to those issues for the Planning Commission to review before the public hearing. With direction from the Planning Commission, he hoped to schedule a public hearing on August 1. He explained the process that started with direction from the Planning Commission over a year ago and the changes that have evolved.
Mr. Muir stated that he participated in the original draft, and one conflict he felt was never resolved was between Historic Districts and TOD. He had hoped that the master plan would provide some direction. Mr. Everett replied that the master plan states that, when a conflict exists between the Historic District and TOD, the Historic District overlay standards will prevail.
In response to a question from Mr. Diamond about area or global zoning, Cheri Coffey explained that, when they develop a master plan, they get a lot of input from a few people. Rezoning a property is when property owners come out, so the decision makers might not go along with the master plan at that time.
Chair Daniels referred to the implementation portion of the plan and asked about the term “public services.” Mr. Joyce replied that it refers to storm drains, trash pick-up, etc. Chair Daniels asked for inclusion of Public Services and the Salt Lake Police Department on page 109, item 18.
Mr. Chambless asked how many people are in the field doing code enforcement. Mr. Goldsmith replied that there are 25 people in the Division, and eight or nine are in the field doing enforcement. They are currently looking at changing how that will be done. Chair Daniels understood that enforcement efforts occur when someone calls in with a complaint. The issues of enforcement and complaints was discussed. Mr. Goldsmith stated that enforcement is also done through the weed and seed program which targets specific neighborhoods.
Ms. Funk suggested that the specific headings be carried over to the top of each column on the pages following page 107. She stated that she was comfortable with holding a public hearing on August 1, but she did not feel the Planning Commission would have enough time to evaluate the information and be ready to take action on August 1. The Commissioners directed Mr. Joyce to notice a public hearing for August 1.
Mr. Goldsmith credited Cheri Coffey for her hard work and effort in preparing the master plan. Ms. McDonough complimented everyone involved on the work that was done. She felt the document was easy to peruse, and the key points and issues were easy to identify.
Ms. Funk referred to the issues raised at the open house and, after hearing how they came about, she asked if those issues could still be incorporated into the master plan. Mr. Wilde stated that the intent is for the Planning Commission to resolve the issues before taking action.
Ms. Coffey clarified that the policies were not changed but were only made clearer. Mr. Muir felt they should include the inter-modal hub if they go that far west. He believed there should be some linkage between the transportation element and the land use.
Chair Daniels referred to the issue statement on page 5 and the heading, “Creating unique and active places.” In much of his reading, the same statement would read, “Creating unique and active spaces.” He asked if that wording would make a difference. Mr. Joyce did not believe it would.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.