SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair, Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, and Kathy Scott. Craig Galli and Jennifer Seelig were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Everett Joyce, Principal Planner Lex Traughber; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, June 23, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the June 23, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
This item was heard at 5:46 p.m.
Chair Muir said that the most recent meeting with the City Council Chair and Vice Chair was a continuum of the ongoing discussions regarding the Master Plan process and receiving the opinions of the City Council relevant to that. He noted that the City Council indicated that they would like the Master Plans reduced to be less prescriptive in terms of setting zoning policy.
Chair Muir noted that as a result of the Planning Commission Retreat of June 30, 2004 the Planning Commission decided to formulate a letter to the City Council. He asked for clarification regarding the content of that letter. Is the intent of the letter to question the City Council regarding their rejection of walkable neighborhoods and other petitions that have been forwarded to the City Council which they have not acted upon; or is the intent of the letter to address the Planning Commission’s concern regarding the lack of Planning Staff members and their inability to cope with the work load.
Commissioner McDonough said that she felt that both issues were discussed at the retreat and both issues should be addressed in the letter. She added that she felt the underlying issue is the general relationship of the Planning Commission and City Council as well as the Commissioners feeling ineffective as volunteers.
Commissioner Diamond felt another issue that should be included in the letter is what the priorities of the City Council are and how the items that are brought before the Planning Commission contribute to their priorities.
Chair Muir noted the difference of what the two bodies feel are important to them, saying that the Planning Commission is more policy driven and the City Council is grounded in serving their specific constituencies, as elected officials and may be somewhat challenged by the Planning Commission’s agenda.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Commission decided to wait for the summary of the Planning Commission retreat from the facilitator before drafting the letter to the City Council. He stated that he will provide the Planning Commission with the Summary as soon as he receives it.
Commissioner Chambless stated that in the most recent Planning Commission and City Council Chair and Vice Chair meeting the Council has mentioned concerns with the new budget and fiscal constraints. He said that the Planning Commission is not necessarily concerned with the fiscal aspects but rather the planning aspects.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:52 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the Salt Lake City zoning maps that were provided to the Commission for their reference. Mr. Zunguze stated that the North Salt Lake City boundary adjustment issue will be coming back to the Commission for review soon. This issue will go before the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee (MOSAC) for a recommendation on July 21, 2004. Once MOSAC has made a recommendation the item will come before the Planning Commission for action. Mr. Zunguze indicated that as the Planning Commission has requested, Staff has come up with a few dates for the Planning Commission to visit the North Salt Lake City property.
Mr. Wheelwright offered three dates for the Planning Commission site visit. The Commission agreed to meet for that visit Monday, August 9, 2004 at the City and County Building at 3:30 p.m. or the Commissioners may choose to meet at the site at 4:00 p.m. He indicated that the Commission should plan to be at the site for about an hour.
Commissioner De Lay asked if Staff could provide a Salt Lake City zoning map for reference at every Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Zunguze agreed.
Initiated Petitions
Mr. Zunguze requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition as part of the ongoing work that Staff is doing to clean up the 1995 zoning rewrite. At that time approximately 1600 properties were reviewed and in the course of the review errors were made. Staff has been working to rectify those errors through a fine-tuning petition of which phase one is complete. Mr. Zunguze asked the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to begin phase two of the fine-tuning petition.
Commissioner Scott initiated the said petition.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
This item was heard at 5:56 p.m.
a. Salt Lake Arts Academy and Salt Lake City Property Management Division – Salt Lake Arts Academy, a public charter middle school, is requesting that Salt Lake City lease approximately 15,000 square feet of the Old Library Building located at 209 East 500 South on an interim basis. The Old Library Building contains approximately 120,000 square feet and is located in a “PL-2” Public Lands Zoning District.
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve item A of the consent agenda.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay asked if there are issues with asbestos or lead based paint associated with this project.
Ms. Linda Cordova, Salt Lake City Property Manager addressed the Commission saying that she cannot verify completely regarding the amount of environmental work that has been done on the Library; however, it has been extensive. She said that when the refurbishment of the Library begins there may be additional asbestos material that will be exposed but is not exposed to the school at this time. She stated that she is not aware of lead based paint; however, there may be some in the mechanical rooms which will be mitigated at the time of refurbishment.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
b. Lapis Development L.L.C. and Salt Lake City Property Management Division – Lapis Development L.L.C is requesting that an existing public waterline be removed and that new privately owned facilities be constructed to serve a proposed Planned Development located at approximately 8970 S. Danish Road. The easement associated with this water line will be quit claimed back to the property owner at current market value as determined by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division. This project is located outside Salt Lake City Limits.
Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve item B noted on the consent agenda.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-668, by Richard Young, requesting a planned development approval to construct an addition on the existing art studio at 602 West South Temple. The property is located in the “GMU”, Gateway Mixed Use zoning district. The Applicant is also requesting conditional use approval to waive the design standards and minimum height requirement of the “GMU” zoning district for the addition.
This item was heard at 5:59 p.m.
Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey presented the petition as written in the staff report. Ms. Coffey stated that the request is for a planned development because the site is located in the Gateway Mixed Use Zoning District, as well as a conditional use request for the exception to the Urban Design and minimum height requirements in that zone. Ms. Coffey identified the property, saying that most of the surrounding property is vacant and associated with the Union Pacific Railroad. Ms. Coffey stated that the building on the site was built in 1939. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 1,280 foot, prefabricated addition to the west of the structure. She added that the color will match the existing structure and the roof pitch will be the same, although the addition will be about one foot higher than the existing structure. Ms. Coffey noted that the City is currently looking at installing quad gates along the railroad corridor in the area. Ms. Coffey stated that currently there is no onsite parking associated with the property which is not required under this zone due to the small scale of the building. The Applicant is not currently proposing additional parking. The Applicant currently parks on South Temple and there is on street parking along 600 West. If the quad gates are installed there would be limited parking along South Temple. If the Applicant decides to install parking he will be required to meet City standards by hard surfacing the parking, access, and location.
Ms. Coffey stated that the relevant City Departments and Community Councils support the project. She noted that the Engineering Division is requiring that an SID waiver be granted for this proposal. Ms. Coffey noted that the “GMU” Zoning District requires several design regulations to make development more pedestrian friendly. One of the design elements requires that 25 percent of the building can not be setback more than five feet from the property line. Because the structure is existing and the proposal is for an addition, Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission waive that requirement. Ms. Coffey added that the location of the site is not in a very pedestrian friendly area. She stated that another requirement is that the minimum height of the building is 45 feet. The current height of the structure is 12 feet in height and the addition is proposed to be 13 feet in height. Ms. Coffey stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive that height requirement through the conditional use process due to the fact the proposal is a small scale project, and it is an addition to an existing structure.
Ms. Coffey referred to the area Master Plan saying that it identifies the site area as Commercial Mixed Use, and because it is an existing structure it would not implement the goals of the Gateway Master Plan; however, the future policy for the area encourages small businesses and their continued enhancement as well as possible expansion. Although the project does not implement the goals of the Gateway Master Plan, Staff feels that is does implement the future policy. Ms. Coffey outlined the Urban Design Requirements of the “GMU” Zoning District as noted in condition 3 of the Staff report which Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive.
Commissioner Chambless inquired regarding the perimeter fencing of the site.
Ms. Coffey stated that there is a 6-foot tall chain link fence with barbed wire at the top. It is a noncomplying use. The property used to be zoned industrial and prior to 1995 barbed wire fencing was allowed in that zone. Staff is not of the opinion that that feature needed to be removed as part of this project; however, the Planning Commission has the prerogative to require that.
Commissioner Chambless inquired regarding the exterior lighting of the site. Ms. Coffey deferred to the Applicant to speak to the lighting of the property.
Commissioner McDonough noted a correction that the site drawings reflect that the existing structure is 17-feet tall rather than 12-feet tall.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Young addressed the Commission saying that the reason for not putting in windows and openings toward the train track is due to the noise caused by the rail lines. He said that it is an attempt to protect those inside the structure. He referred to the chain link fence saying that the fence is necessary due to robberies. Mr. Young said that they are trying to develop a walk-in art studio but the neighborhood has not yet evolved to the point where he feels comfortable removing the fence.
Commissioner Chambless asked if the Applicant has been a victim of burglaries in the past years. Mr. Young replied that he has in the past months. He added that if something is not secured down to the property it disappears.
Commissioner Chambless inquired regarding the lighting of the site. He asked if the Applicant feels that the street lighting is sufficient.
Mr. Young stated that the building is lighted. He stated that the street lighting is sufficient.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the structure has a sky light on it. Mr. Young replied that is correct.
Commissioner De Lay wondered if that is an attractor of crime. Mr. Young replied that he feels that he does not want to give in to the criminal activity. He said that he plans on being in the area for a long time and plans to continue to develop the property.
Commissioner Scott asked how many windows are on the structure. Mr. Young replied that there are two.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-668
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-668, based on the findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission grant approval for the Planned Development and Conditional Use at 602 West South Temple Street with the following conditions:
1) The Planning Commission modify the minimum five foot setback requirement for 25% of the building to those as shown on the site plan.
2) Any on-site parking meet City standards including but not limited to access and hardsurfacing requirements.
3) Staff further recommends that a conditional use be granted to allow a 13 foot high building rather than 45 foot high building and to waive the following Urban Design Requirements of the GMU Zoning District
• All buildings shall have a minimum of 70% of the exterior material (excluding windows) be brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and / or cut stone. Corrugated metal is only allowed as a conditional use.
• Two dimensional curtain wall veneer of glass, spandrel glass or metal as a primary building material is prohibited. The fenestration of all new construction shall be three-dimensional (recessed windows, protruding cornice, etc.)
• Awnings and / or marquees, with or without signage, are required over entry doors which are set back from the property line.
• All new construction shall have three dimensional (3-D) details on the exterior that includes: cornices, windowsills, headers and similar features.
• All windows shall be recessed from the exterior wall a minimum of three inches.
• The size of windows on the front façade within the gateway district shall not have less than forty percent glass surfaces.
• The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet.
4) Final architectural drawing approval be delegated to the Planning Director.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-03-30, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to add language relating to the conversion of vacant properties, due to demolition to commercial parking garages, lots, or decks in the “D-1” zone, requiring said lots to be adjacent to and associated with a primary use and/or a contributing factor to the overall downtown parking scheme. Additionally, vacant properties, due to demolition in the “D-1” zone, where no replacement use is proposed, would be required to install a landscape yard around the entire perimeter of the parcel with drought resistant landscaping.
This item was heard at 6:13 p.m.
Principal Planner Lex Traughber presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted should the proposed amendment be approved it would not be retroactive. Current vacant parcels or parking lots will not be required to comply with the proposed regulations. The purpose of the proposed amendment is a means to keep the ratio of parking spaces to land use balanced so that the City maintains a healthy visual appearance in the Downtown Area. The relevant City departments and divisions reviewed the proposal and their comments were included in the staff report. Mr. Traughber stated that Staff held an Open House in June and those in attendance were generally in support of the petition. Mr. Traughber noted that Staff has included in the staff report an analysis of the amendment based upon the City Code. Based upon the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed text, amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning the replacement of demolished buildings with parking lots and the landscaping of demolition sites.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the three major land owners in the area attended that Open House in June. He asked if the proposed language was available at that time.
Mr. Traughber said that he believed that those stakeholders had representation at that Open House. He added that the proposed language was available and it was very well received.
Chair Muir asked how the proposal has been noticed.
Mr. Traughber replied that all of the property owners within the “D-1” zone as well as the Community Council Chairs and various other entities including the Downtown Alliance and such were noticed.
Chair Muir referred to Larry Butcher’s recommendation that the Planning Commission follow the residential requirement, by requiring complete landscaping. He asked Mr. Traughber to comment.
Mr. Traughber replied that it was discussed, and Staff decided that was beyond the parameters of the current proposal. He added that perhaps that would warrant another petition.
Chair Muir asked Staff what is purpose of the proposal.
Mr. Traughber replied that the primary purpose is to eliminate uses that may have a detrimental impact on the Downtown area. He added that it is also intended to provide language to assist the decision makers with requests of this nature.
Mr. Zunguze added that there needs to be a balance maintained between properties that are set aside for actual uses and those that are set aside for parking. The City is constantly fighting a battle of perception regarding the notion that there is not enough parking, as noted in the staff report there are over 16,000 parking stalls currently in the Downtown. Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Commission also recently acted on a petition regarding signage that indicates where parking is available. The intent of this petition is to maintain a healthy balance between uses while having a nice visual appearance of Downtown.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Chair Muir asked if the Commission may require drought tolerant vegetation to ensure that property owners use proper landscaping.
Mr. Traughber indicated that the City provides a list of drought tolerant species which could be used as a guide.
Commissioner Diamond asked if a property owner were to landscape an entire parcel, would they then assume the liability of the public on their property as if it were a park. He asked if this proposal allows property owners to construct a harmonious fence that would respect their rights as a property owner.
Mr. Zunguze agreed that that is needed and stated that there is a fencing ordinance that Staff could look to as an example.
Commissioner Scott referred to the proposed 15-foot perimeter of landscaping saying that she felt that is not adequate as a visual barrier for an unsightly interior of a lot. She added that there would be less of a chance for the lot to be used as an illegal parking lot if the entire lot where landscaped.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-30
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-30, based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed text, amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning the replacement of demolished buildings with parking lots and the landscaping of demolition sites as noted in the staff report with the following modification regarding the landscaping for vacant lots section 2 a. Landscaping shall be required for the entire lot.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels said that in the past the Planning Commission has allowed petitioners to include a portion of a lot if their intent is to have temporary parking when they would eventually have another use for the property. He wondered if the motion with the landscaping modification is in conformance with the Planning Commission’s past practice.
Chair Muir agreed with Commissioner Daniels that perhaps a precedent has been set when a lot is associated with an existing use.
Commissioner Scott noted that the vacant lots which are being discussed are those without a replacement use proposed.
Commissioner Diamond felt that if the Commission requires more stringent landscaping, it may accelerate the thought process and the urgency to do something positive with vacant property. He felt that the landscaping should be defined in detail.
Chair Muir felt that the landscaping requirement is reasonable considering the value of the property Downtown.
Commissioner Scott noted that the proposal requires that a landscaping plan be submitted. She did not feel that the Commission needs to be more specific in that regard. She felt that the review of the landscaping plan by the Planning Director is sufficient.
Commissioner McDonough indicated concern with water use when requiring the entire lot to be landscaped. She noted that drought tolerant plants require a considerable amount of water initially. She said that she is reticent to require more than the 15-foot buffer, which she felt would accomplish the issues which are being discussed. Commissioner McDonough stated that if the Commission is going to require complete landscaping then the entire landscaping portion of the proposal should be rethought from a conservancy standpoint and the center of the lot should have different requirements.
Chair Muir called for the question.
Commissioner Chambless and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Noda voted “Nay”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Two Commissioners voted in favor, and five Commissioners voted against, and therefore the motion failed.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-30
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-30, based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the following text, amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning the replacement of demolished buildings with parking lots and the landscaping of demolition sites.
Please note that the following is a summary of the proposed changes.
Parking Lots
In order to create criteria by which parking lots in the D-1 district can be evaluated, the following language is proposed to be inserted into the zoning ordinance under section 21A.30.020 – D-1 Central Business District.
21A.30.020(D)(3)(e) – Parking lots shall be permitted as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, where it is found that the parking lot is associated with an adjacent principal use and/or is contributory to the overall downtown parking program.
Landscaping
Landscaping criteria for the D-1 zone is proposed so that vacant lots resulting from demolition activities do not become a detrimental visual element to the downtown district. The following language is proposed to be inserted into the zoning ordinance under section 21A.30.020 – D1 Central Business District.
21A.30.020(D)(9) – Landscape Requirements for Demolition Sites: Vacant lots, resulting from demolition activities where no replacement use is proposed, shall conform to Chapter 21A.48 of this Title, special landscape requirements applicable to the D-1 Central Business District.
This section would direct the reader to Chapter 21A.48, and more specifically Chapter 21A.48.100(D) – D-1 Central Business District where the following section would be added providing specific landscaping standards for vacant lots.
2. Landscaping for Vacant Lots
Special landscaping shall be required on those lots becoming vacant, where no replacement use is proposed, in conformance with the following:
a. Landscape yard requirement
A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required as measured from any point along all property lines.
b. Trees
Shade trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree per thirty feet (30’) of yard length, rounded up to the nearest whole number.
c. Shrubs
Shrubs shall be provided at the rate of one plant for every three feet (3’) of yard length, evenly spaced, limited to a height of not more than three feet (3’). All plants shall be drought tolerant; consult the Salt Lake City water-wise plant list for suggestions. At least forty percent (40%) of the plants must be evergreen.
d. Groundcover
Areas not planted with shrubs and trees shall be maintained in drought tolerant vegetative groundcover.
e. Irrigation
Permanent irrigation shall be installed and used as needed to maintain plant materials in a healthy state.
f. Maintenance
Landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be kept free of weeds and litter.
Demolition
Additionally, the following language is proposed to be inserted into the City Code under Chapter 18.64 – Demolition.
Section 18.64.040 – Post Demolition Use Plan Required, shall be changed in the following manner:
D. For parcels in the D-1 zone, a permit for the use replacing the demolished building or structure has been issued by Building Services and Licensing, or a landscape plan for the site has been approved in accordance with section 21A.48.100(D) of this Code. A performance bond to assure timely and proper installation and maintenance of the landscaping shall be filed with the city in a form acceptable to the city.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Four Commissioners voted in favor, and three Commissioners voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that Staff look at other Cities as examples of promoting garden space on the rooftops of buildings as well as using roof drainage for irrigation purposes.
Mr. Zunguze appreciated that suggestion and stated that that is something that will be discussed with the Public Services Division.
Petition No. 400-04-02 & 410-673, by Rick Plewe (developer), requesting approval for a rezone, master plan amendment, and planned development located at 2665 E. Parley’s Way. The Applicant requests that the property be rezoned from “CB” Community Business to “RMF-35” Moderate Density Multifamily Residential, in order to construct a new 42-unit condominium complex. The requested rezone requires that the East Bench Community Master Plan be amended to reflect a residential rather than a commercial land use category. The Applicant also requests planned development consideration to specifically address special design elements of the proposed building.
This item was heard at 7:59 p.m.
Principal Planner Lex Traughber presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that in addition to the requested zoning change and Master Plan amendment, the Applicant has requested approval of several design features for the proposed condominium complex that do not meet that “RMF-35” zoning requirements, through the conditional use process. Mr. Traughber stated that originally the Applicant requested the “RMF-45” zone which allows for a maximum building height of 45-feet. The Developer having had the input of Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, as well as other interested parties has revised the plan to request the “RMF-35” zone which allows a maximum height of 35-feet. Mr. Traughber stated that all of the comments in the staff report were received in reference to the “RMF-45” zone request. Since that time the Applicant has spoken with members of the community to re-present the project. Mr. Traughber referred to the conditional use for approval of certain design features. The first design feature is a request for an increased height for the center entrance and the two façade treatments on both sides of that entrance. The second feature is an encroachment of the porte-cochere into the front yard setback. Mr. Traughber noted that Staff received comments in support and in opposition of the project. Staff is suggesting, based on the findings noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property from “CB” to “RMF-35” and amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Map to show the subject property as “High Density Residential – Over 20 Units per Gross Acre”. In addition Staff recommends based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission approve the planned development with the four conditions noted in the staff report.
Commissioner Diamond asked why the change from “RMF-45” to “RMF-35”.
Mr. Traughber replied that Planning Staff had concerns with a building being built on the site with the height of 45-feet, particularly with the mass of the building on that streetscape. He added that there was considerable concern from the community for the same reasons.
Commissioner Scott referred to the porte-cochere asking the height of it. Mr. Traughber replied that it is two stories.
Mr. Traughber noted that the issue of the porte-cochere was discussed at the Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting and it was decided that it is appropriate for this type of use which encouraged the Applicant to apply for the conditional use approval.
Chair Muir stated that the Commission has received different petitions expressing support and opposition to the project.
Mr. Rick Plewe addressed the Commission saying that it has been a frustrating process trying to appease all of the concerns of the adjacent residents. He referred to an illustration of the proposed structure saying that the height will be significantly less. Mr. Plewe described the layout of the complex presenting the site plan, elevation, parking, porte-cochere, and landscaping plan. He stated that there will be quite a bit of excavation required which will mitigate the impact on adjacent property owners views. He stated that he feels that they have come to a compromise and he hopes that this proposal will please all of those involved.
Mr. Ken Harris the Architect for the project addressed the Commission. He referred to the porte-cochere saying that the encroachment is mitigated by the additional setback of the structure from the sidewalk. He referred to the roof gardens saying they are attempting to increase outdoor living space on the site and it will be a positive aspect for the physical shape of the building.
Mr. Plewe noted that the condominiums will not require a lot of maintenance. He noted that they have received more support from the community since the changes.
Mr. Dean Menlove, present owner of the proposed site addressed the Commission. He stated that he lives near the site and has operated the motel for some time. He said that since the Olympics the maintenance on the proposed property has been deferred and is beginning to be a blighted spot for the area. He said that he has been working with Mr. Plewe and is very pleased with the progress. He said that this project is something that will increase the property values of the neighborhood and he would be pleased if the project could proceed.
Mr. Ken Harris added that the automobiles will be hidden which he feels is a great contribution to the area. He said that they have traded a large parking lot for landscaping and architecture.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the Applicant has support from the Community Council and asked what the vote was.
Mr. Plewe replied that in December when the “RMF-45” was proposed the vote was 19 to 0 in favor. In January, with the conceptual building height, the vote was 16 in favor and 2 opposed. He said that he made considerable efforts to go door to door and obtain support, receiving 60 signatures in favor.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Menlove how close he lives to the site. Mr. Menlove replied that he is within a mile.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Ms. Grace Sperry representing the Sugar House Community Council addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. She said that the Sugar House Community Council feels that this project will be an improvement to the area.
Mr. George Hunt addressed the Commission saying that the modified plan has addressed several of the issues that he had with the project. He specifically noted the modifications of the height and setback. He asked that the planned unit development aspect be retained to ensure that the project that has been proposed to the community is what will be constructed. He said that the current modifications are something that he feels that he could live with and it is something that is more compatible with the neighborhood. He said that he appreciated the willingness of the Applicant to work with the community.
Mr. Don Hale addressed the Commission in full support of the project. He noted that the proposed site is in need of refurbishment and he hoped that the Planning Commission would approve the project.
Mr. Plewe was given the opportunity to rebut public comment.
Mr. Plewe noted that there will be some staggering in the front façade of the structure. He said that they are in favor of the Planning Commission approving the footprint of the structure presented this evening, allowing for the architectural detail as presented.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the architectural variations as presented should be included as a condition.
Chair Muir did not think that is necessary.
Mr. Wilde agreed and added that the Planning Commission could reference the plans that were submitted this evening.
Commissioner De Lay read a letter for the public record from Ms. Claire McCue which was handed to Commissioner De Lay prior to the public hearing. “Dear Commission, I have lived and worked in the Salt Lake area where this development is being proposed for over 35 years. In fact I stayed in the old Motel for two weeks when my husband and I first came to Utah. I am fully in support of this project and feel that it will be a great benefit to and an improvement to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Diamond inquired regarding the appearance of the building from the rear. He asked if the structure will have roof terrace space from south to north to allow a view of the landscape rather than just roof top.
Mr. Plewe stated that area will be terraced.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-02
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-02, and Petition No. 410-673, based on the findings noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property from “CB” to “RMF-35” and amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Map to show the subject property as “High Density Residential – Over 20 Units per Gross Acre”. In addition based on the comments, analysis, testimony this evening, and findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission approve the planned development with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, final approval of the landscape plans and elevations shall be delegated to the Planning Director.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a survey stamped by a licensed surveyor or engineer, indicating the size of the subject parcel. The applicant shall meet the minimum lot size requirement of 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit for the development.
3. Consistent with the submitted building elevations attached to this report, the maximum height allowed for the front entrance façade feature shall be 39 feet. The maximum height allowed for the two façade features located on each side of the front entrance facade feature shall be 36 feet. No other portions of the building shall exceed 35 feet in height.
4. Consistent with the submitted site plan, the porte cochere feature shall be allowed to encroach into the required front yard setback a maximum of 8 feet.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Scott referred to the height of the structure. She exhorted architects, designers, owners and developers to take seriously the meanings of “RMF-35”and “RMF-45” which may save them a lot of time and energy. Commissioner Scott stated that if the architectural interest of a structure is not adhering to the zoning, she would suggest that that architectural element be removed.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the buildings that are neighboring the proposed site saying that if the Applicant had held to the zoning restrictions the proposed structure would appear much more out if place. The architectural elements that have been presented help to make the structure fit in terms of massing and pattern.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-04-12, by Jack Plumb, requesting to rezone the property located at 518 East Third Avenue from Multi-Family Residential “RMF-35” to Neighborhood Commercial “CN” as part of a two parcel commercial enterprise at 502 and 518 East Third Avenue. This petition will also require an amendment of the Avenues Community Master Plan by modifying the land use map designation from Medium Density Residential to Business Commercial.
This item was heard at 6:39 p.m.
Chair Muir read for the record a letter which was submitted by Mr. Bill Wood and Ms. Cydney Wood as well as twelve other tenants in support of the proposed request.
Principal Planner Everett Joyce presented the petition as written in the staff report. Mr. Joyce indicated that in 1955 a gas station was built on two parcels located at 502 and 518 East 3rd Avenue, at that time under the zoning regulations both parcels were treated and considered as commercial zoning. In 1986 the Board of Adjustment reaffirmed the nonconformity of the commercial property because between 1955 and 1986 there was a zoning text change which modified the interpretation of how adjacent properties were treated because of zoning boundaries. Both parcels were no longer considered completely commercial. The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property to “CN” for the continuity of both parcels. Mr. Joyce stated that there is a current use that has been permitted through Business Licensing under the nonconforming status. Under that status minor expansion can take place up to 50 percent which would be almost 600 feet. The commercial zoning would allow more expansion; however, it would still be limited by setbacks and off street parking. Mr. Joyce noted that the site is located in a Historic District and an expansion would be considered for scale and mass. Mr. Joyce stated that based on the findings of fact noted in the staff report Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to change the zoning of the property from “RMF-35” to “CN” and to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Community Master Plan from “medium density residential” to a “business commercial” designation, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Commissioner Diamond asked if there is enough parking if the Applicant were to build an addition to the structure. My Joyce replied, yes but that an addition would require the Applicant to utilize the existing parking.
Mr. Jack Plumb addressed the Commission saying that the property he is proposing for rezone is located at 518 East 3rd Avenue. Mr. Plumb stated that he agrees with the staff report. Mr. Plumb indicated that when he first purchased the property he spoke with Planning Staff who suggested that the property be combined to carry the same zoning classification for continuity. Mr. Plumb stated that along 3rd Avenue he has not found another facility which affords the amount of parking that his facility does. He stated that he is cleaning up issues that have been ongoing for a long time by changing the zoning.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Plumb where the dumpster is kept. Mr. Plumb replied that there was a dumpster but the City requested that it be removed and now there are two traditional garbage cans located on the west side of the building.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the opposing comments submitted by several members of the community who felt that they were not heard at the Community Council meetings. He asked Mr. Plumb if he has listened to their opposition and responded to it.
Mr. Plumb stated that he attended two separate Community Council meetings. He stated that he has been completely forthright and upfront regarding his intentions for the site. Mr. Plumb stated that he has been available for anyone to discuss issues with him personally. Mr. Plumb stated that the Community Council approved his proposal at both meetings that he attended.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Plumb to speak to the issue of residual gas tanks on the site. Mr. Plumb stated that he is not aware of gas tanks on the site and he believed that the tanks were removed in the early 1980’s which was prior to any type of official report.
Commissioner De Lay referred to the document in the staff report regarding Quality Oil’s tanks asking if the tanks were removed. Mr. Joyce stated that he verified with the State that the tanks were removed in 1985.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jonathan Buss, an adjacent property owner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed rezone. Mr. Buss felt that there are numerous provisions to regulate nonconforming uses. First of all the overriding public policy is to reasonably restrict and eventually eliminate nonconforming uses. Mr. Buss referred to the Avenues Community Master Plan which states “that the City should not grant variances to rebuild structures containing nonconforming uses. Once the property deteriorates or is lost to an act of God, the property should revert to use conforming to the present zoning“. Mr. Buss felt that the proper use for the property is residential. He felt that the proposal goes against the Avenues Community Council Master Plan policy. He felt that if the Commission were to approve the proposal to change the zoning to allow a commercial uses, they would be setting a dangerous precedent. Mr. Buss said that if the zoning is changed then eventually a more intensive commercial use could be constructed there. He felt that the coffee shop is currently a viable use and it should be left as it is to continue to operate as a nonconforming use which may eventually die a natural death in which case the property will revert to residential zoning.
Mr. Dick Raybould an adjacent property owner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal. He gave a brief history of the area saying that the proposed property has gone through several different uses. He disputed the staff report that indicates that the site was at one time used for a parking lot which he said is inaccurate. Mr. Raybould stated that he supported the Master Plan and felt that the property should be left as is. Mr. Raybould indicated concern with creeping commercialism into his neighborhood.
Ms. Rebecca Raybould, an adjacent property owner addressed the Commission on behalf of 19 other neighbors in the immediate neighborhood who signed a petition requesting that the Commission disprove the proposal. Ms. Raybould stated that they are not anti-commercial and they do appreciate the mix of different compatible uses within their neighborhood. She stated that they are against rezoning the property which would allow for larger commercial uses which would increase traffic, parking, and noise issues. She felt that there is no compelling reason to rezone the property. Ms. Raybould felt that the Applicant is requesting to change the zoning to increase the resale value of the site. She asked that the Planning Commission deny the proposal.
Commissioner De Lay asked Ms. Raybould if the Community Council approved the request.
Ms. Raybould indicated concerns with the process of the Community Council meeting and stated that the item was approved.
Chair Muir said that the Commission understands that it is an imperfect process.
Commissioner Chambless inquired the actual Community Council numbers of the vote. Mr. Joyce replied that the vote was 19 in favor and 9 opposed.
Ms. Raybould said that she did not feel that there were many residents who attended the Community Council meeting.
Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Raybould if there were residences on the proposed site before the gas station was constructed.
Ms. Raybould replied that there was one lot prior to the gas station.
Mr. Raybould added that the one lot was chopped into three lots two of which had residences and the third lot was the gas station.
Mr. Melvin Grossgold an adjacent property owner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal. He said that he is delighted to have the coffee shop in his neighborhood, and he hopes that the neighborhood never has to deal with the issue of a larger development moving in. He asked that the Commission dismiss the staff report which he believed to be flawed. Mr. Grossgold said that the major flaw is that the four City departments are given equal weight with the neighborhood. Mr. Grossgold stated that the second flaw is the Community Council process which he felt was unfair. He indicated that the vote was inflated by members of the public which he was not sure were residents of the Avenues Community.
Chair Muir stated that the Community Council is solely advisory to the Planning Commission which is advisory to the City Council who ultimately has the final decision regarding this matter.
Mr. Grossgold indicated a concern with the Staff representation with respect to the petition, saying that Staff appeared as an advocate for the proposal. Mr. Grossgold disputed the need to clean up the zoning map. He did not feel that there were valid reasons given by Staff that would support the residents of the community. Mr. Grossgold respectfully requested that the staff report not be given any credence regarding the Planning Commission’s decision. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the Applicant’s request.
Mr. Albert Reed, an adjacent resident of the proposal, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Reed submitted his comments in written form for the public record. Mr. Reed felt that the patio should be no larger than the previous owners nonconforming use with no broadcast or intercom system. He felt that there is a plethora of eating, coffee, and boutique establishment within the area which he felt illustrate no compelling need for the zoning change. He felt that the approval of the proposal would negatively impact him and the adjacent residents of the site. Mr. Reed asked that the Commission deny the request.
Mr. Brent Herridug, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposal. He said that the Applicant has a wonderful sensitivity to the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. He referred to a previous Planning Commission meeting which discussed the need to let the City breathe and allow small businesses into neighborhoods. He did not feel that the intent of the Applicant is to bring in larger businesses. He asked that the Commission approve the request and allow that the zoning be cleaned up.
Mr. Gary R. Hansen, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. He said that he and others worked hard to incorporate the Master Plan policies into the Avenues Plan. He noted that one of the principles is to not allow the conditional uses to encroach on the residential zoning. He asked that the Commission deny the request.
Chair Muir read the following comments for the public record:
Ms. Jean Raybould, an adjacent resident of the site, who is opposed to changing the zoning classification of 518 East 3rd Avenue.
Mr. Chet Gritzmachen, an adjacent property owner, did not wish to speak but is in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Mark Pochurek, an adjacent property owner, did not wish to speak but is in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Plumb addressed the Commission saying that he attended the first Community Council meeting and the proposal was approved unanimously; however, there were a few people who felt that they were misrepresented. Mr. Plumb stated that he went to the second meeting which the item was approved unanimously again. Mr. Plumb stated that he takes offense to the comments by the public that his intentions are to sell the property to a larger commercial development. Mr. Plumb felt that it is an insult further to claim the Planning Staff has allegiance to him. Mr. Plumb stated that this property will not lay idle, and his intention is to clean up the zoning.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Plumb if he can operate his business as a nonconforming use why is he applying to rezone the property.
Mr. Plumb stated that prior to purchasing the property he met with Planning Staff and they suggested that he apply to change the zoning to make both lots commercial. Mr. Plumb stated that the two lots have been married together and logically they should carry the same zoning.
Commissioner De Lay asked for clarification regarding the expansion of the structure.
Mr. Joyce replied that the Applicant can do additions to the structure; the difference is in the intensity. With the existing use the Applicant can do an addition of 50 percent expansion and under the commercial use the site could be expanded 300 square feet more.
Chair Muir noted that the disadvantage is that it is a real impediment to refinance a nonconforming use.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Plumb regarding Mr. Reed’s comments regarding the noise and speakers on the structure.
Mr. Plumb replied that he is not aware of any speakers on the structure.
Commissioner Scott referred to the “CN” and “RMF-35” landscape buffers asking if the “CN” buffers are more stringent.
Mr. Joyce stated that is correct because the setbacks for commercial structures are closer to the property line.
Commissioner Scott clarified that if another commercial use came in, the commercial zoning would afford more protection for the neighborhood.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McDonough asked Mr. Joyce which came first, the property line which created two lots or the structure.
Mr. Joyce relied that he does not know when the two lots were created but it was prior to 1955.
Commissioner Scott referred to the petition that was initiated during the Director’s Report at the beginning of the meeting, which requested that Staff begin phase two to correct errors of the zoning rewrite of 1995. She asked if this request would ordinarily fall under an error resulting from that rewrite.
Mr. Joyce replied that is correct. In 1995 Staff would have suggested that the property be rezoned to commercial based on the policies at that time. Mr. Joyce said that Mr. Plumb thought that it was an error and as he stated that the previous owner never took the steps to have that error corrected.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Joyce regarding his role as a City Staff member when appearing before a Community Council which is not one of advocacy. Mr. Joyce agreed and replied that his role is to address the issues and bring in the technical and detailed information related to the request.
Chair Muir noted that he feels that it comes down to weighing the disadvantages of a nonconforming use in terms of its impediments to refinancing and continued operation and health of an existing business against the concerns of the Community which seem to be very strong regarding encroachment of the commercial element into the residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Joyce if there are speakers on the property and if they are used.
My. Joyce replied that he does not know if the speakers are used. He added that the Applicant is the owner who leases the property.
Chair Muir added that there is a noise ordinance that would be relevant to that.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-12
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-12, based on the findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to change the zoning of the property from “RMF-35” to “CN” and to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Community Master Plan from “medium density residential” to a “business commercial” designation, subject to the following conditions:
1. Combine the two properties into one lot.
2. Establish the east property line of the parcel as the required rear yard.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless and Commissioner Daniels voted “Nay”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Zunguze stated that while healthy discussion in the community is encouraged it is important that everyone uses terms that can be sustained. Mr. Zunguze said that he is concerned with the use of terms that have been thrown in the direction of Staff. Staff’s intention is to educate the public and explain City policies and to say the Mr. Joyce had a conflict of interest regarding the previous petition is incorrect. Mr. Joyce’s activities do not rise to that level.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
This item was heard at 8:39 p.m.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the Jack Plumb rezone request saying that on that particular case it would have been helpful for the Commission to have an existing nonconforming use map as part of the staff report. She said that this is a good example of a decision that was made based on planning policy which was contrary to the governing Community Council Master Plan. She also stated that the motion and decision were made very quickly and there was no commentary which explained to the public why the Commission made the final decision. Commissioner McDonough felt that the Commission should avoid giving the impression that the decision was predetermined. She asked that a moment be taken to summarize why the Commission is making a decision.
Chair Muir agreed and stated that that feeling has to come from the majority of the Commission. He noted that each Commissioner benefits from hearing where their peers are coming from but it is also for the benefit of the public.
Mr. Wilde referred to the mapping of the conditional uses and nonconforming uses. He stated that Staff is not finding an easy and accurate way to accomplish this task. Staff is working to solve the problem and will report back to the Commission.
Chair Muir added that perhaps areas should be mapped in the staff reports as needed and where Staff feels it would be a benefit.
Ms. Coffey added that the Avenues Master Plan was adopted in 1987 and many policies have been adopted since that time. She noted that the City Council has initiated a petition to look at legalizing nonconforming uses throughout the City from triplexes and up. It is extremely difficult to map nonconforming uses and in the meantime some of those may become legalized.
Chair Muir asked how that petition will be reviewed without a map.
Mr. Wilde replied that Staff did an analysis and found that in some neighborhoods over 70 percent of structures are noncomplying. He stated that nonconforming uses is easier to map and this issue will continue to be explored.
Commissioner Diamond asked that Staff diagram the height, and footprint and such which would be helpful for the public. He added that the mapping is necessary and helpful for the public and for the Commission.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.