SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph Becker, Jim McRea, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gilbert Iker and Aria Funk. Lynn Beckstead and Kimball Young were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Everett Joyce and Doug Dansie.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Howa. Minutes of
the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased. Mr. Howa introduced Ms. Aria Funk, a new Planning Commission Member and welcomed her to the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Kirk moved to approve the minutes of July 6, 1995 as presented. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote.
CONDITIONAL USES
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-180 by Westminster College requesting a conditional use to construct a library in excess of the 35 feet allowed in the Institutional zoning district at approximately 1 840 South 1 300 East.
Mr. Howa stated that there seemed to be a public perception that be had a bias relative to issues involving Westminster College since he had served on their Board of Directors for about eight years several years ago. Therefore, Mr. Howa declared a conflict of interest on this matter and stated that if he did have a bias toward Westminster, it was a bias against it, not in favor of it. He left the table at this time and did not participate in the discussion or the vote.
Ms. Kirk served as Chair during his and Mr. Becker's absence.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Steven Morgan, representing Westminster College, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff report. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Ms. Kirk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Carl Triolo, a resident across the street from the College on 1700 South, stated that parking in the area was a major problem and to remove an existing parking lot, even though he was not opposed to the construction of the library, would only exacerbate the problem. Mr. Triolo stated that he had tried unsuccessfully to get a restricted parking program in place for quite some time. Mr. Triolo said he felt the College should address their parking problems before additional buildings were constructed.
Mr. Joyce explained that the College not only met, but exceeded, the Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking.
Mr. Wilde stated that the Planning Staff could assist Mr. Triolo in getting the restricted parking program initiated.
Upon receiving no additional requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Kirk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Iker moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-1 80 based on the findings of fact and subject to the condition listed in the staff report with an added condition that the Planning Staff work with Mr. Triolo to implement a restrictive parking program to assist the residents living near the college to lessen their parking problems. Mr. Becker seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Becker and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. At this time Ms. Kirk turned the position of Chair back to Mr. Howa, who had just returned to the table.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-182 by Stuart King for American Stores Properties. Inc. requesting a conditional use for a helipad to be located on the deck above the 24th Floor of the proposed American Stores Corporate Headquarters Building on the northeast corner of 300 South and Main Street. Also requesting a conditional use for exceptions to maximum and minimum building height requirements.
Mr. Howa explained that he was working with the petitioner on this matter and declared a conflict of interest. He left the table and did not participate in the discussion or the vote. Mr. Howa turned the position of Chair over to Mr. Becker who was now present.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker explained that in the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project, the City Council had assigned the Design Review Committee responsibilities to the Planning Commission. Mr. Becker stated that he, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker had served on a design review committee for this project and had attended numerous meetings to work with the petitioner to ensure the project met the City's goals and requirements. Mr. Becker stated that a proposed pedestrian bridge on this project had created a fair amount of controversy and explained that the proposed bridge was not a part of the issues before the Planning Commission at this time.
Mr. Becker said it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was the final approval authority on this conditional use issue and that any appeals would be sent to the City Council.
Mr. Brent Wilde said that understanding was accurate.
Mr. Stuart King, representing American Stores Properties, Inc., and Mr. Jack Yardley, the project architect, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. King stated that they were in agreement with the staff report and requested the Planning Commission approve this project.
Mr. McRea asked what the project's target date was for completion.
Mr. King said they wanted to be able to occupy the building within three years and that they planned to begin construction very soon.
Mr. McRea asked if access to the parking structure would be located on 300 South as well as on Plaza Drive.
Mr. King said that was correct.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Dr. Rich Christensen, a resident of American Towers, expressed concern about safety issues connected to the proposed helipad. Dr. Christensen stated that a helicopter had fallen off a helipad located on top of the Pan Am building in New York and several people had been killed. He asked what the purpose was for the helipad and stated that the downtown area had enough noise pollution without adding to the problem. Dr. Christensen pointed out that the airport was only fifteen minutes away and it didn't seem to make sense to him to have a helipad within such a short distance from the airport.
Mr. King explained that they were also very concerned about life safety issues and would use the helipad for transport purposes.
Mr. King also explained that their project would have to go through extensive Federal Aviation Administration review wherein all of the life safety issues would be carefully examined.
Dr. Christensen questioned the feasibility of costs versus the amount of use for the helipad.
Mr. King responded that they had examined the feasibility issues and had determined the helipad was a desired feature for this building.
Ms. Ruth Reese, a resident of American Towers, stated that the helipad on American Towers had only been used once and added that the insurance for the helipad was prohibitive.
Ms. Nancy Saxton, a concerned citizen, stated that it had been her understanding during the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project that in order to be given a height exception, some trade-offs had to be made, such as having the building set back from the streetscape.
Mr. Becker explained that there was a minimum height requirement for corner lots within the Downtown area and that no maximum height limits had been established. Mr. Becker stated that the conditional use process in this case had been triggered by the helipad request and because the building exceeded the 375 feet. Mr. Becker added that any height in excess of 375 feet also required a design review process.
Ms. Saxton expressed concern about a lack of light caused by the height of this building, which would be constructed so close to the street, during the cold winter seasons. She suggested the building could be moved closer to the interior of the block, that there was no reason to bring it out to the edge of the street.
Mr. Dansie explained that the Redevelopment Agency's Design Review Committee had been concerned about the shading of the plaza and had done a study which had determined that there would be some shading on the plaza but that it would not be increased by the construction of this building.
Ms. Saxton asked about the amount of shading on the street.
Mr. Dansie responded that it would be shaded in the morning but not more shaded in the afternoon than if the building were not there.
Mr. Becker stated that the Urban Design Element encouraged the construction of buildings right up to the edge of the property line in order to encourage vitality and activity on the street front.
Mr. Wilde stated that the ordinance required setback maximums of 'five feet in the Downtown area.
Ms. Saxton asked if the helipad request was based on need.
Mr. Wilde stated that the applicant's request for a helipad did not have to be based on need.
Mr. Wilde added that the issues before the Planning Commission were whether or not it would be a compatible use and what its impacts might be.
Ms. Saxton asked if there would be any restrictions relative to flight times.
Mr. Dansie responded in the negative.
Ms. Saxton stated that she lived near Holy Cross Hospital and its helipad and that she seemed to be in the flight path for the University Hospital's helipad and added that it was very disruptive. She questioned the need to provide a helipad for this project since it was so close to the airport.
Mr. Iker stated that a helipad might be crucial for the safe transport of someone requiring a high level of security in order to avoid traveling through the public streets where security is so difficult to ensure. Mr. Iker stated that if the City were to have a presidential visit, this helipad might prove very desirable. He added that helipad use for hospitals was an entirely different issue than this request.
Mr. Dale Abbott, a concerned citizen, asked if the glass on the building would be reflective glass and what kind of retail services would occupy the ground floor of the building.
Mr. Yardley responded that the building would be constructed of gray granite and a blue/green glass which was not a reflective glass. Mr. Yardley stated that the retail uses were a requirement of the Redevelopment Agency and they did not have the final details yet on what those uses would be. Mr. Yardley added that the Redevelopment Agency would lease that space and maintain it.
Mr. Walter Brower, a resident of American Towers, expressed concern relative to the noise and disruption caused by the helipad.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Alice Larkin-Steiner, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. She stated that this project had been extensively reviewed by the Design Review Committee and
approved by the Redevelopment Agency Board.
Ms. Kirk stated that she agreed with the comments made by Mr. Iker relative to the helipad.
Mr. Becker asked if the proposed pedestrian bridge would ever come before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wright responded that if it were to cross City property, it would require Planning Commission approval.
Ms. Short asked if the Planning Commission would review the parking terrace.
Mr. Wright explained that it met the design criteria and would not come before the Planning Commission. Motion on Petition No. 410-182:
Ms. Kirk moved to approve the design of the American Stores Corporate Office building and the conditional use for a helipad on the roof of the office structure, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk further moved to grant final design approval over the public art selection and approval of the sidewalk paving patterns to the Planning Director. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
PUBLIC HEARING- Review and receive public comment on the proposed Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance which requires housing mitigation for rezoning of permits for conditional use parking lots in areas containing residential units.
Mr. Wilde stated that this ordinance had been drafted to deal with the loss of housing caused by commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods and the loss of housing to nonresidential development. Mr. Wilde stated that in 1992 the City Council had adopted a housing mitigation policy and in 1994 the City had contracted with Wikstrom Economic and Planning Consultants, Inc. to complete a housing mitigation study. He added that this proposed ordinance was in response to the findings of that study.
Mr. Wilde stated that as drafted, the proposed mitigation ordinance would apply to any petition for a conditional use permit to authorize or expand vehicular parking in residentially zoned areas and any petition for a zoning change that would permit nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries, residential dwelling units. He explained that any petition for a conditional use for a parking lot or rezoning as described above would be required to include a housing mitigation plan and a housing impact statement.
Mr. Wilde stated that the ordinance allowed three options for housing mitigation: 1) to replace the unit; 2) the difference between the fair market value of the eliminated units and the replacement cost of new construction of similar square footage be paid by the applicant to the Housing Trust Fund; and 3) exemption from the first two options upon proof that the structure was not allowed to deteriorate purposefully and request that the value of the units be increased to the fair market value the units would have had if they were in a state of habitability meeting minimum codes, or the applicant would pay $3000 per unit to the Housing Trust Fund and provide proof that the mitigation methods were oppressive or appraisal requirements would be impossible or cost prohibitive.
Mr. Wilde explained that the Director of Community and Economic Development
would determine which option would be used.
Mr. Wilde stated that the $3000 to
the Housing Trust Fund had been included in the event none of the other options
were feasible and that justification for using option #3 would have to be provided. He added that the ordinance included specific requirements that must be included in the housing impact statement which the Director of Community and Economic Development would have to consider in making his recommendation. Concern was expressed that this ordinance might contribute to conditions of blight or encourage the intentional development of blight on the part of property owners who were interested in future commercial development of residential land. Concern was also expressed that this ordinance was not strict enough/ that it allowed too many loopholes and that most applicants would endeavor to opt for the $3000 option.
Mr. Wright explained that the $3000 figure had been proposed by the consultant after extensive study of the issues involved.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, expressed concern that the authority for
choosing the option would be placed with the Director of Community & Economic
Development. Ms. Cromer said she would be more comfortable with that authority
belonging to the Planning Commission or at least being based on professional advice from the Planning Staff. Mr. Wright stated that the divisions under the Department of Community and Economic Development included, Planning, Housing and Economic Development, Buildings Services and Licensing and the Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Wright stated that, therefore, the Department Director was responsible not only for commercial development but also for keeping housing viable, the rehabilitation of housing and building new housing. Mr. Wright added that the Housing Division of the City had been responsible for building more new housing in the City in the last two years than the City had ever been responsible for building in the past. Mr. Wright stated that another reason for giving this authority to the Director of Community and Economic Development had been to separate the issues of the analysis of the zoning and land use issues from economic issues.
Mr. Wilde explained that the Director of Community and Economic Development would prepare a report on his recommendation which would be similar in format to a staff report, which would be given to the Planning Director and the Planning Commission.
Ms. Nancy Saxton, a concerned citizen, stated that even though new housing had
been constructed in the City, the character of that housing was very different from much of the housing that had been lost to commercial development. Ms. Saxton stated that the biggest loss to the City was single family dwelling units since single family houses were what was being demolished, not large apartment complexes. She stated that the basic issue involved was money and she added that $3000 was not enough money to construct any kind of housing.
Ms. Saxton said she would feel more comfortable if a firm statement of replacement was included in the ordinance and that exceptions to that would be limited and the criteria for those exceptions should be very specifically spelled out in the ordinance.
Ms. Lois Brown, a concerned citizen, stated that she was in agreement with the comments made by Ms. Cromer and Ms. Saxton. Ms. Brown stated that it seemed to her that the money angle was very short sighted and that long term balance between commercial and residential uses was critical.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the public, Mr. Becker closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
A lengthy discussion followed including concern that the term “adequate security" as mentioned on Page 4 was too ambiguous and needed to be better defined, that the term “oppressive" under option #3 needed to be better defined, that the replacement requirements within the same council districts should carry some type of flexibility since council districts often changed simply by crossing the street, or that someone might want to comply with the requirement to remain in the council district but a particular council district might not present the right opportunity and the City should not be adversely affected by its own requirements. The discussion also included the suggestion that stronger standards for each of the options should be included so that the $3000 option would be approved only under strict guidelines and not as a general rule, and the option to contribute $3000 should include some sort of inflation indexing since $3000 might work in today's market but might be grossly inadequate in ten years or so, considering inflation.
Ms. Kirk moved to direct the staff to respond to the suggestions made at this meeting relative to this proposed ordinance to include a more clear definition of the term "oppressive" in option #38, that the staff look at the exceptions concept rather than just allowing applicants to choose an option, that the ordinance include justification relative to the $3,000 option, that some sort of inflation indexing be included with the $3000 option, and that more flexibility be allowed on the requirement to stay within the same council district. Ms. Kirk further moved to have this matter brought back to the Planning Commission at their next meeting for approval consideration.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.