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, Peggy McDonough, and Kathy Scott. John Diamond, Craig Galli, Laurie Noda 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 Jackie Gasparik, Associate Planner Janice Lew, Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis, 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 5:46 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, July 14, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the July 14, 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 McDonough, 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 5:48 p.m.
Chair Muir referred to a letter addressed to the Mayor from Ms. Helen Peters, representing the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee (MOSAC). The letter expressed concern regarding the progress of the North Salt Lake City boundary adjustment request. The letter also reinforced the perspective of MOSAC that the Mayor should work harder at acquiring acquisition funds and bringing about the acquisition of that property. Chair Muir noted that the letter reinforced MOSAC’s opposition to the development of that property.
Commissioner Scott added that MOSAC has expressed concern with the amount of time that has passed, and that they are not sure where the negotiations are going. She noted that the Planning Commission has discussed some of the same concerns. She referred to a previous Planning Commission meeting at which forming a subcommittee was discussed. She felt that Staff and the Commission should be poised and ready to move ahead with the subcommittee.
Mr. Zunguze noted that Mayor Anderson is out of town and has not reviewed the letter at this time. He added that he will be meeting with the Mayor on August 4th and will have more information for the Commission regarding this matter at the August 11th Planning Commission meeting. He said that this letter is a reaction to the North Salt Lake City briefing to MOSAC.
Chair Muir said that he has concerns with further delays related to this proposal; however, he did not feel that the Commission should take any action with regard to the letter.
Commissioner Scott asked Chair Muir if a subcommittee should be formed at this time.
Chair Muir replied that perhaps he and Vice Chair Chambless should consult with Mr. Zunguze regarding how the petition will be presented to the Commission and whether it should go to the subcommittee prior.
Commissioner Scott suggested that Chair Muir attend the August 4th meeting with the Mayor regarding this matter.
Mr. Zunguze replied that with respect to the meeting on the 4th, he is an invitee and that the other attendees are Administration Staff. He said that he is hesitant to invite other folks without knowing what the charge of that meeting is. He added that he would be willing to convey a request to the Mayor that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair would like to meet with him on this matter.
Chair Muir referred to the fieldtrip to the proposed North Salt Lake City property saying that it would be helpful to also look at the property that North Salt Lake City has identified for acquisition for open space. He felt that would give the Commission a better sense of North Salt Lake City’s agenda.
Mr. Zunguze said that the Commission could form a subcommittee now and decide how to proceed once the reaction from the Mayor is received.
Chair Muir noted that the Commission received an email from Commissioner Seelig which confirmed the position of the Planning Commission regarding issues that were discussed among the Commission at their last meeting. Commissioner Seelig also encouraged the Planning Commission to send a letter directed to the Mayor which would directly refer to staffing levels in the Planning Division and work priorities.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the next Planning Commission and City Council Chair and Vice Chair meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 5th 5:00 – 6:00 p.m.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:56 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to a request by MOSAC that the Planning Commission pull the Consent Agenda item off the agenda this evening and schedule it for a public hearing. He noted that the concern is related to policy matters that this item raises and MOSAC would like to come and speak to those issues. He said that it would be in order if the Commission would make a motion to that effect.
Commissioner De Lay so moved.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the petition that was created by the Planning Commission to create a Riparian Overlay District. He stated that Staff is in the process of redefining open space. There is currently one definition for open space and the intention is to create various attributes to that definition to help better clarify different types of open space. He stated that petition is under way and will come before the Commission in the near future.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the discussion at the Planning Commission Retreat to review the Commission’s policies and procedures. He said that Staff anticipates that the Commission will review the policies on the August 25th Planning Commission meeting. He asked if the Commission would prefer that the item be heard as a public hearing or other business.
Mr. Wilde noted that if the Commission takes action on the existing policies they are required to hold a public hearing.
Commissioner De Lay suggested that the Policies and Procedures Subcommittee review the modifications before they are reviewed by the full Commission.
Commissioner Daniels stated that in the past the Commission has reviewed the Staff recommended modifications and made additional modifications during a public hearing.
Mr. Zunguze noted that Staff has circulated recommendations. He noted that Commissioner Noda expressed major concerns with those recommended modifications. He indicated that perhaps the Subcommittee should meet before a public hearing is scheduled.
Chair Muir asked if Commissioner De Lay would serve on the Policies and Procedures Subcommittee with Commissioner Noda.
Commissioner De Lay agreed.
Commissioner Chambless also volunteered to serve on that subcommittee.
Mr. Zunguze noted that at the next Planning Commission meeting on August 11th, the discussion on housing impediments related to the zoning ordinance will continue.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he has received the Summary of the Planning Commission Retreat discussions. He stated that the Commission will receive that information in their next packets. He noted that the Commission decided to review the summary and then decide what issues to highlight in their letters to the Mayor and the City Council.
Mr. Zunguze introduced Doug Dansie and Mary Guy-Sell for a presentation.
Mr. Dansie referred to the Downtown Master Plan paving patterns and street lighting policies. He stated that the intent with the policies was to create constancy throughout the City. He stated that the question this evening is regarding the area around the Intermodal Hub. Mr. Dansie said that Staff’s opinion is that the Intermodal Hub should have the same paving pattern and lighting as the Downtown Area. He asked the Commission if they approve of extending the current paving and lighting standards for Downtown further west to include the Intermodal Hub.
The Commission agreed.
Chair Muir noted that the Planning Commission denied a similar application because of the trip hazards for seniors. He stated that Staff has since solved that risk.
Commissioner McDonough suggested that several different patterns be considered due to the diverse character of the streets throughout the City.
Mr. Dansie agreed and added that Staff has discussed that concept. The immediate issue is that there are time constraints with respect to laying concrete for the construction of the Intermodal Hub.
Commissioner McDonough asked if the design team for that has submitted plans at this time.
Ms. Guy-Sell replied that there is an extensive amount of paving proposed. Staff had a considerable discussion and it seems to make sense that rather than increase the amount of paving in the Hub area to adopt the same paving pattern that is in the Downtown Area.
Chair Muir suggested approving the use of the Downtown paving pattern in areas of current construction; however, resolve the large issue as part of the Master Plan. He said that perhaps there is latitude with respect to the tree grading.
Commissioner McDonough so moved.
Commissioner Chambless seconded that motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Zunguze noted that the Downtown Master Plan Subcommittee will be meeting soon.
The Planning Commission made a motion to postpone the following item which will be reviewed as a public hearing.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
a. Kelly and Jennifer Hannah and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – The Hannahs own the existing single family home at 1206 East Emerson, which is zoned residential “R-1-5,000” and located in the East Liberty Neighborhood of the Central City Planning Community. The Hannahs are requesting Public Utilities to allow continued use of a portion of the City owned Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property for landscaped yard area, including fencing and irrigation, through the issuance of a standard revocable permit.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 490-04-20, Kenlees’ Grove Subdivision by property owner, Brad Brewer, represented by Pine Valley Homes LLC, requesting preliminary subdivision approval of a 1.25 acre parcel into eight single-family dwelling lots ranging in size from 5,030 to 5,985 square feet. The subject parcel is located at 1050 West 1300 South in the West Salt Lake Planning Community and is zoned “R-1-5000”.
This item was heard at 6:14 p.m.
Principal Planner Lex Traughber presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the site map stating that the proposed lots will be accessed by a cul-de-sac. The proposed lots are located in an “R-1-5000” zone which requires a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet and 50 feet of street frontage. The proposed lots range from 5000 to 6000 square feet. Mr. Traughber stated that the staff report includes comments from the public and the relevant City Departments. Mr. Traughber noted that Staff prepared an analysis of the subdivision based on the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan, showing that the proposed low density residential development is consistent with the Master Plan. Based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant preliminary minor subdivision approval, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Mr. Robert Thompson addressed the Commission as a representative of Pine Valley Homes. He described the layout of the proposed dwellings. He stated that the footprint of each dwelling is about 1879 square feet and there a several variations which will give a distinct look for each house.
Commissioner De Lay asked if each house will have a garage that faces the street.
Mr. Thompson replied that the garage and a portion of the house will face the street.
Commissioner Scott asked if the final plan will allow for parking on one side of Hailey Circle.
Mr. Thompson replied that the street is 31 feet wide and that should allow for additional street parking.
Chair Muir asked Staff why the Applicant is not required to improve 1300 South opposite of the curb improvements on the north side of the street.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that there is no curb or gutter to tie into the riverside of 1300 South.
Commissioner Daniels asked the Applicant to address the comments that there are too many lots proposed.
Mr. Thompson noted that with respect to the size of lots in the area, the proposed lots are compatible. He said that they have designed the footprints to allow for plenty of yard space.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the Applicant explored the possibility of recessing the garages.
Mr. Thompson stated that they would research that but one of the issues is to insure that the walkway spaces above the garages are wide enough to meet the code.
Chair Muir asked if the configuration of the houses is within the Planning Commission’s purview.
Mr. Wheelwright replied that typically that is something that could be raised in a planned unit development but not a minor subdivision application.
Commissioner Chambless inquired what new lighting is proposed.
Mr. Thompson stated that they are willing to comply with the required standards.
Chair Muir asked if the Applicant has attempted to acquire the lot to the east of the site. He said that would allow the cul-de-sac to be shortened and would allow a different configuration of the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Thompson said that they have not attempted to acquire that. He noted that the lot was for sale at one time; however, it was not within the best interest of the Applicant to purchase that area.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the southern property line of the site and asked if that portion is zoned open space. She wondered if that would have different setback implications
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the zoning map is parcel based. He added that there was no intent to zone the proposed site as open space because it is privately owned, the intent for the area was for all of the parcels to be zoned “R-1’5000”. Mr. Wheelwright stated that it is an illustration problem and he did not believe that the setback requirement would be different.
Chair Muir noted that as part of the approval the Applicant must clean up the title for 1300 South.
Mr. Thompson replied that they are aware of that requirement and they will comply.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jay Ingleby, Vice Chair of the Glendale Community Council, addressed the Commission. He stated that they have concerns with the number of homes that are proposed. He specifically referred to the current amount of automobiles in the neighborhood which he said is due to the diversity. Mr. Ingleby felt that the increased housing would add to that problem. Mr. Ingleby stated that there are a number of cul-de-sacs in the area and he asked that the Commission require the Applicant to scale back the number of houses. Mr. Ingleby also indicated concern with the proposed width of the road, saying that he felt that it is not wide enough to accommodate additional traffic.
Mr. Rick Nelson, a member of the Glendale Community Council Development Committee addressed the Commission. Mr. Nelson mentioned concern regarding the width of the street, specifically saying that the width does not seem to be able to accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. Nelson asked where the fire hydrants will be located.
Commissioner De Lay stated that she is not concerned with the location of the fire hydrants because those regulations are very strict. She asked how the Glendale Community Council voted.
Mr. Ingleby stated that the Community Council had not reviewed the proposal.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the actual location of the fire hydrants will be placed according to the fire department’s discretion and that will be reflected on the street improvement rendering which will follow the approval. He added that the recognized organization ordinance does not require community council notification or appearance prior to application for a subdivision; that requirement is restricted to conditional use and rezoning applications. He stated that all of the Community Council Chairs receive notices of the Planning Commission agendas as well as the administrative hearing agendas.
Mr. Nelson addressed the Commission as a concerned citizen at this time. He indicated concern with the possibility of the units becoming rentals rather than purchased by owners who would reside in the units. Mr. Nelson also mentioned concern with the increase traffic along 1300 South. He asked if the widening of 1300 South has been explored. Mr. Nelson asked if the project finances will allow for the complete construction. He worried that the project funds may run out and the project will be abandoned. Mr. Nelson said that he is under the impression that there are no sewage lines along 1300 South, and that the project would require that those line be constructed. Mr. Nelson said that he is concerned that this project will disrupt the neighborhood and he is not pleased with the proposal coming into the neighborhood.
Mr. William Wolf, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission saying that he is not opposed to the developer developing the property. He stated that he is concerned with the proposed density. Mr. Wolf said that the additional units would double the amount of traffic. He said that although the proposal meets the ordinance, he felt that due to other circumstances within the neighborhood the proposal will create a burden on some of the existing homes as well as destroy the nature of the neighborhood specifically the public parkway and the Jordan River.
Ms. Marilyn Wolf, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission saying that more cars in the area will take away from the appeal of the river path. She indicated frustration with the proposed density of the project. Ms. Wolf felt that the additional homes will add to the traffic congestion as well as detract from the pleasing atmosphere of the river.
Commissioner De Lay asked if Ms. Wolf lives in the area.
Ms. Wolf replied that her children live in the home that she owns which is two blocks away from the site. She said that she is in the area every day.
Mr. Nephi Wolf addressed the Commission saying that he is currently renting a home two blocks away from the site. He said that he is in the process of purchasing lot 6 of the map in the staff report, which is behind the current proposal. Mr. Wolf indicated concern with the amount of cars which are currently in the area. He said that the additional cars will cause more problems and take away from the ambiance of the neighborhood. Mr. Wolf referred to the height of the proposed units saying that multilevel units will create a negative impact on the surrounding homes by eliminating their privacy.
Chair Muir said that the Commission often hears the argument that renters are second class citizens. He said that it seems that Mr. Wolf is as much investing in the neighborhood as the surrounding owners, which dispels that argument.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Wolf if he has called parking enforcement regarding the amount of cars parked in the neighborhood.
Mr. Wolf replied that he has not called parking enforcement, but other neighbors have. He said that when parking enforcement has been called, homes which had parking pads that were created to alleviate some of the parking issues, but were not up to code, those home owners received citations as well. He said that he did not think that parking enforcement had been called in a while.
Commissioner De Lay stated that she does not feel that the parking complaints are valid if the public does not utilize the parking enforcement program.
Commissioner Scott noted that the Commission did visit the site which allows them to make an informed decision. Commissioner Scott noted that Mr. Wolf is looking to purchase property that is also zoned “R-1-5000” and she asked what makes this project different.
Mr. Wolf reiterated that the increased traffic as well as the proximity of the site to the parkway is a concern. Mr. Wolf also stated that he is opposed to any home which is higher than a rambler style because he felt that would take away the privacy of the surrounding lots.
Mr. Thompson addressed the Commission to respond to the question and concerns of the public. He stated that the proposed project will be paid for in cash.
Chair Muir added that the City has bond regulations in place to safeguard that.
Mr. Thompson continued saying that building a two story home is part of creating diversity of a community.
Chair Muir clarified that the proposed request is not for a planned unit development, which does not allow the Commission to approve the design of the homes. He added that the current zoning permits two story homes.
Mr. Thompson referred to the concern of the decrease in the property values in the area, saying that the homes will be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. He added that their intention is to create affordable homes for families. Mr. Thompson referred to the parking issues saying that that is not something that he can control as a developer once the lots are sold. He encouraged the surrounding residents to utilize parking enforcement. Mr. Thompson addressed the concern with the road width saying that the proposed development will meet the standards for emergency vehicles.
Commissioner De Lay suggested that the Applicant meet with the Community Council for the sake of public relations.
Chair Muir noted that the Applicant is not required to meet with the Community Council.
Commissioner De Lay said that she received a letter from someone in the audience indicating that the parking enforcement does not enforce in the evenings or on the weekends. Commissioner De Lay clarified that the parking enforcement does in fact enforce at those times and she encouraged the community to meet with parking enforcement.
Mr. Thompson said that there will be a few delays but he felt that the community would be pleased once they see the caliber of development which will be constructed.
Chair Muir encouraged the Applicant to try negotiating the purchase of the two rear adjoining properties. He said that would be a better utilization of the property in the long run.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the comments submitted by the Transportation Division saying that, “the public way along 1300 South needs to be improved with roadway definition of curb and gutter on both sides to reduce conflict with vehicular traffic”. She asked for clarification regarding what this project will be obligated to do. She asked if the property to the west has curb and gutter.
Mr. Thompson replied that the property to the west does not have curb and gutter.
Mr. Wheelwright replied that the responsibility of this project would be from the center of 1300 South north for improvements. He said that the travel way will be widened at least 10 feet and the Applicant will establish a new curb. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the City Engineer will make the final decision regarding curb and gutter. The Transportation Division recommends that both sides of the street be improved and the City Engineer’s recommendation is slightly different. Mr. Wheelwright stated that it is not uncommon for Staff to have to make a decision to balance conflicting City Department requirements. He said that typically the City would not asses this property for improvements for both sides of 1300 South. Mr. Wheelwright said that he is not sure if there will be requirements to tie in the vacant parcel to the west for the street improvements.
Commissioner McDonough said that it would be sensible in terms of access to include that parcel in the street improvements.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Chair Muir said that perhaps the Commission should recommend that the City Engineer revisit his recommendation. Chair Muir said that he felt that given the impact upon this neighborhood the street improvements should include both sides of the road.
Commissioner McDonough asked if the Commission feels that the amount of lots proposed this evening is appropriate. She said that she is observing that the proposal is repeating a pattern that is prevalent in the adjacent area. One thing that makes this proposal unique is its adjacency to the open space on the south side.
Chair Muir stated that he is troubled by the configuration of the lots at the rear of the cul-de-sac. He noted that configuration creates more curb face and would allow for more on street parking, which is a common issue expressed this evening. He added that he is not opposed to the proposed density.
Commissioner De Lay felt that the configuration is unfortunate but workable. She noted that the area is in transition and the proposal is compatible with the adjacent cul-de-sacs.
Chair Muir said that another alternative is to table the petition and request that the Applicant make vigorous efforts to acquire more property and come back to the Commission with a better configuration.
Commissioner Scott referred to the governing Master Plan saying that the proposal is a compatible land use and even a desired pattern with respect to the cul-de-sac configuration and the lots are a similar size as the adjacent lots.
Motion for Petition No. 490-04-20
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 490-04-20, based on the comments, analysis, discussion this evening, findings of fact noted in the staff report, and the Planning Staff recommendation, that the Planning Commission grant preliminary minor subdivision approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with and satisfaction of all departmental comments and requirements.
2. Final Plat and development approval authority shall be granted to the Planning Director or his designee.
3. A Final Subdivision application must be submitted upon approval of the Minor Subdivision with approval authority delegated to the Planning Director.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner De Lay indicated concern that the Community Council did not review the petition prior to the Planning Commission review.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 410-670, by Steve Fry representing Autostrada Motors, requesting conditional use approval to operate a used-car sales lot in a Downtown Support "D-2" District, on the property located at 235 West 500 South.
This item was heard at 7:23 p.m.
Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the petition as written in the staff report. She stated that the proposed location is the site of the former Mark Miller Toyota car lot which was in operation from 1981 to April of 1990. She said that there was discussion with the Applicant regarding whether or not the previous conditional use approval ran with the land or if the Applicant would have to reapply. The decision was made that the Applicant would need to reapply since there is a break in the use of the car sales lot according to the Business License records. Ms. Gasparik referred to the landscaping discussion on the fieldtrip quoting ordinance section 21A.48.150 “in the absence of more restrictive regulations, automobile sales and lease establishments shall be required to provide a 5 foot front and corner side yard”. Ms. Gasparik noted that the project was reviewed by the Development Review Team (DRT) on July 6, 2004, and at that time it was determined that since the use is not changing, no additional landscaping should be required. Based upon the analysis and findings in the staff report, and subject to the Departmental conditions and requiring the submittal of a site landscaping plan, to be approved by the Planning Director, the Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as designed and reflected in the proposed site plan.
Mr. Steve Fry, Vice President of Autostrada, and Mr. Doug Fry President of Autostrada addressed the Commission. Mr. Doug Fry stated that their intention is to visually improve the property. He said that the asphalt will be improved and the existing sign will be used but will be modified to reflect Autostrada. He added that the current status of the property is an eyesore and it has been vacant for the past four years. He said that the proposed improvements will contribute greatly to the area. He said that the use will not be intensified from the past uses.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-670
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-670, based upon the analysis and findings in the staff report, and subject to the Departmental conditions and requiring the submittal of a site landscaping plan to be approved by the Planning Director, that the Planning Commission grant approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as designed and reflected in the proposed site plan.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 410-672, by Mr. Quinn McDonough of Rose Park Coffee, requesting Planned Development/Conditional Use approval in the “CS” community shopping district zone, located at 184 North 900 West Street (in the parking lot shared with Rite Aid). The request is for a coffee kiosk with drive-up windows.
This item was heard at 7:30 p.m.
Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the petition as written in the staff report. She stated that the Applicant is requesting to utilize a 0.36 acre pad site located in the parking lot of the Rite Aid Drug Store. Ms. Lewis stated that the construction of a new principal building, use or addition that increases the floor area is permissible only as a planned development in the “CS” zone. Ms. Lewis referred to the site plan saying that five vehicles are able to stack within 10 foot drive aisles for either drive-up window, which meets the zoning ordinance for stacking. The coffee kiosk will not detract from the required parking for the Rite Aid which currently has an excess of 132 parking stalls. The coffee kiosk is expected to use 15 of those excess stall for the drive-up. Ms. Lewis noted that the vehicle stacking will not interrupt traffic entering or exiting the shopping center. Based on the findings of fact, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Planned Development request with the conditions noted in the staff report.
Commissioner Scott asked if there will be signage in addition to that on the structure. Ms. Lewis replied that the only signage proposed is on the structure.
Commissioner De Lay asked if there are requirements that the structure be constructed from a foundation and would be permanent.
Ms. Lewis replied that the structure is prefabricated and will be anchored for the life of the lease. She said that there are no specific requirements that the structure be constructed from a foundation.
Commissioner Scott referred to the proposed site noting that there is currently a fireworks stand and a shipping cargo cart. She asked if the kiosk would preclude those uses in the parking lot in the future.
Ms. Lewis replied that those uses are in the way of where the drive aisles will be operating. In that particular area of the parking lot the kiosk will preclude those uses.
Commissioner Chambless asked why the term of the lease is 9 years. He also asked what the hours of operation will be.
Ms. Lewis deferred to the Applicant to respond.
Mr. Quinn McDonough addressed the Commission saying that the hours of operation will be Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday the kiosk will open between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. during the summer and possibly closing earlier in the winter.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Applicant’s insurance allows for the public to walk up to the structure.
Mr. McDonough replied that there will be a walk way up to the kiosk at the rear of the structure. He added that while the plumbing is being put in, and with the removal of a few bushes, there may be a couple of tables on the current 10 foot landscaped area.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the staff report shows that the kiosk will be open at 5:00 a.m.
Mr. McDonough clarified that the Health Department requires that the restrooms are available during all hours of operation and the Albertsons is open at 6:00 a.m.
Commissioner Chambless inquired what lighting is proposed. He also asked why the Applicant agreed to a 9 year lease. Commissioner Chambless asked if the lease length was an agreement between the Applicant and Rite Aid or Albertsons.
Mr. McDonough replied that there currently is lighting under awnings of the building. He said that he did not have a particular reason for the 9 year lease agreement; it was not a number set by Albertsons or Rite Aid.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the drive aisles and asked if the Applicant would be willing to add landscaping there.
Mr. McDonough replied that he had thought of adding planters there to add to the aesthetic appeal of the site.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Devroom, an adjacent resident of the site, addressed the Commission. He said that his concern is that Payless has been a negligent land owner in regard to keeping their site clean of trash and debris. He asked the Commission to impose a condition on this lease agreement to require that Payless make more efforts to clean the lot. He said that he felt that the proposed uses will contribute to the trash in the area and asked that the Applicant be required to clean to site weekly.
Commissioner Chambless referred to Mr. Devroom’s reference to Payless and asked for clarification.
Ms. Lewis replied that Payless owns both the Rite Aid and the pad site.
Mr. McDonough stated that he intends to keep the area clean noting that it is beneficial for him to have a pleasing business. He added that he lives in Rose Park and is invested in the progress and cleanliness of the community.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Daniels stated that he did not feel that the Commission should impose on the Applicant the responsibility of keeping the entire parking lot for the Payless clean. He said that he felt that there are other avenues of encouraging Albertsons and Rite Aid to clean their properties.
Commissioner Scott stated that she agreed and she encouraged the adjacent property owners to call Enforcement.
Commissioner De Lay also suggested that the Community Council write a letter to Payless and Enforcement to that effect.
Motion for Petition No. 410-672
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-672 Rose Park Coffee, requesting Planned Development approval in the Community Shopping “CS” zoning district located at 184 North 900 West, based on the findings of fact and Staff recommendation, that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Planned Development request for the coffee kiosk with drive-up windows with the following conditions:
1. Modification from the 30’ Front and Corner Side yard setbacks, and 15’ Landscaped yard requirements along 900 West Street to accommodate the kiosk pad site at a 23’-11” setback, and to accept the existing 13’-11” Landscape yard setback, to the proposed 10’ drive aisle.
2. Applicant must obtain an agreement with Rite Aid or Albertsons for the use of the restrooms, which should coincide with the length of the lease agreement.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner McDonough asked to amend the motion to include an additional condition that would require the Applicant to landscape the center aisle between the two drive-up aisles from 50 – 70 percent of the site at the lessee’s discretion.
Commissioner Scott did not accept the amendment. She felt that the Applicant intends to accommodate that request regardless if it is a condition. Commissioner Scott felt that because the site is in a parking lot that additional condition may be too big a burden to impose on a small business.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-03-32, by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting that the City consider vacating as a public right-of-way the east section of the alley that extends from 1300 East to View Street, between the properties at 1974 and 1984 S. View Street, and connects to a north-south running alley in the middle of the block, and declare the alley property as surplus.
This item was heard at 7:50 p.m.
Associate Planner Janice Lew presented the petition as written in the staff report. She noted that at the request of the Planning Commission, the Administration has initiated a petition to vacate the east segment of the east-west alley that connects to View Street. In October 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding a subdivision amendment for the Highland Park Plaza at 1955-1977 South 1300 East. During the public hearing process, neighboring property owners expressed a strong concern regarding increased usage of the alleyway system from the clinic. It was also identified that the Sugar House Master Plan policy regarding alleyways discourages the use of alleys for commercial access if the alley abuts residential property. In response to these issues, the Planning Commission passed a motion to request that the City initiate a petition to consider vacating the subject alley.
Typically when an alley is adjacent to property that is zoned for Low Density Residential use, the City would vacate the alley and divide it in half and each property owner next to the alley would receive the half next to their property. Ms. Lew indicated that neither the Planning Commission nor the Staff has the authority to alter the disposition terms of the Code. Therefore, based on differing views with respect to vacating the alley which Staff has received and the analysis and findings identified in the staff report, Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that the City retain its ownership interest in the alley, but restrict vehicle access to the subject alley. Public access for other modes of travel should be retained with vehicle access easements provided to the owners of property abutting the subject alley.
Chair Muir referred to the use of the alley as relief to the street system, he asked if that is mentioned as an agenda for the alleys in the Master Plan. He felt that the use of alleys as a secondary transportation grid is asking too much for the nature of alleys. Chair Muir asked if this alley was ever part of the agenda to move the open space trail system out of the public right-of-way.
Ms. Lew replied that this alley was never part of the Open Space Master Plan.
Chair Muir asked why the City is obligated to make the improvements.
Ms. Lew replied that is because the City will maintain ownership of the alley. Ms. Lew stated that it would be a new precedent, something that has not been considered in the past.
Commissioner Scott referred to page 7 of the staff report and asked if the Sugar House Master Plan addresses super blocks.
Ms. Lew replied that is Staff’s interpretation, the Master Plan does not address super blocks.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dana Dickson, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission in opposition. He felt that alleys are for access and noted that he has a business which abuts the alley. Mr. Dickson said that he felt that any decision to close or limit the access to the alley would negatively impact his business. He said that the north section of the alley is in very poor condition and he felt that the businesses which abut the alley are being punished because the alley is not being maintained. Mr. Dickson said that if the alley is closed to vehicular traffic the pedestrians will not be able to utilize the alley because the vehicular traffic clears a way for pedestrians. Mr. Dickson said that in any case if the alley is closed or remains open the alley should be brought up to a standard that the adjacent property owners could still benefit.
Mr. Bruce Baird addressed the Commission on behalf of the Highland Dental Plaza. He said that he believed that there is a notice problem for the hearing this evening. He said that he has been advised that a number of the people that live on the east-west and north-south alley network were not advised of the public hearing. Mr. Baird said that he hoped that the Commission did not prejudge the petition since the Administration initiated it. He said that at the last public hearing regarding this matter there were a lot of public remarks which he felt precipitated the initiation of this petition. Mr. Baird said that it is clear that this alley is needed for traffic flow. He said that if the alley is closed there will be significant issues with emergency service vehicles. Mr. Baird referred to the public safety finding in the staff report saying that he did not agree that finding had been met. Mr. Baird referred to the police report saying that only 6 events were related to the alley and 3 of which seemed to be related to someone deliberately blocking the alley. Mr. Baird said that there have been attempts to put in street lighting, but the adjoining property owners opposed those lighting systems. Mr. Baird said that if the alley is closed the alley will be maintained in a worst manner. Mr. Baird referred to the idea of turning the alley into a community garden. He said that the two properties that have access rights will not have access if the alley is replaced by a garden. Mr. Baird referred to the community purpose finding saying that the restriction of the public use of the alley to preserve the community use in the form of a community garden is not a likely possibility. He said that the reality of the situation is that the alley will become a weed infested area. Mr. Baird stated that he did not believe that the findings of the staff report have been met. He felt that the Commission should not even consider the discretionary elements in the staff report. Mr. Baird disputed finding 1 saying that at the last public hearing the fire department supported leaving the alley open. He disputed finding 4 saying that the parcels will be materially impacted if the alley is closed. Mr. Baird disputed finding 5 saying that the staff report refers to the Future Land Use Map of the Master Plan which is not applicable. Mr. Bair stated that the proposed alley has been part of the existing alley network which has allowed access to the businesses and residences for at least 40-50 years. Mr. Baird disputed finding 7 saying that the request does not meet the criteria for disposing of the alley. Mr. Baird referred to the final section on page 10 of the staff report which allows the abutting property owners to maintain the right to access the alley. He felt that statement defeats the purpose of closing the alley. Mr. Baird referred to the Transportation Division statement which was included in the staff report of October 8, 2003. That statement indicates that the traffic on the alley is not excessive and that there is no need to close the alley. Mr. Baird stated that only a few people want the alley closed, a great number of people want that alley to remain open and he felt that the alley does not meet the criteria for closure.
Commissioner Daniels referred to Mr. Baird’s comments that the Fire Department is opposed to the proposal. Mr. Daniels noted that the Fire Department submitted comments which are included in the staff report that they do not opposed the proposal.
Mr. Baird said that at the last public hearing the Fire Department was opposed to the closure of the alley and it seems that they are not opposed to the proposal at this time. Mr. Baird said that he could not explain the change.
Mr. Steve Whitehead addressed the Commission representing Eric Strain and Eric Rankin who are the owners of the adjacent properties on either side of the subject alley. Mr. Whitehead stated that the subject site is an alley; it is not an approved City street. The alley is narrow, with no curb and gutter or a sidewalk, which is why it should not be used as a thoroughfare. Mr. Whitehead noted that there is an issue with the maintenance of the alley. The City is responsible for the plowing of the snow as well as the repair of the alley. He said that the additional traffic on an already dangerous alley raises the safety concerns. Mr. Whitehead said that the intent of alley ways is to provide access to the property owners, not create an arterial street or another alternative to the street plan. Mr. Whitehead referred to the letter in the staff report from Mr. Dickson who indicates that the worn nature of the road is proof of the number people that use the alley. Mr. Whitehead stated that is contradictory and an admission that a lot people use the road. Mr. Dickson disputed the argument that the alley is a thoroughfare for the City saying that the alley is not intended to serve that purpose. Mr. Whitehead stated that the health, safety, and welfare of the local residents are an issue. Mr. Whitehead referred to the Highland Dental Clinic saying that they have access on 1300 East and the alley should be left to the use of the residents rather than as a commercial thoroughfare. Mr. Whitehead referenced to the idea of a garden saying that his clients do not intend to put a garden into the alley; the alley would have to allow access for the residents.
Mr. Eric Strain, an adjacent property owner addressed the Commission. He submitted, for the public record, a petition with the signatures of 32 surrounding residents asking for the closure of the alley. Mr. Strain disputed Mr. Baird’s comments that the adjacent property owners oppose the lighting of the alley. Mr. Strain stated that the traffic study that was included in the staff report of October 2003 did not include the evening hours, which he felt is a time when there is a heavy flow of traffic in the alley. Mr. Strain stated that the alley is a target for crime and is in disrepair. He stated that the alley needs to be closed to protect the neighbors.
Commissioner De Lay read the requested petition and asked Mr. Strain for clarification regarding the access of the alley. She said if the alley is closed to vehicular traffic the neighboring property owners will not be able to access their garages.
Mr. Strain stated that the request is to close the east-west portion of the alley which would still allow the neighboring property owners access to their garages.
Commissioner De Lay asked if Mr. Strain has attempted to discuss the maintenance issues with the City. She said that the use of the alley seems to be a result of the bottlenecking of 1300 East.
Mr. Strain indicated that he has not discussed that with the City. He agreed with Commissioner De Lay saying that 1300 East is an impacting factor as well as the apartment complex and the dental clinic.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Strain to go into detail regarding his reference to traffic hazards and crime issues in the alley.
Mr. Strain replied that there is a daily increase in traffic. He said that he has been rear ended while pulling out of his garage. He said that he must be very aware while in the alley to avoid getting hit by a vehicle. He added that children use the alley as well which adds to their safety concern. Mr. Strain indicated that there has been drug activity in the alley. He added that there is no lighting in the alley and the neighborhood would welcome any lighting.
Mr. Eric Rankin, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He said that he has also witnessed the traffic hazards and has almost been a victim of one. He referred to the question asking if the City has been contacted regarding the maintenance of the alley. He stated that he has contacted the City and was told that the maintenance of the alley is a low priority and he would have to contribute 50 percent. Mr. Rankin stated that he has also contacted Utah Power to try to get lighting in the alley, and they have replied with a letter which would allow Mr. Rankin to do so at his cost. He said that it would be fine if the City decided to keep the alley open if it would be maintained and policed. Mr. Rankin said that the alley is intended to be used by the residents and should be closed to vehicular access.
Mr. John Anderson, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He stated that he felt that the notice requirement had been met because letters were mailed to the public and large posters had been placed in the alley.
Chair Muir noted that the City has a certain standard of noticing which must be met; it is not an issue for debate.
Mr. Anderson asked if that has been determined.
Chair Muir stated that Staff feels that the requirement has been met.
Mr. Zunguze added that if there is anyone who thinks that they did not receive sufficient notice of the hearing to let Staff know.
Mr. Anderson stated that he has requested lighting in the alley, and the City has indicated that they would not consider it because of a lack of funds; however, they would write a letter of support to Utah Power which would allow Mr. Anderson to pay for a light himself. Mr. Anderson stated that when he met with Gordon Haight regarding where to put the light he was informed that the light would run off of his power meter and he would be responsible for that cost. Mr. Anderson stated that he is opposed to footing the bill for the lighting which the whole community will benefit from. He said that he is in support of the City putting in lighting. Mr. Anderson stated that when the calls are made to Police when there is criminal activity it is put on low priority and the criminals are gone before the Police arrive. He added that the maintenance is nonexistent; the City has directed the residents to pay for half of the maintenance. Mr. Anderson stated that the residents have gone through the proper channels to alleviate the issues and they are not working. He said that over time the traffic is only going to increase, and the alley must be closed. Mr. Anderson stated that the constant argument is that the alley should not be closed because people use it, which is exactly why it should be closed to preserve the safety of the residents.
Chair Muir noted that it is not uncommon that ornamental lighting improvements will be connected to a personal meter.
Dr. Van Tassell, a resident of the area, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is not a Doctor in the Highland Dental Clinic. Dr. Van Tassell stated that he is opposed to closing the alley; however, he respects and understands the neighbor’s perspective. He suggested that the lighting of the alley be improved regardless of the outcome of this petition. Dr. Van Tassell added that if the alley is closed the access for the apartment complex would be closed as well.
Mr. Zunguze asked if the Applicant received notification of the public hearing.
Mr. Van Tassell, replied that he did not receive notice; he heard about the public hearing through a neighbor of the site.
Dr. Steve Burton of Highland Dental Plaza addressed the Commission in opposition of the alley closure. He stated that he grew up in an adjacent home to the alley, and has since moved to another residence. Dr. Burton stated that since the beginning of the clinic, the alley has always allowed access to the clinic from the south, east, and west. He said that since it is not a new proposal it cannot go against the Master Plan. Dr. Burton said that he did not think that there will be a difference in safety if the alley is closed to vehicular traffic. He felt that the criminal activity would actually increase because the current vehicular traffic helps keep the weeds down. Dr. Burton stated that in the past there have been attempts to get lighting in the alley and the neighboring property owners turned it down because there would be a cost of $300.00 from each property owner. Dr. Burton stated that the Highland Clinic cannot control the traffic in the alley after business hours. Dr. Burton noted that Mark Eaton’s restaurant also contributes to the traffic on the alley. Dr. Burton stated that if there is an emergency in the clinic and the traffic on 1300 East is gridlocked the emergency vehicles would use the alley. If the alley is closed the emergency response would be slower. Dr. Burton pleaded with the Commission to keep the alley open.
Mr. Rankin readdressed the Commission to clarify that the Fire Department does not oppose the alley closure.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Chair Muir noted that the Commission received a petition from Mr. Strain as well as various letters in support and opposition of the proposal. Chair Muir stated that he takes considerable umbrage at derogatory comments made toward Staff. He stated that he did not see anything shocking about the staff report. He added that he takes exception to those remarks and he did not think that those remarks serve the debate. Chair Muir stated that the neighborhood belongs to both the residents and commercial uses. He said that the hope is that a symbiotic relationship may be found.
Chair Muir stated that he feels that the intent of alleys is to continue a pedestrian element for the community. He said that he has visited communities where alleys are an asset and are left open to make a more walkable community. He said that he did understand the need to balance the needs for the residential and the commercial uses. Chair Muir said that he did not think that blocking off the alley is the only solution. He referred to other subtle gestures such as lighting, speed bumps, changing the pavement character to designate a pedestrian zone.
Commissioner McDonough agreed that the ideal way to treat alleys would be by giving them a different feel if they were completely funded and maintained by the City. In this circumstance that is not an option; if it was possible she said that she would be in favor of keeping the alley open. Commissioner McDonough stated that she is in support of approving the petition because it is evident that the commercial intensity and vehicular use in this area is now at odds with the residential use of the alley. She noted that the bollard would be able to be removed by the Fire Department if necessary. Commissioner McDonough stated that she does not believe that the weeds will stop growing or that the crime will stop completely but certainly the vehicular related incidents will be diminished.
Commissioner De Lay felt that this alley is unique because it is the only east-west alley from 2100 South and on for blocks and blocks. Commissioner De Lay reiterated that 1300 East is a State road and is a huge problem during rush hour. She said that she would be sad to see the alley closed because she uses it; however, she completely understands the concerns of the neighbors. She stated that in the future there will be an increase in traffic, crime, and use in general of the alley. Commissioner De Lay said that she would support the alley closure to vehicular traffic. Commissioner De Lay asked Staff if all of the notice requirements were met.
Ms. Lew replied that alley petitions only require notification of every property owner on the block, and that requirement was met and expanded further east.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the notice list includes approximately 100 names.
Commissioner Daniels stated that he agrees wholeheartedly with the Staff recommendation to close the alley to preserve the safety of the neighborhood. He noted that the neighboring property owners have offered to contribute to take care of the area which will help it become a more walkable community.
Commissioner Chambless added that the status quo is not acceptable. He said that perhaps a possibility of a solution is more lighting as well as landscaping and closing the alley to vehicles while allowing it to remain open to pedestrians, bikes, and motorcycles.
Commissioner Scott stated that she would prefer that the alley remain open to cars primarily because of the super block configuration. She noted that 1200 feet is too long of a block to not allow an opportunity to go east-west through the block. She stated that on the other hand the primary purpose is to allow access rather than movement, and the primary users of the alley are all the residents and workers on the block. She said that the maintenance is a great source of frustration. If the alley was maintained, with lighting and traffic control she did not think that the alley would be considered for closure. Commissioner Scott stated that she could live with the closure of the alley to vehicles; however, it is imperative that the alley is left open for pedestrian use. She stated that it is not beneficial to keep the alley open to pedestrians if it is not a safe place. She felt that a very strong message should be sent to the neighbors, Enforcement, and the Community Council that they should attend to the safety issues of the alley.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-32
Commissioner McDonough made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-32, by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting that the City consider vacating as a public right-of-way the east section of the alley that extends from 1300 East to View Street, between the properties at 1974 and 1984 S. View Street, and connects to a north-south running alley in the middle of the block, based upon the analysis and findings identified in the staff report, and the Staff recommendation and based on the recommendations and the impacts of the proposed action listed in the staff report, that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that the City retain its ownership interest in, but restrict vehicle access to the subject alley. Public access for other modes of travel should be retained with vehicle access easements provided to the owners of property abutting the subject alley.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless asked if the public access for other modes of travel would include pedestrians, motorcycles, bicycles, and skateboards.
The Commission agreed.
Commissioner Scott stated that she is going to resist the motion because she felt that it will put an unfair impact and expense on the City. She stated that there will be some vehicle access of the alley by the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Scott felt that the approval of the proposal will be setting a precedent that is somewhat dangerous.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, and Commissioner McDonough voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Four Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Chair Muir requested that in the future Master Plans send the message that alleys are a different element in the City. He stated that alleys help encourage pedestrian access. Chair Muir stated that there needs to be a better solution for alleys and their use in the City.
Commissioner De Lay felt that in the future the City will need alleys and will rely on them more.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.