SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Gilbert lker, Andrea Barrows, Craig Mariger and Mike Steed. Aria Funk, Diana Kirk and Fred Fife were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Emil Pierson, Elizabeth Giraud, Cheri Coffey, Robert Glessner and Joel Paterson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:15p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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
Mr. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, June 18, 1998 subject to a few minor changes being made. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
Petition No. 410-304 by the Utah Transit Authority requesting a conditional use for the construction of an electric power substation for the north/south light rail located at 969 South 200 West in a Downtown "D-2" zoning district.
Mr. Emil Pierson 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. Hal Johnson, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Johnson addressed the landscaping and screening of the facility. He stated that the Police Department has recommended putting in a fence and that the fence color match the color of the substation. The Police Department believes that the fencing is the best screening technique because people see the fence, not the substation.
Mr. Mariger asked if the substation would have a continual humming noise.
Mr. Johnson stated that there will be a slight humming noise, however, it will only be heard if someone is within six or eight feet from the substation.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Kathy Roberts, a concerned citizen, stated that she is concerned about the noise coming from the facility. She also expressed concern that the property be maintained. Ms. Roberts then asked if the substation will attract lightening.
Mr. Barry Lumke, Traction Power Substation Engineer for UTA, stated that the substation will not attract lightening because it is low to the ground.
Ms. Norma Amodt, a concerned citizen, asked if the substation will cause interference with the televisions and radios in the area. Mr. Lumke stated that it will not cause interference. Ms. Amodt then asked if the substation will lower the property values. Mr. Wright stated that he cannot specifically address the question with a yes or no answer. He then stated that the goal of the Planning Commission is to make sure that the substation has adequate landscape buffering and fencing so that it will not detract from the neighborhood.
Mr. Jan Bartlett, a concerned citizen, stated that perhaps a solution for the concerns that have been mentioned would be to put the substation underground.
Mr. Johnson stated that putting the substation underground would cost UTA a substantial amount of money that they felt would not be a good use for the tax payers money.
Mr. David Zerker, a concerned citizen, asked if the substation could be located on 1300 South instead of on 900 South. Mr. Johnson stated that the substations need to have certain spacing, roughly every mile, due to the electrical elements. He then stated that UTA would have rather located the substation on a piece of property that they already owned, however, the proposed site is where it needs to be located for technical reasons.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-304:
Mr. lker moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-304 for a traction power substation for the light rail located at 969 South 200 West in a Downtown "D-2" subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. That the traction power substation provide electric power only to the north/south light rail.
1 That the landscaping and fencing surrounding the substation be granted to the Planning Director for final approval. The Planning Commission desires more landscaping around the parking area if possible. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
2 That all public/private utilities be placed underground.
3 That the building be treated with anti-graffiti treatment.
4 That the trees located on the southern end of the property not be destroyed during the construction of the facility.
5 That the substation comply with all building, safety and other adopted city codes applicable to this type of use.
6 That the developer be responsible to meet all provisions of the "D-2" Downtown Support District, the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, and all conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-316 by Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett requesting a conditional use to' use the James Freeze House as a reception center located at 734 East 200 South in a Residential "RMF-45" zoning district.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud 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. Ms. Giraud stated that the applicants are pursuing an agreement with the property owner of the IHC Medical Clinic to the south to obtain additional parking after
5:00 p.m. and for one-way egress onto 300 South Street. If the applicant can obtain permission from the IHC Medical Clinic, the applicants will also only need a drive 12' wide (as opposed to 18') and none of the front yard will be needed for access.
Ms. Nancy Saxton and Mr. Jan Bartlett, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. lker asked if an agreement had been reached with IHC.
Ms. Saxton stated that IHC has not given an answer at this time. The property owner of the IHC Medical Clinic wants to be accommodating if the compatibility of the proposed reception center meets with the compatibility of the IHC.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Susan Hardy and Ms. Reva Boren were present as board members of the Stansbury Condominium Housing Association. Ms. Hardy stated that the Stansbury Condorr1iniums are located directly west of the proposed reception center. She is concerned that the visitors of the reception center will use the condominium parking lot and that there may be some noise and activity beyond the usual 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ms. Hardy then stated that the neighborhood is a predominantly residential area and that she would like some assurance that the utilization of the proposed reception center is going to be conducive to the conditions that the residents are used to.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she feels that the "Economic Hardship" language in the Zoning Ordinance needs to be clarified. The way the language is written, just about any house that has been neglected for a long time can meet the standard. Ms. Cromer then stated that she feels that having "Economic Hardship" in the Zoning Ordinance is another way to commercialize buildings in residential areas. Ms. Cromer also feels that the phrase "threatened with demolition" needs to be more specifically defined.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Short and Ms. Barrows addressed concerns about the parking. Mr. Wilde stated that there are a couple of options available in relation to the parking. One of the options would be to reconfigure the site through a planned development process to utilize the property in the southeast corner. The other option would be to use the IHC property. At this point, it is difficult to judge what the parking demands will be. Therefore, an additional option might be to provide some ·flexibility and request that this petition come back at some future point to the Planning Commission to address the parking issues and pursue the necessary options at that time. The Planning Commission will have the control at that point to demand further action if necessary. The IHC property would be the best solution because it provides the overflow without permitting additional hard surfacing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-316:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-316 for a reception center with the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 That a preservation easement in favor of the City be placed upon the property.
2 That an engineering calculation be performed and subn1itted to Public Utilities to determine if the existing 4" sewer line is sufficient for the proposed addition to the Freeze house.
1 That a drainage plan be submitted to Public Utilities.
2 That an addition to the Freeze house, signage and exterior lighting be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission.
3 That a revised site plan be submitted to the Planning Division. With respect to the revised site plan. a condition of this approval is that the applicant combine Parcels
A. B and C so that the parking can be configured in such a way as to minimize disruption to the mature landscaping. Final site plan is to be approved by the Planning Director. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde stated, in response to Ms. Cromer's comments, that staff recognizes the need to clarify the "Economic Hardship" language in the Zoning Ordinance.
Petition No. 410-311 by Carl Karcher Enterprises requesting a conditional use for a three tenant commercial planned development including a Carl's Jr. Restaurant with a drive-through located at 1726 West North Temple in a Community Shopping "CS" zoning district.
Ms. Cheri Coffey 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. Darrell Erickson, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 41 0-311 :
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 41 0-311 for the planned development subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 The final development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
2 The final landscaping plan approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
1 The crossover easement be obtained with the owner of the Sutherland's parcel and that the Planning Director have authority to waive this requirement if good faith efforts on the part of the applicant do not result in a crossover easement. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
2 The Planning Commission waive the requirement for a 150' distance between accesses to the property. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Petition No. 41 0-314 by William Stirling. representing Kids First. reg uesting a conditional use for a children's day care center on the vacant property located at 581 North Redwood Road in a Residential "R-1-5000" zoning district. In association with this petition; the petitioner is also requesting a preliminary four lot subdivision.
Mr. Smith noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
Petition No. 410-302 by Thorn Williamsen. representing Chasebrook Company. requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development to expand an existing commercial shopping center on the north side of 400 South between 600 and 700 East in a Community Shopping "CS" zoning district.
Mr. Robert Glessner 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. Glessner stated that the proposed project will have a wall continuous along the northern boundary of the project. The applicant will also be required to do a subdivision or a recordation of lot line adjustments so that the lot lines will match the zoning boundaries. Mr. Glessner then stated that there could be a potential access to a residential development, therefore, if a gate is desired that could be a condition of approval.
Mr. Mariger asked why the neighborhood is being blocked off. Mr. Glessner stated that the neighbors to the north of the development have asked that it be blocked off because they are concerned that it will create an opportunity for vandalism.
Mr. Thorn Williamsen, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Russ Naylor, the architect for the project, explained some of the architectural designs of the project to the Planning Comn1ission members. Mr.
Naylor used a presentation board to identify the landscaping, parking, pedestrian walkways and the placement of the proposed buildings.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger stated that if the neighbors do not want the access into the center now, but there will be a need for access in the future, perhaps the Planning Commission should require a locked gate at this point as part of the approval.
A discussion followed concerning pedestrian safety and the placement of the walkways within the development.
Motion for Petition No. 410-302:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-302 for a planned development subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 A minor subdivision is required of the applicant to merge lots and adjust property boundaries for the new structures and to remedy the properties with split zones.
2 The existing parking and driveway easement required for the property owner to the north, along 700 East, is required to be modified to allow landscaping as part of the buffer between the land uses. This must be recorded prior to building permit issuance.
3 Building setbacks shall be adhered to as identi'fied on the proposed site plan. No setback shall be greater than 15 feet on 400 South and 700 East. No setback in the rear yard shall be less than 15 feet. Any future minor deviations to the setbacks shall require Planning Director approval and major amendments to the planned development require Planning Commission approval.
4 Provide proper security lighting in the rear yard of the planned development.
5 Delivery hours for the planned development along the north property line shall not take place between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Semi-tractor trailers are prohibited from loading areas that require the vehicle to "back in or out" on 700 East.
6 Detailed landscape plan shall be required prior to building permit issuance and subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
7 That there be a locking gate for pedestrian access at the rear of the property between proposed Buildings #2 and #3A. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
8. Designated pedestrian walkways to connect the buildings ·fronting on 400 South be added to the project subject to the approval of the Planning Director. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Gateway Development Master Plan ·final discussion and decision.
Mr. Joel Paterson and Mr. Emil Pierson led the discussion. Mr. Paterson stated that on June 4, 1998 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the public review draft of the Gateway Development Master Plan. At that meeting several issues were raised by the public. The issues raised included the Gateway Commons open space, affordable housing, historic preservation and the 500 West Parkway.
Mr. Paterson then addressed each of the issues.
Mr. Paterson stated that although the comments received at the public hearing were not in favor of developing the Gateway Comn1ons open space, there has been a significant amount of positive comments received throughout the plan development process. Some of the public comments addressed using the space for a business/industrial park rather than green space. The idea behind the Gateway Commons is to develop an active green space with an err1phasis on activity. The Plan envisions the development of retail shops and educational opportunities that have a recreation or environmental focus, restaurants, gathering spaces for festivals or community celebrations, a corr1munity/recreation center and open play fields that could accorr1modate team sports.
Mr. Paterson then addressed affordable housing. He stated that the public review draft of the Gateway Plan includes policy statements that encourage the development of balanced neighborhoods with a mix of income levels and the integration of affordable and market-rate housing. Staff is continuing to research specific methods that could require a percentage of the housing stock to be reserved as affordable.
Mr. Paterson then addressed historic preservation. He stated that the public review draft of the Gateway Development Master Plan encourages the listing of buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, adaptive reuse of existing buildings and the expansion of the Warehouse National Register Historic District. During the hearing on June 4, 1998, comments were received which recommended that the Gateway Plan encourage the listing of eligible structures to the City's Register of Cultural Resources. Staff supports the inclusion of policy statements that encourage the listing of individual sites to the City's Register of Cultural Resources and to consider the development of a non-contiguous local historic district within the Gateway District.
Mr. Paterson then addressed the 500 West Greenway. He stated that the Gateway Plan calls for the development of a 96-foot wide greenway in the center of 500 West. The greenway would be designed to be actively used by the residents of the area. Some property owners in the southern portion of the Gateway District have raised concerns about possible widening of 500 West to allow the development of a greenway south of 600 South. The concern is that any median would limit the ability of large trucks to access businesses in the area. Mr. Paterson then stated that he feels that 500 West will be one of the major northwest corridors in the Gateway. Staff will continue to work with the property owners to try to resolve their concerns.
Mr. lker noted that the Gateway Plan is a very well organized document, however, the purpose and intent statement needs to be highlighted so that it stands out.
Ms. Barrows stated that she has heard that some property owners in the Gateway want to sell their property because they feel it will not work economically.
Mr. Paterson stated that he feels that there are some property owners who are misunderstanding what the Gateway Plan has to offer. Staff is trying to get across the idea that the Gateway Plan includes a mixed use concept throughout the entire Gateway.
Mr. Smith noted that the intent of the plan is to encourage existing property owners, not discourage them.
Mr. Steed stated that he is concerned that the Gateway Commons will create a transient problem. Mr. Wright stated that the Gateway Commons will not be just an open space, it will be an active open space. Wherever there is an open space, there will be a reason for it, an owner of it and there will be a user coming from all over the City and all over the region. Having this type of open space should discourage transients.
Mr. Steed noted that another concern he has is the commitment of the City for the recreational activities that will be included in the Gateway Commons. Right now, all of the recreational activities are turned over to the County and he feels that the City should stay committed to the Gateway Commons. Ms. Striefel stated that she sees the Gateway Commons area as a great opportunity for public and private partnerships with a recreation leisure focus. Ms. Striefel then stated that she has heard a lot of good ideas throughout the process of the Gateway Plan. Mr. Paterson also noted that the Gateway Commons will not happen all at once, it will take several years for the entire 60 acres to become open space.
Mr. Smith asked what the Planning Commission's involvement will be after the adoption of the Gateway Plan. Mr. Wright stated that the Gateway Plan will be back on the Planning Commission's agenda in September to discuss the zoning of the Gateway area. The Gateway Plan will be addressed for many years and return to the Planning Commission for issues such as project development and infrastructure development.
Mr. lker stated that he feels that the City should encourage the Gateway area to have all utilities underground.
Mr. Smith spoke for the Planning Commission when he commended Ms. Striefel for a job well done on the Gateway Development Master Plan.
Motion for the Gateway Development Master Plan:
Ms. Short moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to hold a public hearing and adopt the Gateway Development Master Plan. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Zoning Ordinance refinements discussion.
Mr. Brent Wilde led the discussion by stating that once the briefing sessions are complete with the Planning Commission, the documents will then go to the community councils for an open house. After which, there will be a final Planning Commission hearing prior to advancing this on to the City Council.
A brief discussion followed concerning the final Zoning Ordinance refinement document, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Wilde then informed the Planning Commission to contact staff if they have any concerns prior to the final Planning Commission public hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.