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 Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planners Doug Dansie, Jackie Gasparik, and Joel Paterson and Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:52 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 the Minutes from Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Chair Jonas requested the following changes to the minutes:
Page 1, the third paragraph, the fourth sentence shall be corrected to read, “Chair Jonas was strongly opposed to that idea.”
Page 15, the second line in the second paragraph from the bottom regarding the neighborhood shall be changed to read, “Neighborhood where there are mature trees.”
Page 26, the third paragraph, the second line shall be corrected to read, “but said there were some communities that disallow sponsorship.”
Commissioner Scott requested the following changes to the minutes:
Page 26, the second paragraph from the bottom, the second sentence from the bottom shall be changed to read, “Chair Jonas asked for confirmation that for the rest of the City the program would be administered by the City Transportation Division.”
Page 14, second paragraph, second to the last line, shall be changed to read “willing to reduce the size of the flag.”
Commissioner Scott moved to approve the minutes for June 25, 2003, as corrected. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Noda abstained. Chair Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was discussed at 5:55 p.m. Mr. Zunguze informed the Commission that two new Planning Commissioners were confirmed at the City Council meeting the previous evening, Tuesday July 8th. He went on to say that he will be meeting with them and they should be ready to attend the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August 13th.
Mr. Zunguze reported to the Commission that the Land Use Appeals Board took the matter up of the Highland Park Dental Plaza and remanded it back to the Planning Commission with instructions to reopen the hearing from the beginning of the process based upon errors made by the Planning Commission, including: Improper reopening of the hearing, process problems with the testimony during the hearing, and improper application of the standard. He informed the Commission that this item will be scheduled for the Commission to rehear it.
Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission if they wanted to schedule a time for the dedicated meeting to discuss Long Range Planning Issues tonight or wait until the full compliment of the board. Chair Jonas said he would rather schedule a meeting time now due to ever changing schedules and availability. Commissioner Daniels asked the Commission to consider a time at or past the end of the general work day preferably from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. or if not that late then 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Seelig agreed and suggested 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Commissioner Scott mentioned that for the sake of the general public, after work hours would probably be most beneficial.
Commissioner McDonough asked what the expected frequency of the Long Range Planning Issues meetings would be. Chair Jonas replied no more than one a month. Mr. Zunguze added that due to a backlog of things, he envisions the frequency will be one meeting a month for a while.
Chair Jonas asked the Commission if they would like to have a Long Range Planning meeting on Thursday, August 21st from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. The Commission agreed.
LONGRANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Long Range Planning Issues were discussed during the Report of the Director.
Chair Jonas welcomed Kathy Castro as the Planning Commission Transcriptionist.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-16, by PSC Development, representing Utah Housing Corporation, is requesting a master plan and zoning map amendment, for 1.58 acres of property located at approximately 400 North and 1974 West. The request is to change the existing Public Lands “PL” zone to a residential “R-1-5000” zone, to facilitate the future development of a residential subdivision.
This hearing began at 6:02 p.m.
Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the petition as written in the staff report. She referred to an aerial photo of the subject property and the proposed area for the rezone. She mentioned a condition that Commissioner Daniels brought up on the field trip, requesting an added buffer anywhere from 30-50 feet from the proposed development to the freeway.
Mr. Jeremy Jensen, from PSC Development, representing Utah Housing Corporation spoke to the Commission regarding their intentions for this property. He explained that they promote affordable housing for people in this area. Mr. Jensen described that Crown Homes allows people of lower income to have the opportunity to rent to own without a down payment plan. Utah Housing Corporation is offering school students an educational/work opportunity where they can take part in building the homes where they will be fully supervised by licensed contractors. He noted that they met with the local Community Council and they were given a positive recommendation.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Jensen if he was concerned about an added landscape buffer. Mr. Jensen replied that they are happy to comply with a landscape buffer concept and they would explore that on a more detailed basis when they get into the site planning stage.
Chair Jonas asked what past practice had been done with respect to buffering for subdivisions bordering the freeway; specifically, to the subdivision in the north vicinity of the proposed project. Ms. Gasparik replied that a specific subdivision by Ivory Homes is 50 feet to the boundary of the subdivision with an added rear yard setback.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that most of the land in the Ivory Homes subdivision was reconfigured through land trades with the school district. The park and the new elementary school were built abutting the freeway, rather than the single family homes to help buffer the noise. Mr. Wheelwright added that he was not aware of UDOT plans for a noise barrier wall on this portion of the freeway and maybe that is an option the applicant might explore with UDOT as part of the subdivision analysis.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Jensen to speak to the issue of noise mitigation. Mr. Jensen replied saying that they have had noise studies done in previous projects and in most cases, adding triple pane windows as well as additional insulation to the walls abutting the high noise area has proven sufficient to the noise analysis. He also said that berming or dense landscaping will help deflect sound. Commissioner Daniels asked if the applicant had a problem with an additional condition for noise mitigation at the request of the Planning Director. Mr. Jensen said they would be happy to comply with the general concept that has been described.
Mr. Jensen presented several conceptual plans showing the evolution of the subdivision. There was discussion regarding the subdivision and that the actual plan will be presented at a later date.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
No public comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas inquired if the proposed rezone is consistent with that of the adjoining parcel. He made reference to discussions during the field trip relating to the possibility of moving the east property line depending on how much land the adjoining property requires. Ms. Gasparik replied that at this point, the applicant would like to continue through the process with the property that they currently own. If the applicant decided to purchase the adjoining parcel, they would most likely have to come back with another rezone application unless the Planning Commission would be willing to allow wiggle room with the eastern property line.
Mr. Zunguze clarified that the petition before the Planning Commission at this time is the request to rezone property only and that the subdivision process should take its full course at a later time.
Commissioner McDonough asked what the suggested amount or range of linear feet going east would be recommended in thinking that the applicant may gain a portion of the adjoining property. Ms. Gasparik reiterated that she did not anticipate that happening. When she spoke to Mr. Jensen, he thought less than 10 feet would be sufficient, but he is proceeding with the property that they currently own.
Ms Gasparik added that because this project receives federal funding, they are under strict guidelines for noise mitigation. They will need to meet federal standards as well as city standards.
Chair Jonas indicated that the adjoining property was not included in this petition and would not be dealt with at this time.
Motion for Petition 400-03-16
Commissioner Daniels moved to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the master plan amendment for Parks/Open Space, Public/Semi Public to Low Density Residential; and the rezoning of the property from Public Lands to Single Family Residential R-1/5000 with the conditions 1-4 as listed in the staff report, and adding the words “including the Planning Director” to the end of condition #4. As well as adding an additional condition #5 for appropriate buffering including tri-pane windows and possible berming and landscaping to mitigate noise.
Mr. Zunguze mentioned that he is currently a part of the approval process for the subdivision plat approval, and as such, there was no need to specifically call out the Planning Director’s involvement in the motion. Commissioner Daniels withdrew his recommendation for #4.
Commissioner Noda seconded the Motion.
Chair Jonas was concerned with adding language about a buffer to a rezone application and felt it would be more appropriate when the subdivision is dealt with. Commissioner McDonough concurred. Commissioner Daniels withdrew his recommendation #5. Commissioner Noda accepted the amendment.
Amended Motion for Petition 400-03-16
Based upon the analysis and findings of fact and conditions as listed in the staff report, Bip Daniels moved to pass on a favorable recommendation to City Council to approve the Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment, to change the existing Public Lands “PL” zone to a residential R-1/5000 zone, to facilitate the future development of a residential subdivision.
Analysis and Findings:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plat of Salt Lake City.
Discussion: The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the current master plan. However planning staff is recommending a master plan amendment that would make the rezoning and the master plan consistent. See above section about master plan amendment.
Finding: Rezoning the subject property from Public Lands “PL” to a single-family residential R-1/5000 use would be in keeping with surrounding land uses and is compatible with the elementary school, the LDS Church meeting house, and the State offices in the area.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Discussion: As shown on the zoning map, the surrounding land use is residential R-1/5000. Immediately surrounding the subject property is zoned predominantly R 1/5000 with the exception of the school district property that is zoned Public Lands “PL”.
Finding: Rezoning the subject property from Public Lands “PL” to Residential R 1/5,000 is supported by the surrounding zoning and land use, and would be harmonious with the overall character of the existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Discussion: The proposed single-family residential subdivision will be a supporting use for the school, and no adverse impact is anticipated from the proposed use.
Finding: The rezoning of the subject property would facilitate the future development of a residential subdivision and would be an upgrade of the site. There would not be any adverse impact to adjoining properties.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards.
Discussion: Airport noise impact area zone “C” extends over the property up to Redwood Road. Single-family residents are permitted subject to noise mitigation and granting of an avigation easement.
Finding: An avigation easement will be required as part of the subdivision consideration. Single-family homes are permitted subject to noise mitigation and avigation easements.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Discussion: The use of the subject property as the future development of a residential subdivision will require the installation of all related public facilities such as streets, street lighting, fire access and hydrants. The Salt Lake City School District has determined that the subject property is not needed for schools.
Finding: The pertinent City Departments and the Salt Lake City School District, and the Salt Lake City Planning Commission have determined that the subject property is not needed to provide public facilities other than what is needed to support the development of a future residential subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff is recommending master plan amendment from parks/open space public/semi-public to low density residential and rezoning of the property from Public Lands “PL” to single-family residential R-1/5000 with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval
1. The development of the future residential subdivision streets will be designed to city standards.
2. Public Utilities requires a note on the final subdivision plat indicating the lowest building elevation line.
3. All required easements and streets are dedicated to Salt Lake City.
4. The final subdivision plat and all development on the subject property must be in conformance with the geotechnical report and must comply with the recommendations and development approval requirements of City Departments.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No. 410-642, a request by Post Office Properties, for conditional use approval of a commercial surface parking lot at 43 and 45 West 300 South, in a Downtown D-1 zoning district.
This hearing began at 6:32 p.m.
Planner Doug Dansie briefly discussed the highlights for the proposed conditional use. He explained that the existing site accommodates two buildings that house two businesses; an antique store and Ya’buts pool hall. He discussed the historic nature of the two structures and concluded that although both buildings are eligible for historical designation, the owner has decided not to list the structures on the historic register. As outlined in the staff report, the applicant is proposing to demolish the two buildings and expand the existing surface parking lot (which is adjacent to the Ya’buts building). Because this parcel is located mid block, the zoning does not require a 70 to 75-foot landscaped setback. Mr. Dansie referred to a map showing the layout of what the combined parking lot would look like. The applicant intends to put in bermed landscaping, which would require about five feet along 300 South. This would eliminate the current situation where cars are parked immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. Mr. Dansie explained that technically ingress and egress are required for each separate lot; therefore, the Salt Lake City Transportation Division has asked for cross-easements. Staff recommends the approval of the parking lot with the following recommendations: The Commission require cross easements or the lot lines to be eliminated to deal with drainage and access across lot lines; and the recommendation to have the Planning Director’s final approval of the landscaping.
Commissioner Chambless asked if there are indications as to how long the existing parking lot has been there. Mr. Dansie replied that the historic records survey from 1979 only contain information for the two structures on the lot, which leads him to believe the existing parking lot was there at the time the survey was taken. Commissioner Chambless asked what the envisioned length of time the proposed parking lot may remain. Mr. Dansie answered by saying the applicant has indicated that they intend to use the parking lot for the newly renovated Zephyr building and there is the possibility that it could be there a long time. Commissioner Chambless felt that there is sufficient parking for cars in that area. Mr. Dansie indicated that that is debatable depending upon when you are trying to get a parking space. Commissioner Chambless stated that other than on a Friday or Saturday night, there is an abundance of parking in that area.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the time frame that the space would serve as a parking lot and asked if the City could enforce a time limit or define parameters as to how long the space could remain a parking lot. Mr. Zunguze explained that commercial parking lots are conditional uses and when they are called out as such they are legitimate uses. He added that if the applicant does not request a temporary parking lot, then the Commission does not have the ability to force them to turn this application into a temporary parking lot. Commissioner Seelig clarified that this could conceivably stay a parking lot forever.
Commissioner Seelig asked what requirements are imposed on former building sites as far as maintenance and landscaping. Mr. Dansie answered that the permits counter will only impose a landscaping requirement if the zoning district has a specific landscaping requirement in place. In the Downtown zone, you can build up to the property line. By code a parking lot must have 5 percent of landscaping interior to the parking lot, as well as, 7 feet of buffer to the side yard. There are landscaping criteria for parking lots, but not necessarily for a vacant site.
Commissioner Chambless asked for Mr. Dansie’s view, as the Downtown Planner, if this parking lot approval would contribute to the revitalization of the Downtown area. Mr. Dansie replied that a building with a business in it would be more contributing but the question would be whether or not we want a vacant lot or would we want an improved parking lot because we do not have the tools to deny a demolition of a building that is not on the Historic Register.
Commissioner Scott asked if the applicant indicated either surface parking or a vacant lot. Mr. Dansie replied that the applicant requested a conditional use for a parking lot. They decided to demolish the buildings because they would need a considerable amount of reinvestment to renovate the structures.
Chair Jonas invited the applicant to speak to this issue.
Mr. Tony Rampton, the attorney representing Post Office Properties, spoke to the Commission regarding the problems with the existing situation. He gave details of the two structures being in a state of considerable disrepair and a realistic concern for fire danger. The use of this site depends on the economy of Salt Lake City in that it would be uneconomical to keep this space as a parking lot when and if the Downtown area becomes revitalized. At this point, there is not an economic justification for renovating the existing structures or building new structures.
Commissioner Seelig asked Mr. Rampton how long Post Office properties have owned the dilapidated structures. Mr. Rampton said he did not know. Commissioner Seelig asked if it would be fair to say that during the time they have owned it, Post Office Properties has been responsible in keeping the structures in a condition whatever that condition may be. Mr. Rampton replied that the structures have been maintained and repaired to the degree necessary to allow tenancy, but the larger issue now is that these buildings require renovation.
Chair Jonas interjected that the applicant has the right to demolish the structures and the petition before the Commission is to decide if they are going to allow a parking lot.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Chair Jonas read a letter of opposition into the record from Maun Alston at 44 West 300 South. Stating that “because this area of town is mainly parking lots and few buildings, I don’t want to see more old buildings torn down and we don’t need more of this kind of parking. This will further hurt Downtown vitality.”
Mr. David Alston at 44 West 300 South spoke in opposition saying his residence is across the street and there is adequate parking. He finds it difficult to accept the City discussing revitalization and then allowing the demolition of historic structures that contain viable businesses. He felt the City could prevent people from purchasing buildings and allowing them to fall into disrepair where the only option is to tear the buildings down.
Chair Jonas closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Jonas said he is not anxious to see another parking lot; however, he disagrees with the idea that these buildings are viable businesses.
Commissioner Chambless offered the contrast that the existing parking lot has been there since at least 1979. In 1979, he recalls six high-rise building cranes replacing existing buildings with new buildings. He added that there is sufficient parking in that area as well as light rail. Chair Jonas asked if the preference is an empty lot. Commissioner Chambless responded that he would rather see a revitalized Downtown.
Commissioner Scott reminded the Commission of the conditional use Standard B which refers to the development being in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the title.
Commissioner Noda concurred and added that she is troubled with the idea of another surface parking lot. She also has concerns with the requirements; specifically, Standard B and whether or not the parking lot is in harmony with the overall City Master Plan. Commissioner Noda referred to the new parking along 300 South. She said she would almost rather see the lot vacant than another parking lot. Commissioner Noda added that at this point our economy is weak and it may take a while before something else would replace the proposed parking lot. She said she is inclined to not allow the conditional use.
Commissioner Seelig agreed with Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Noda and added that an approval may not be worth going against the Downtown Master Plan, or moving away from the City’s vision of alternative transportation. She felt this petition is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the title.
Commissioner McDonough pointed out that in principle; Finding B is not in harmony with the Master Plan. She said that overall, this property is a part of a series of properties that are slated to be redeveloped. In the bigger scheme of things, she feels the parking lot is not going to stay there for an extended length of time and will have to change in response to what will eventually happen in that area. She is more inclined to approve the petition.
Chair Jonas reiterated that especially in relation to Standard B, it is not the goal of the Downtown Master Plan, to create another surface parking lot. He referred to the streetscape as “missing teeth” where you have building, parking lot, building, which is very detrimental to the flow of a walkable community. In this case the parking lot may be the best alternative. He would rather see a parking lot with nice landscaping than an empty lot.
Motion for Petition 410-642
Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny petition 410-642, requesting a conditional use of a commercial surface parking lot at 43 and 45 West 300 South based on the standards for conditional uses item B that the proposed development, by the Planning Commission’s estimation, is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Seelig asked to add to the motion standard K based on the testimony from the public that this may negatively impact the vitality of Downtown. Commissioner Scott accepted the amendment. Commissioner Chambless accepted that as well.
Commissioner McDonough verified that the Commission is not disapproving the destruction of the structures; they may still be removed whether or not the parking lot is approved.
Amended Motion for Petition 410-642
Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny petition 410-642, requesting a conditional use for a commercial surface parking lot at 43 and 45 West 300 South based on the standards for conditional uses items B & K that the proposed development, by the Planning Commission’s estimation, is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and based on testimony from the public that this may negatively impact the vitality of Downtown. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses.
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title.
Discussion: Commercial parking lots are permitted as a conditional use according to the D-1 Land Use Table 21A.30.050. Design modifications are allowed according to interpretation of 21A.30.020.D.3 and 21A.54. The standard that needs modifying is the requirement that the parking lot be separated from the street by a structure.
Finding: Commercial parking lots are allowed as a conditional use. Modification of design standards is allowed as a conditional use in the D-1 zoning district.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Discussion: The Downtown Master Plan generally discourages the construction of surface parking lots, favoring higher density development and parking structures instead. Surface parking lots may be a legitimate interim use on a short-term basis.
The dilemma posed by this proposal is that failure to grant the conditional use will not prevent the demolition of buildings nor will it impose landscaping requirements on the former building sites.
The adjacent site to the west is presently devoted to parking. The buildings proposed for demolition may be removed and replaced with landscaping without going through the conditional use process.
Finding: Surface parking lots are generally not in keeping with the objectives of the City; however, the alternative is a vacant lot.
Commission Finding: By the Planning Commissions estimation, the proposed conditional use is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
Discussion: The project has been reviewed by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. Because of the small number of parking stalls being added, traffic loads are not significantly being increased.
Finding: The Transportation Division states that the increased parking will have no significant impact to the existing streets system.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Discussion: The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has reviewed the proposed design and determined that the new parking layout may be designed to meet City criteria and will improve the general circulation of the parking lot. They have asked that a plan be submitted that shows its full integration into the existing parking lot because the proposed aisle and parking stall location will affect the existing lot. Transportation is comfortable with using the existing access point for the expanded parking lot.
Finding: New aisle widths and layout may improve the internal circulation of the lot; however, an integrated parking layout is required for Transportation Division final review.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Discussion: Utilities are adequate. The major issue raised by Salt Lake City Public Utilities is the multiple lot lines on the site. The lots should be combined or cross easements granted for drainage.
Finding: Utilities are adequate although easements must be granted or lot issues resolved prior to issuance of a building permit.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Discussion: There will be three remaining buildings on this block face: The JC Penney Building (Zion’s Bank), the vacant University of Utah/Altius Health Plan Building and the Zephyr/Siegfried Building.
There is no buffering between existing buildings and existing parking. There is no parking lot landscaping.
The new parking lot adds buffer landscaping along the eastern edge, which presently does not exist. It also provides landscaped areas in the corners of the new lot.
Finding: Buffering will be provided between the new parking lot and the adjacent building. The street frontage will not have buffering.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Discussion: The proposed use is a parking lot; therefore, the criteria is not applicable.
Finding: Not applicable
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Discussion: The ordinance requires that parking be separated from the street by a building or structure. Landscaping in lieu of a structure has been approved through the conditional use process at other locations in the D-1 zoning district. This proposal will provide no separation between the street and the parking lot except for a bollard and chain system. The existing parking lot to the west has no landscaping. Landscaping is provided as a buffer to the building on the east side of the parking lot.
Landscaping would be more effective if the front yard also had a barrier, vertical landscaping (berm) or horizontal landscaping (15-foot setback) across both the old and new lots to screen automobiles.
Finding: The development has a landscaped buffer on the east side.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property.
Discussion: The existing buildings are eligible for the historical register, but have not been designated.
Finding: The buildings (particularly the Stamp Building) are worthy of historical designation, but because they are not listed, their demolition cannot be prevented.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Discussion: Adjacent land uses consist of offices and parking. Because much of the parking is leased for monthly rates, hours of the parking lot will coincide with the adjacent offices.
Finding: Hours of operation are consistent with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Discussion: There is great concern that increasing the number of surface parking lots in the area will decrease density and the vitality of the downtown area. However, the proposed demolitions will occur regardless of approval of this parking lot. The proposed demolition of buildings has a greater immediate negative effect on the City than the landscaping of the parking lot; however, demolitions are a normal part of the redevelopment process and cannot be prevented by the City.
Finding: Reconfiguration and adding landscaping to an existing parking lot has a net positive effect on the City when compared to alternatives.
Commission Finding: Based on testimony from the public that the proposed conditional use may negatively impact the vitality of Downtown.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Discussion: While there may be details to clarify (stall size, aisle width, etc.) prior to issuance of a building permit, there are no outstanding issues that will prevent the proposed parking lot from meeting City code.
Dead drives will be removed and any portion of the sidewalk disturbed by construction will need to be repaired.
Finding: The parking lot will be required to meet all other building codes prior to receiving a building permit.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye.” Commissioner McDonough voted “Nay”. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-628, by Joel Van Leeuwen, a request for the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to reconsider its conditional use approval of granting the demolition of a residential structure located at 1037 East 900 South; and the operation of a restaurant in a proposed addition to the building located at 1043 East 900 South. The property is located in the Residential Business (RB) zoning district. Mr. Van Leeuwen proposes to replace the approved restaurant with retail or service land use that would be a permitted use in the RB zoning district. As a part of this request, the Petitioner is asking that the Planning Commission to remove the condition of approval requiring City approval of a management plan that includes parking mitigation issues.
This item was heard at 7:08.
Commissioner Scott recused herself at 7:09.
Chair Jonas disclosed that Commissioner Daniels and he served on the Planning Commission with the applicant’s Architect Max Smith.
Planner Joel Paterson referred to the Planning Commission’s original approval of two conditional uses; one to demolish the residential structure at 1035 East 900 South, the second to allow a restaurant at this site. The petitioner originally proposed to demolish the single-family home and build an addition on the west side of the existing commercial building as well as a second story that would include a residential dwelling unit at 1043 East 900 South. The Planning Commission, as a part of the first approval, included nine conditions one of which required a parking mitigation plan for restaurant use. There is a requirement of 13 parking stalls for the proposed land uses based on the Zoning Ordinance; five of which were allowed to be located on the street per the regulations of the RB zoning district. The petitioner is now requesting to modify the conditional use by replacing the restaurant with either retail sales or retail service, both of which are permitted uses in the RB zone and would have a lesser parking requirement. Restaurants are required to have six stalls per thousand square feet and in this project a total of eight stalls. Retail sales are required to have three stalls per thousand square feet and would only require four parking stalls in this instance. The applicant is requesting that the Commission remove the condition requiring a parking mitigation plan that is required to be reviewed annually by the Planning Director. Staff is concerned that if condition #2 is removed, under the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance similar land uses such as, a deli or a take-out food service, which qualify as a retail sales, would be able to go back into this project without further public input or review by the Planning Commission. Such uses could have similar impacts as a restaurant. Rather than removing condition #2, staff is recommending the language be modified to read that a management plan shall be provided which will include parking mitigation issues, to be reviewed annually by the Planning Director if a deli, café, restaurant, or any other type of food operation locates at this site.
Mr. Paterson said that the conditions as imposed by the Planning Commission have been reviewed, and condition #8 requires that the applicant apply to the Planning Commission for subdivision approval to combine two parcels of property. The petitioners have proposed to combine the two parcels all along to allow the addition on the commercial structure. Staff has had the subdivision team review this proposal and they have determined that there are no City or State requirements that require subdivision approval at this time. The single requirement is that a new deed must be recorded with the County to combine those lots. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission modify language in condition #8 to read the applicant shall combine the two properties into a single parcel by recording a new boundary description with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office for the purposes of creating a single parcel. The Planning Commission added Condition #9, as part of the original approval, requesting that the City Attorney’s Office review the RB zoning standards to determine whether or not more than one residential unit could be placed above this development. The petitioner requested a single residential unit, but because of this proposal, they would like to have more than one unit. However, there is a footnote in the Zoning Ordinance that limits the number of residential dwellings above a commercial or retail use in the RB zone to just one dwelling unit. The Attorney‘s Office has reviewed this and has determined that a zoning text amendment would be required before we could allow more than one unit above this project.
Commissioner Chambless asked why the change. Mr. Paterson responded that the applicant had been approached by another retail user and he determined that that was a viable use at this site. Furthermore, condition #2 may have been a disincentive for restaurant operators because the annual review creates too much uncertainty.
Joel Van Leeuwen, the applicant, and Max Smith, the architect, spoke to the Commission as to why they made the change. As they were talking with two possible restaurant tenants, both had problems with the requirement for annual review because a restaurant could be forced to close after one year based on a potential arbitrary decision of the Planning Director.
Mr. Smith suggested to the Commission that in the future, if they are inclined to apply such a condition that they are in effect denying the petition. He believed that you simply cannot finance a business that could be put out of business depending on how the Planning Director feels about the adequacy of parking at the moment of the annual review.
Commissioner Chambless asked if the concern was economic or governmental. Mr. Van Leeuwen said that the impact to him as the owner does not differ. He can rent the space to another tenant for retail space.
Chair Jonas added that he feels it is an economic issue because when you make an investment anticipating a ten-year investment that may in fact turn out to be a one-year investment, it is quite a risk.
Mr. Smith added these entities are going to a lender and it is the lender who says that this condition simply does not work.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Chair Jonas read for the record comments by Ms. Carol Hermansen at 923 McClelland Street in support of the staff recommendation. As well as Mr. David Weber who is in support of this petition under the condition of parking mitigation for any type of food service.
Mr. Steve Schmidt, owner and operator of Western Rivers Fly Fisher which is a retail business located near the proposed project site, was present. He said that his most significant concern is the parking; although the use has changed, the parking is still an issue. Mr. Schmidt spoke in support of the staff recommendation for a parking mitigation plan if a restaurant or similar service were to go in at the proposed site.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, speaking as an individual, supported the recommendation of staff for the parking mitigation plan if a food service was to go in at the proposed site. Ms. Cromer remarked that this area has reached its capacity for parking. She made reference to the East Central Community Small Area Master Plan otherwise know as the 9th and 9th Plan. Ms. Cromer feels this plan allows the Commission to initiate a planning process to address parking in this area where residential and business parking are in conflict. The 9th and 9th plan which was adopted in 1993, emphasizes residential permit parking in areas impacted by non-residential parking. Ms. Cromer urged the Commission to initiate a planning process to address parking issues. She added that if the Commission does not initiate such a process, the residents will petition for a residential parking program.
Ms. Melissa Weber at 934 McClelland Street spoke in support of the staff recommendation. She feels the proposal made strikes a great balance with residential and business concerns and is the most workable solution.
Ms. Camille Chart at 1065 East 900 South, spoke in favor of the staff recommendation. She voiced concerns about the impact of parking on the neighboring businesses.
Mr. Shige Sakouju, residing at 926 McClelland Street, spoke in support of staff recommendation. He voiced concerns with the restaurant customer parking spilling over on to McClelland Street. With an increase in the number of cars parking on McClelland Street, he could foresee increased traffic along that street affecting the safety of children in the neighborhood.
Ms. Penny Archibald Stone, residing at 1169 Sunnyside, representing the Douglas Neighborhood Associations, urged the Commission to approve the staff proposal and thanked Mr. Van Leeuwen for meeting with the Association.
Ms. Mary Aa, Chair of the Douglas Neighborhood Association, residing at 544 Douglas Street, said that she acknowledges Mr. Van Leeuwen’s cooperative spirit in developing a parking mitigation plan with the Douglas Neighborhood Association. She asked the Commission to approve the staff recommendation.
Ms. Margaret Brady, residing at 1089 McClelland Street, spoke on behalf of the East Liberty Park Community Council which is the neighborhood that will be directly affected by this project. She asked that the Commission endorse the continued efforts of all the surrounding business owners along the 9th and 9th corridor. She asked the residents and City personnel to find a reasonable solution to the various traffic issues.
Mr. Van Leeuwen addressed the Commission saying that the restaurant was a conditional use, and they have decided to use this site for retail service, which is a permitted use. The retail service use requires nine parking stalls and the applicant is providing 14 stalls. The applicant is in full agreement with staff recommendation.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas commended everyone involved in the cooperative efforts to invent a solution.
Mr. Paterson mentioned that Gordon Haight from the Transportation Division met with the Petitioner and other interested parties to discuss a parking plan for the 9th and 9th corridor. There is some concern with the size of this project in that it may not satisfy the conditions of the residential parking permit program. They did look at other options such as a one-way street on McClelland, but no decisions have been made at this time.
Chair Jonas commented that he recalls a discussion to implement a plan to address the whole 9th and 9th corridor parking and he asked where the Planning Division is with that. Mr. Wilde said that the division had approached that issue from a variety of angles and at this point, there is nothing concrete. The Commission had talked about initiating a zoning change if a solution was found that would be acceptable to the property owners, and community councils. Staff has also completed a study for the Central Community Master Plan that outlines nonconforming uses and explains options for nonconforming uses, which would set the stage for reevaluation. It seems that the neighborhood is now asking for Staff to review the 1993 9th and 9th plan and reevaluate the parking constraints along that corridor.
Initiated petitions
Chair Jonas felt that that something must be initiated for the area from 7th East to 11th East along 9th South to examine parking issues.
Chair Jonas moved to initiate a petition to review the RB zone to possibly build more than one unit above a retail business.
Commissioner McDonough thought the RB parking requirements should also be reevaluated.
Commissioner McDonough felt that the annual review of the parking mitigation plan was the greater concern for restaurant entities. Above all it brought to light how a food service use could impact the neighborhood.
Motion for Petition 410-628
Commissioner McDonough made a motion to approve petition 410-628 based on the findings of fact and recommendations in the staff report as modified. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
There was discussion questioning whether the language in condition #2 should remain as “reviewed annually” which refers to the parking mitigation plan.
Amended Motion
Commissioner McDonough made a motion to approve petition 410-628 based on the findings of fact and recommendations in the staff report with the following modification to condition #2: “A management plan shall be provided, which will include parking mitigation issues, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director if a deli, café, restaurant or other type of food service operation locates at this site.” Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify their original approval based on the following findings:
1. Approve the proposed modification of Conditional Use Approval 410-628 to allow the petitioner to replace the restaurant with a retail sales or retail service land use.
Finding: The proposed modification to Petition 410-628 would allow a less intense land use (retail sales and retail service land uses are permitted uses in the RB district) with a lower parking requirement to replace the restaurant use (a conditional use in the RB district) that was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on March 26, 2003.
2. Modify the language of Condition #2 to read:
A management plan shall be provided, which will include parking mitigation issues, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director if a deli, café, restaurant or other type of food service operation locates at this site.
Finding: Although the petitioner has decided not to include a restaurant in this project, certain permitted retail land uses, such as a deli or other types of food service uses may operate similarly, and create comparable impacts as a restaurant, but not require review by the Planning Commission because such uses may be listed as permitted uses in the RB district.
3. Modify the language of Condition # 8 to read:
The applicant shall combine the two properties into a single parcel by recording a new boundary description with the Salt Lake County Recorders Office for the purpose of creating a single parcel.
Finding: The Planning Division Subdivision team has reviewed the proposal to combine the two properties into a single parcel and has determined that under State and Salt Lake City subdivision regulations, City approval is not required.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 315 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, August 13, 2003, 5:45 pm
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, Babs DeLay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, and Kathy Scott. Prescott Muir and Jennifer Seelig were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planners Everett Joyce, Janice Lew, Ray McCandless, Greg Mikolash, and Joel Paterson, 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 Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:49 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.
Chair Jonas welcomed Babs DeLay and Craig Galli as new members of the Planning Commission.
Approval of the Minutes from Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Commissioner Scott referred to her motion to deny petition number 410-642, by Post Office Properties requesting a conditional use for a commercial surface parking lot at 43 and 45 West 300 South, from the previous meeting. She said that after the meeting, based on discussions heard, she felt that perhaps the motion should not have been made until the Planning Commission had an opportunity to discuss in more depth with the applicant their long term intentions for the properties. She felt the Commission didn’t explore those options and denied the request. Commissioner Scott voiced her concern that the property owners may not be motivated to enter into a meaningful dialog with the Planning Commission and other parties to discuss their intentions, which were to demolish the buildings and leave the lots vacant. The implications that this course of events might have on Downtown revitalization are severe. She said that Post Office Properties should be encouraged to discuss their intentions and she suggested that the Commission invite Post Office Properties back to the Planning Commission to discuss their long range Intentions for those properties.
Chair Jonas confirmed that the Commission would not endorse the vote to deny this petition, but they would rehear it and revote. He confirmed that the Post Office Properties still has the right to demolish the buildings and leave the lot vacant, but this would reopen the dialog with the Commission and Post Office Properties.
Commissioner Daniels said that he would be happy to reexamine any decision the Planning Commission has made, if in fact they haven’t heard all of the pertinent information. Commissioner McDonough supported that as well.
Commissioner Chambless added that as he was the one who seconded the motion to deny this petition and he is in support of bringing the petition back to the Commission because ultimately the goal in long range planning terms is to revitalize Downtown.
Chair Jonas felt this was a dialog that would need to involve the Redevelopment Agency, Community and Economic Development and a number of other parties.
Motion to rescind petition number 410-642
Commissioner Scott made a motion to rescind the denial of Petition 410-642 that was considered and voted on at the July 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Post Office Properties parcels at 43 and 45 West 300 South for the purpose of rescheduling a hearing at a future date; and encouraging the property owners to enter into thoughtful discussion and explore other options for their properties in order to appear before the Planning Commission to discuss those properties. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion and added that anything the Commission can do to help the revitalization of Downtown is an action they should take.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Chair Jonas asked for any other comments on the minutes.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the following corrections:
Page 3, second full paragraph, fourth line the word “Crown” be changed to read “Crown Homes”. Same paragraph next line the words “school children” shall be changed to read “school students”.
Commissioner Diamond requested the following modifications:
Page 3, third paragraph, with the Chair’s approval, he asked to insert the word landscape before buffer so the sentence would read, “Chair Jonas asked Mr. Jensen if he was concerned about an added landscape buffer.”
Page 3, last paragraph, second to the last line the word behest shall be changed to read “request”.
Page 4, last paragraph, last sentence, the word landscaping shall be added so the corrected sentence would read “for appropriate buffering including tri-pane windows and possible berming and landscaping to mitigate noise.”
Chair Jonas referred to the top of page 15, second sentence, to insert the word architect so the corrected sentence would read “Commission with the applicant’s architect Max Smith.
Commissioner Daniels moved to approve the minutes for July 9, 2003, as corrected. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was discussed at 6:02 p.m. Mr. Zunguze reminded the Commission of the first Long Range Planning Issues meeting scheduled for August 21st. He asked them to adjust their calendars accordingly.
Mr. Zunguze spoke to the Commission regarding correspondence from City Council communicating to all the Boards and Commissions that have jurisdiction over housing matters in the City; specifically asking those Boards and Commissions to address the following four topics: 1. Barriers to providing a full range of housing; 2. Opportunities for innovation; 3. Methods to encourage home ownership; and 4. Methods to enable family housing for all income levels. The Planning Commission, Housing Authority, and other housing related boards/commissions are receiving this letter. One of the items that will be discussed at the Long Range Planning Issues meeting will be a selection of topics of a long range nature that the Commission and Planning Division can focus on. This would be an appropriate item to include in that setting. Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission to give him direction as to when they are ready to discuss this.
Mr. Zunguze asked for direction regarding a previous positive recommendation that the Planning Commission forwarded to City Council as well as the Mayor, in reference to the proposed land exchange between the Airport and the Gilmore family. During the June 11th meeting, the Commission recommended that the proposed land swap be approved subject to the City retaining an easement to implement the City’s goals and policies of the Open Space Master Plan. Since that meeting, the Planning Staff has been working with the Airport Officials to define just how to reflect that recommendation in the proposed land exchange. Mr. Zunguze said that the Planning Staff has reached a compromise that would best meet the needs of all concerned; however, it entails retaining an easement in a modified fashion, which would perhaps necessitate a change in the current Open Space Master Plan. He asked the Commission if they are comfortable with Planning Staff moving forward in working with the Airport Officials and advising City Council accordingly or if they wanted Staff to bring the details back to the Commission. Mr. Zunguze reminded the Commission that their recommendation clearly stated that they wanted the City, Airport and the property owners to work cooperatively even if it required amending the Open Space Master Plan in determining the new alignment of that easement. Mr. Zunguze said that he is confident that the work the Planning Staff has undertaken to date is consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Commissioner Diamond asked how the Planning Staff would bring back the details. Mr. Zunguze replied that Staff would work out some modalities with the City Attorney’s Office and would have a refinement prepared of where the alignment would be in that land swap and essentially draw new lines on the Open Space Master Plan and bringing that work back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Diamond asked if it would be in a public forum and open for public discussion or information only. Mr. Zunguze answered that it would be up to the Commission as to how they would like to handle it. The City Council might hold hearings to effect the final recommendation.
Chair Jonas said that if Mr. Zunguze felt it is consistent with the direction that the Planning Commission was going with their recommendation, then Chair Jonas felt that the Planning Staff should move forward but the Commission would like to be informed. Mr. Zunguze said that he appreciated the vote of confidence from the Planning Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
Consideration of the Consent Agenda began at 6:08 p.m.
a. Greyhound Bus Lines and Salt Lake City Corporation – Lease of real property to Greyhound Bus Lines as part of the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South, 600 West in Salt Lake City. The lease is part of the Intermodal Hub Transportation Facility, which is owned by the City, and is located in the “CG” General Commercial zoning district.
b. University of Utah and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – Exchange of easements to facilitate a sewer line relocation, necessary for the construction of the new Orthopedic Hospital at 590 South Wakara Way, in the Research Park zoning district.
c. Salt Lake City Airport – Proposed sale of two parcels of real property, which are surplus to the aviation needs of Airport #2, located at 4000 West and 7800 South (6.47 acres) and at approximately 6600 South and 4000 West (10.95 acres), located in West Jordan City.
d. Brett Overson / Springview Farms and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Request for an acre for acre exchange of real property exchange (fee title) to facilitate the relocation of a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal, as part of a new subdivision, located at approximately 14300 South 1700 West in Bluffdale, Utah.
e. Lakeline Development, L.C. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – Proposed sale of 4.11 acres of Public Utilities owned real property (fee title) which has been determined to be of no further use for utility purposes, and was previously declared as surplus property in the mid-1980’s. The property has been recently rezoned for multiple family residential development, and is located at 4596 South 900 East, in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
(Staff – Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178)
Chair Jonas invited anyone from the public to come forward and speak to the issues. None were forthcoming.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the University of Utah request, item b, is expected to disturb the space that leads to the Red Creek Pathway or destroy the tree line with the relocation of the sewer line. Mr. Wheelwright said that he was not sure and suggested that the Commission remove this item and he would bring it back with more detail.
Chair Jonas asked for any other comment and reiterated that item b, has been withdrawn from this meeting agenda.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to adopt the remaining items A, C, D, and E, on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-634, by Pace Pollard Architects, representing Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, requesting a Conditional Use approval for a place of worship at 1433 South 1100 East. The property is located in a Residential Business (RB) district which the City Council is considering changing to Residential (R-1-5000).
This hearing began at 6:11 p.m.
Planner Joel Paterson addressed the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Conditional Use. He referred to the positive recommendation by the Planning Commission in May for the subject properties to be rezoned from Residential Business “RB” to Single-Family Residential “R-1/5000”. He informed the Commission the City Council approved the recommendation the previous evening. He further explained that a place of worship is a conditional use in the R-1/5000 zoning district. The purpose of the zoning change was to allow the Petitioner to combine two parcels located at 1433 South 1100 East, which currently has two buildings at the site, one is an old office building and the other is a residential structure. Under the RB zoning requirements, there is a maximum lot size of 10,000 square feet, and combining the two parcels, the Applicant would end up with 12,500 square feet. The Petitioner is back before the Commission requesting a conditional use approval for a new synagogue at this site. The Petitioner is proposing to demolish the two existing structures and build a new synagogue, which has a footprint of 6,000 square feet in size. The building would be one story above grade and one store below grade. The second level has a roof garden that would not be enclosed. This petition went before the East Central Community Council in February to consider both the zoning change and the conditional use. The community council voted in favor of both petitions. The site fronts on 1100 East, access to the parking is from an alley behind the building that runs north to south between Roosevelt and Browning Avenues. There are five stalls behind the synagogue, and additional parking spaces are being leased behind the restaurant to the North. Mr. Paterson explained that the congregation is orthodox and they are not allowed to drive automobiles on the Sabbath. All of the congregants live within walking distance and would walk to the synagogue at peak usage. It would be a great hardship for the congregation to have to move to another neighborhood. The functions that are proposed to take place in the building are a space for worship, a social hall, classrooms, and administrative space. The building is primarily to be constructed of brick with wooden windows. Staff is recommending approval of this petition based on the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Susan Deal with Pace Pollard Architects presented a site plan. She spoke to the Commission regarding the flat roof structure and said that there are several flat roof structures throughout the neighborhood. She went on to say that this proposal is not expected to cause additional impacts on the neighborhood and, and they do not anticipate a large growth in the congregation. She mentioned that they have maximized their site area with building and the roof deck is an important component of the design. Traditionally, Jewish weddings take place outside and this is a nice space with a large budget for landscaping.
Commissioner Diamond asked what the benefit is to the user of having the Mikvah, which is the small detached structure on the southeast corner of the property, separate from the synagogue. Rabbi Bennie Zippel, Executive Director of Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, answered that the Mikvah, which is also known as a ritualarium, is built primarily for Jewish women to immerse on a monthly basis and experience growth and rebirth according to their menstrual cycle. The Mikvah is to be used in the most humble and secretive way possible. The Mikvah must remain detached from the rest of the building in case a woman has to immerse at night and there would be no chance of her encountering someone that would be around the synagogue at that time.
Commissioner DeLay asked what the anticipated traffic impacts would be on 1100 East during the regular week, in respect to the school children being dropped off. Ms. Deal replied that currently the school students are dropped off in the rear of the structure or 1100 East and they do not anticipate the number of students to change, so the traffic impact should be minimal.
Chair Jonas asked if they meet all of the setback requirements. Ms. Deal answered that they do meet all of the requirements, and are well within the height requirement.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
No public comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas commented on the visual displays given by the Petitioner. Commissioner Galli welcomed the Rabbi as a resident of the surrounding neighborhood and felt that this is a great project and expansion to the neighborhood.
Motion for Petition 410-645
Commissioner McDonough moved to approve the project as presented in the staff report and based on the comments and analysis, and findings according to the recommendation and conditions as listed in the staff report, with the exclusion of condition number 1 which the Petitioner has already achieved. Commissioner DeLay seconded the motion.
COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
1. COMMENTS:
a) Transportation: The Transportation Division anticipates no impact to the 1100 East minor arterial roadway due to the conditional use proposal. The parking calculations indicate five stalls on-site and seven leased stalls from the property to the north, as shared parking for the required twelve parking stalls.
b) Public Utilities: The Public Utilities Department does not anticipate any problems resulting from the proposed development. The building plans will be reviewed when submitted for permits and any public utility concerns will be addressed at that time.
c) Engineering: The Engineering Division has no concerns with the request. Any needed improvements or repair to the public way will be required as part of the building permit for the new synagogue.
d) Police: The Police Department does not foresee any unusual problems that might arise from this request.
e) Fire: The Fire Department recommends approval of the proposed conditional use proposal.
f) Community Council: The executive board of East Central Community Council (ECCC) reviewed this request on February 19, 2003 and passed the following motion:
The ECCC Board supports a zoning change from RB to R-1-5000 that would allow for rebuilding of the synagogue because of problems with the RB that would deter the proposed development. The ECCC Board feels that recommending a zone change from RB to R-1-5000 would be a way to address some of the problems with the RB zone.
2. Analysis and Findings
The Planning Commission shall only approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional use based upon written findings of fact with regard to each of the standards set forth below and, where applicable, any special standards for conditional uses set forth in a specific zoning district.
21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses.
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title.
Finding: Table 21A.24.190 classifies a place of worship as a conditional use in the R-1-5000 zoning district.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Discussion: The proposed synagogue is consistent with the Central Community Development Master Plan, which is the controlling land use policy document for this area. This plan recommends very low density residential development at this location. Historically, places of worship have been an integral component of residential neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. Today, places of worship are found in most single-family neighborhoods and are consistent with the residential land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable existing and proposed master plans.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
Discussion: The synagogue has been in operation at this site for approximately ten years and the street system has accommodated this land use without a material degradation of the level of service on the adjacent streets. The Transportation Division has reviewed the proposal and anticipates no impact to the 1100 East minor arterial roadway due to the proposed construction of a new place of worship.
Finding: Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Discussion: The parking for the synagogue is located on the east side of the site and accessed from the alley running north/south between Browning (1410 S.) and Roosevelt (1460 S) avenues. The Transportation Division has reviewed the site plan and has not indicated any concern regarding the internal circulation system.
Finding: The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Discussion: The Public Utilities Department has reviewed the site plan and indicates that adequate public services are available. However, the proposed development must satisfy all departmental requirements.
Finding: Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and will be designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Discussion: The synagogue is located between commercial land uses located to the north and south. The residential land uses located to the east are oriented to Browning and Roosevelt avenues and are separated from the synagogue site by an alley. Both adjacent residential properties have garages that are accessed from the alley. The mechanical equipment located on the roof structure will be screened from view by architectural features.
Finding: Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Discussion: The architecture along 1100 East represents a variety of sizes forms and materials. The proposed building is compatible in scale and massing with other non-residential buildings in the vicinity. Brick and wood windows were chosen to be compatible with the most common materials found in the area. Although the predominantly flat roof design is not typical of residential structures in the area, it is a common design for non-residential uses. The design incorporates a roof terrace and garden on the southern portion of the roof and will accommodate social gatherings.
Finding: Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Discussion: The landscaping plans are not yet well developed. The large trees existing in the front yard will remain in place. Parking spaces occupy much of the rear yard. As typically found in residential areas and consistent with the landscaped yards along this section of 1100 East, the required yard areas will be landscaped with turf.
Finding: Final landscaping plans must meet Salt Lake City requirements and shall be appropriate for the scale of the development.
I. The proposed development preserves historical architectural and environmental features of the property.
Discussion: The site of the proposed synagogue is not within one of the City’s local historic districts and neither of the existing structures is listed on the Local Register of Cultural Resources. No significant environmental features are located at this site.
Finding: The site contains no historical architectural or environmental features.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Discussion: The operating hours will not change as a result of this proposal. There is no apparent conflict between the hours of operation and the surrounding institutional and commercial land uses. As with other places of worship, occasional social functions may take place at the synagogue in the evening hours.
Finding: Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Discussion: The proposed conditional use will not change the current use of the property. The synagogue is an established entity at this location and the construction of a new facility is not intended to attract new members to the site for worship. The proposed new facility is intended to improve the space that houses existing functions and would not add any additional impact on the site. Normal growth of the congregation is expected to occur, however this would cause no noticeable negative impact. As mentioned earlier in this report, the members of this congregation do not drive to services on the Sabbath.
Finding: The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Discussion: This synagogue is the center of Salt Lake’s Orthodox Jewish community. Their religious laws prohibit driving on the Sabbath, and therefore, all members of the congregation live within walking distance of the site. The synagogue provides five parking stalls on-site and utilizes a lease arrangement with Kostas Restaurant to provide an additional seven stalls. All other applicable codes and ordinances must be complied with.
Finding: The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant conditional use approval for the proposed place of worship at 1433-1435 South 1100 East as requested by Petition 410-645.
This recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the site in accordance with the site plan and building elevations presented to the Planning Commission.
2. Compliance with all departmental requirements.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Initiated Petition
Commissioner Scott commended Rabbi Zippel on his patience, perseverance, and professionalism on working with the City, the Planning Commission, and the Community Council through the two petitions. Commissioner Scott suggested that the Planning Commission make a motion to initiate a Small Area Master Plan for the 1100 East residential business.
Mr. Zunguze pointed out that this discussion took place at the last meeting. He asked if the Commission would allow the Planning staff to revisit notes from that meeting and get a sense of what the Commission directed them at that time.
Petition No. 410-639, by Jacobsen Investment Company, requesting Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision approval of a 5-lot commercial subdivision located at approximately 1919 West North Temple Street in Corridor Commercial (CC) and Business Park (BP) zoning districts.
This Hearing began at 6:29.
Planner Ray McCandless presented this petition saying that the Petitioner is seeking Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision approval for a five-lot subdivision located at 1919 West North Temple. He presented a map showing zoning of the site and adjacent properties. Mr. McCandless explained that the Applicant would like to market the property and install a private street rather than public because of a lawsuit involving the surrounding property owners. They are not proposing new structures; because the request is just to allow the property owner to market the land. Staff is recommending approval subject to the Applicant recording a final plat and meeting all City and Utah Department of Transportation requirements, providing a geotechnical study to address road way and foundation design prior to the construction of the road way or any buildings on the property, and finally creating an owners association to insure that the road way is maintained in perpetuity.
Chair Jonas stated that this project went before the subcommittee. He mentioned that when the subcommittee heard this petition they had concerns with the building that is on the property line to the west. Mr. McCandless responded that the building was constructed in the 1960’s and would not need to comply with the current zoning standards. Commissioner McDonough added that the subcommittee decided that if the Applicant demolished the structure, they are required to rebuild under current zoning standards.
Commissioner DeLay asked if there are wetlands within the proposed project site. Mr. McCandless referred to the project engineer to speak to that issue.
Mr. Mike Gardner with Jacobsen Investment Company and Mr. Dale Bennett, the Engineer from McNeil Engineering Company, addressed the Commission. Mr. Gardner made reference to the drainage ditch that is a remnant of the old Brighton surplus canal which was abandoned by the time they built I-80 and I-215. Commissioner DeLay reiterated that it was a manmade canal.
Commissioner McDonough asked what the Applicant’s recollection of the Commissions discussion at the subcommittee meeting with regard to the building on the west property line. Mr. Gardner answered that the building in question is under lease and it is their intention to demolish it when the current tenant moves out.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jack Read, Attorney representing Utah Ornamental and Iron Company, who is an adjoining property owner, was present. Mr. Read spoke to the Commission saying that he was there specifically to discuss the right-of-way and the private road that Mr. McCandless referred to. Mr. Read gave a brief history of Utah Ornamental property. He described the litigation initiated by Jacobsen Investment Company in 1999. As a result of the litigation, the parties have stipulated to the types of improvement to the right-of-way that would be acceptable to Jacobsen and would not deprive Utah Ornamental Company use of the rest of the property for its current purpose. He explained that the stipulation requires Jacobsen to install the underground utilities and road based asphalt. Utah Ornamental Company is asking the Planning Commission to require Jacobsen Investment Company to follow the guidelines as stipulated in the court deposition (to allow the Utah Ornamental and Iron Company to use the roadway with the practical benefits) in order to stay out of court.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Read if his client would remain the owner of the property that occupies the right-of-way is, and if the agreement has a timeline and how the road becoming a private road would affect his client. Mr. Read replied that his client would probably be able to access the road easier; the concern of his client is the liability of an accident.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright if this type of thing happens often in a development where a developer will obtain an easement and incorporate a public street into a private development to create circulation. Mr. Wheelwright replied that he has not seen this happen before. Commissioner Diamond asked whether or not there would be any risks on the City’s part. Mr. Wheelwright replied that he did not see a risk for the City. The road and utilities are necessary for the development and the project manager will monitor the common area that may cease to be Jacobsen’s.
Chair Jonas said that this does not seem to be atypical because there all sorts of projects with private roads. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the roads are not commonly located on another owner’s property, by an easement. Chair Jonas replied that this scenario does not seem to be legally different, once they have obtained the easement it technically would run with the land. Mr. Wheelwright said that if the easement did not exist, the Commission would have received a petition for a public road to be dedicated, so it is this lease situation that prevents that from occurring.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Daniels reiterated that Mr. Read was suggesting that one of the conditions of approval be an adherence to the stipulation as he stated. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Jacobsen party had a disagreement with that.
Chair Jonas said that he felt that was a private legal issue and the Planning Commission should make a decision according to City standards.
Mr. Pace added that he agreed with Chair Jonas and that it is a private dispute. He said that he is under the impression that Mr. Read was speaking to bring that to the Commission’s attention. Whether or not the Commission wants to take that into consideration is a matter of discretion. He said that he did not think the Commission was obligated to include the private agreement as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Diamond asked if condition number four, regarding the creation of an owners association, to assure that the proposed private streets and utilities proposed will be maintained in perpetuity.
Mr. Pace replied that the purpose of condition number four is to make sure that the streets will be maintained regardless of the ownership. The stipulation that Mr. Read was referring to is an agreement between the two existing owners as to and whether or not those obligations flow to subsequent owners, Mr. Pace indicated that he did not know. Mr. Pace said that essentially the key element of the stipulation is to ensure continued access for the Utah Ornamental and Iron Company trucks. Mr. Pace said that he did not know if that is a critical element in the Commission’s decision tonight but they have the discretion to include it or not.
Commissioner Diamond said that the project hinges on that easement. Mr. Pace retorted that the project hinges on the easement, but the concern raised by the abutting property owner is only how the edges of that easement are finished.
Mr. Wheelwright added that the design of the project is in conjunction with the private agreement.
Chair Jonas said that the Commission is responsible for approving a project that meets City standards. Whether the items in the private stipulation meet City standards is not the Commission’s issue. What the Commission should look at is the owner’s association issue so that the private street will be maintained if this property is sold in lots.
Mr. Pace added that if the Commission decides to incorporate the private contract stipulation as part of the approval, they then make the City the guarantor of that private contract.
Motion for Petition 410-639
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision based upon the findings of fact and subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Conditional Use Review
21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses.
M. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title.
Discussion: According to Section 21A.54.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, a Planned Development requires Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission.
Finding: The proposed development is a planned development and as such requires conditional use approval by the Planning Commission.
N. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Discussion: The Northwest Community Future Land Use Plan identifies this property as business / commercial. The property will ultimately be developed as a business park which is consistent with both the master plan and the current Corridor Commercial and Business Park zoning.
Finding: The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
O. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
Discussion: Access to the property will be provided from both North Temple Street and Orange Street. As North Temple Street is a State road, approval from Utah Department of Transportation is required. North Temple Street is an arterial street and Orange Street is a local street. As only 5 lots are proposed, traffic generated by the subdivision will not degrade the service level on the existing streets.
The proposed 30 North Street extends westward from Orange Street just north of Lot # 2. This segment of street is actually a 60 foot wide easement that is located on the adjoining property to the north. In 2002, there was a lawsuit regarding this easement which allows Jacobsen Investments to improve the roadways but stipulates the requirements for installation and maintenance of the street and preservation of access for the adjoining property owner.
Finding: Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided City and State approval is obtained.
P. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Discussion: An "L -shaped" private street leading from Orange Street to North Temple will be constructed to provide access to the proposed lots. Although the road will be private, it will be built to city standards but at a 40 foot roadway on 56 foot right of way. All proposed lots have adequate frontage on the private street to provide sufficient ingress and egress to each lot.
Finding: The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Q. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Discussion: The Public Utilities Department has indicated that sewer, water and storm drainage systems will be public. Easements will be required to provide access to and maintenance of the utility lines. Public Utilities Departmental comments must be addressed as a condition of approval.
Finding: Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
R. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Discussion: All adjoining uses are commercial or light industrial. No impacts to adjoining properties from light, noise or visual impacts are anticipated.
Finding: No significant impacts from light, noise or visual impacts are anticipated.
S. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Finding: As no buildings are proposed at this time, this standard does not apply.
T. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Discussion: Landscaping as required by the zoning ordinance will be required as buildings are constructed in the future.
Finding: Landscaping is not required now as no buildings are proposed at this time.
U. The proposed development preserves historical architectural and environmental features of the property.
Discussion: The site is not located in a historic district; therefore, review by the City's Historic Landmarks Commission is not required.
Finding: This standard does not apply.
V. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Finding: This standard does not apply.
W. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Discussion: The impacts created by this development will not be more intensive than what now exists in the area.
Finding: The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
X. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Discussion: The existing building on Lot 1 is located in a Corridor Commercial zoning district and was constructed on or near the east property line as shown on the attached site plan. The Corridor Commercial zoning district requires a 10 foot side yard setback, as such, the existing building is non-complying with regard to the current side yard setback requirement.
The existing building on Lot 2 is located in a Business Park zoning district and was constructed on or near the side property line. The Business Park zoning district requires a 20 foot side yard setback, as such this building also has a non-complying side yard setback.
The current zoning on this property is Corridor Commercial and Business Park which was established in 1995, as part of the zoning rewrite project. Prior to 1995, the zoning on the property was C-3 General Business Activity and M-1 Light Manufacturing which did not require side yard setbacks. As the buildings were constructed in the 1960s, they are considered pre-existing and are therefore allowed to remain.
Approval of the request should be subject to meeting all other applicable City requirements.
Finding: Although the existing buildings are non-complying with regard to the side yard setback, they are considered pre-existing buildings as they were built prior to the current zoning requirements and are therefore allowed to remain. However, any future buildings must meet all applicable zoning setback requirements.
Planned Development Review
Planned development approval by the Planning Commission is required as the streets will be private and all proposed lots have frontage on the private streets. The Planning Commission is the approval body for Planned Developments.
According to Section 21A.54.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, a planned development is a distinct category of conditional uses. As such, it is intended to encourage the efficient use of land and resources, promoting greater efficiency in public and utility services and encouraging innovation in the planning and building of all types of development.
Furthermore, section 21A.54.150 of the Zoning Ordinance notes that no such change, alteration, modification or waiver shall be approved unless the Planning Commission finds that the proposed planned development:
1. Will achieve the purposes for which a planned development may be approved pursuant to subsection A of this Section; and
Discussion: According to Section 21A.54.150.A of the Zoning Ordinance, the City seeks to achieve the following specific objectives:
1. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations;
2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities;
3. Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships;
4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features, and the prevention of soil erosion;
5. Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City;
6. Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment;
7. Inclusion of special development amenities; and
8. Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation.
Finding for Section 1 above: This request meets objectives # 1, 2 and 8 above. Public streets are not possible due to the right-of-way section that connects to Orange Street. Given that the property is in single ownership and that the proposed street only serves 5 lots, a private street is appropriate, as it reduces the burden on the City to maintain it. However, an owners association will need to be created to assure that the streets will be maintained in perpetuity.
The Public Utilities Department will require utility connections to Orange Street. The lines will be publicly owned within a private easement. Providing street and utility access will stimulate the redevelopment of the area.
The proposed development will achieve the purposes for which a planned development may be approved.
2. Will not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of this Title and of any plans adopted by the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Discussion: This requirement has been addressed in the Conditional Use section above.
Finding: The proposed development will not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of this Title and of any plans adopted by the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Subdivision Review (Salt Lake City Code, Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance)
Although the lots do not have frontage on a dedicated public street, they all meet the minimum lot area and frontage requirements of the Corridor Commercial and Business Park zoning districts. Staff does not have any concerns about the proposed subdivision provided all City departmental concerns are addressed.
According to the Salt Lake City Surface Fault Rupture and Liquefaction Potential Specific Study Areas Map, a geotechnical study is required to determine whether there are any seismic concerns. A geotechnical report has been provided by the applicant indicating that "No evidence of critical surface fault rupture or related deformation was observed...". The report recommends that an additional geotechnical study be completed to provide recommendations for foundation and roadway design given existing soil conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the discussion and findings in this Report, Staff recommends preliminary subdivision amendment approval and planned development approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Recordation of a final plat.
2. Meeting all City and Utah Department of Transportation requirements.
3. Providing a geotechnical study to address roadway and foundation design prior to the construction of the roadway or any buildings on the property.
4. An owners association be created to assure that the private streets and utilities proposed will be maintained in perpetuity, if the lots are sold.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No. 400-03-15, by Ronald Lee Lindquist, requesting that a portion of an alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street be vacated and declared surplus property. The property is located in a Single Family Residential (R-1-7000) zoning district.
This hearing began at 6:59.
Planner Janice Lew presented the staff report and explained that the purpose of this request is to vacate a small portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street and declare the property surplus to be used solely by the Petitioner. Ms. Lew said that the property owner on Park Street is willing to relinquish their rights and interest of half of the alley to Mr. Lindquist. Ms. Lew gave a brief description and history of the alley. The Applicant has stated that the alley has served as a dumping ground and has attracted other undesirable activity. This vacation would allow the Applicant to secure and maintain his portion of the alley. She said that the Sugar House Community Council reviewed this proposal in February and a motion to approve the request failed when the Chair voted to break a tie vote. The Community Council seemed to be worried that the Applicant may build another home on the property, which is not physically possible, and some felt that the whole alley should be vacated. They also felt that there should be more of a public good with the vacation of the alley. However, no other comments in opposition have been received at this time. Staff is recommending that the Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council to vacate the alley and declare the property surplus based on the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the staff report.
Chair Jonas noticed that as he read through the Community Council minutes, there seemed to be as many people in favor of closing the whole alley as there were people in support of the Applicant.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Ronald Lee Lindquist if he had given thought to applying for vacation of the whole alley. Mr. Lindquist responded by saying that he had, but the biggest problem is that there are three people who use the alley and the other folks seem to not want to be bothered with it.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
No public comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition 400-03-15
Commissioner Scott made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to City Council to vacate and declare the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street, surplus property based on the findings identified in the staff report, staff recommendation, and subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
ANALYSIS AND FINDIINGS
Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code: Salt Lake City Council policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys.
The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations:
A. Lack of Use. The City’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat, but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not exist.
B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions.
C. Urban Design. The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element.
D. Community Purpose. The Petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden.
Discussion: The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street. The petitioner states that the alley has been a dumping place and attracts other undesirable activity. (Exhibit 1) Please see attached comments from the Police Department. (Exhibit 6) Furthermore, the value of the alley as a positive urban design element has been compromised by its termination in a dead end, and the partial closure of the northern portion of the alley that already limits public access through the block.
Findings: The petition meets Considerations B and C. The proposed vacation would create a private alley that the petitioner could then maintain and properly secure to keep out any undesirable activity.
Section 14.52.030 (B) of Salt City Code: Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The City police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property;
Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City departments and/or divisions. Comments were received from the Public Utilities, Fire Department, Engineering Division, Division of Transportation, Police Department and Property Management. These comments are attached to this staff report as Exhibit 6. No objections were expressed to the proposed disposition of the property.
Findings: The appropriate City departments and divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. The applicant will be required to maintain all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property.
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
Findings: The petition meets Considerations B and C as required in Section 14.52.020 of the Code and outlined above.
3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property;
Discussion: It has been the City’s policy not to vacate an alley if it would deny a property owner required access to the rear of their lot. However, Scott and Christie Randle, owners of property abutting the alley, have no interest in their half of the alley and have entered into an agreement with Ronald Lee Lindquist and Sherry Lindquist to convey their rights and interest to the Lindquists. The properties abutting the subject alley are accessible from driveways located along their street frontage. Therefore, maintaining access to the alley by owners of the abutting property should not be an issue.
Findings: Vacating the alley will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property.
4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
Discussion: The property will be transferred to an owner of property adjacent to the alley, thereby not creating a small landlocked piece of land.
Findings: The proposed alley vacation would not create any landlocked parcels.
5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses;
Discussion: The Sugar House Future Land Use Map, included in the Sugar House Master Plan, identifies this area within the Low Density Residential category. The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan
These uses noted in the plan will not be affected by this proposal.
Findings: The alley vacation is consistent with applicable policies of the City.
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit;
Discussion: The petitioner’s intent is to acquire all of the property abutting the alley. All other owners of property adjacent to the subject portion of the alley have consented to the alley vacation in the attached petition. (Exhibit 1)
Findings: No objections were expressed by owners of property abutting the alley.
7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and
Discussion: Petition No. 400-623-88 and Ordinance No. 68 of 1988 vacated the northern portion of the alley.
Finding: The proposed petition will further the City’s preference for vacating entire alleys by adding to the length of the portion of the subject alley that was partially vacated in 1988. The portion of the subject alley to be vacated should be declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley.
8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses.
Discussion: As stated above, both properties abutting the subject alley have access from driveways located along their street frontage. Although the owners of the Park Street property will relinquish their interest in the alley, the Lindquist property will retain accessibility from the alley.
Findings: The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses.
Recommended conditions for the alley closure:
1. The vacation is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property.
2. Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant city standards and ordinances.
3. The alley property is divided in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners, according to Utah Code, Title 10-8-8.5.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the findings identified in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and declare the alley property surplus to the City’s needs as a public alley and subject to the following conditions:
1. The closure is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property.
2. Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant city standards and ordinances.
3. The alley property is divided in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners, according to Utah Code, Title 10-8-8.5.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Kem C. Gardner is requesting preliminary subdivision amendment approval for Lots 301 & 302 of the North Cove Estates Plat C and Lot 209 of the North Cove Estates Plat B Subdivisions; a consolidation proposal to split Lot 302 into two equal parts, combining the north half with Lot 301 and the south half with Lot 209, for the construction of a single-family residence located at approximately 1312 North Canyon Oaks Drive (400 East) in a Foothill Residential “FR-1” Zoning District.
The hearing began at 7:10.
Planner Greg Mikolash spoke to the Commission regarding this petition and explained that usually this type of development would go through an administrative process. There is no need or request to build a larger structure on either one of the proposed lots. The Applicant is proposing to combine three existing lots into two new lots. Mr. Mikolash explained that Mr. David Freed, a neighbor of the Applicant, will be the recipient of the southern portion. Staff is recommending subdivision amendment approval subject to the proposal being in compliance with all departmental comments in the staff report, and the Applicant shall not obtain a building permit until at a final plat is recorded with the County Recorder’s Office.
Mr. Kem C. Gardner said that he was required to buy both lots in order to get the lot that he wanted. His thought was to sell the second lot, but that would cause another home to be built which would hurt his and his neighbor’s view. He and his neighbor, David Freed, got together and found this proposal to be the best alternative.
Mr. Davis Freed addressed the Commission asking for their support saying that this is the best alternative for both owners.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
No public comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion to grant preliminary subdivision approval to the North Cove Estates of lots 301,302, and 209 subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report. Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the noted findings, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant preliminary subdivision approval to the North Cove Estates Lots 301, 302 & 209 Subdivision Amendment subject to the following:
1. Compliance with all departmental comments and recommendations.
2. That final plat and development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
3. That no building permit be applied for any construction upon the newly created Lot 301 prior to recording of the Final Plat with the County Recorders Office unless specifically authorized by the Director of Building Services.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No. 410-644, a request by Ken Garff Enterprises for conditional use approval for an automotive sales and services dealership located at 548-566 South 200 East and 137-161 East 600 South. As part of this development proposal the petitioner is requesting planned development and minor subdivision approval. The planned development application requests approval for a single parcel with one new automotive dealership and one existing automotive dealership with modification of the perimeter parking lot landscaping standard along the interior lot lines. The minor subdivision application requests combining all or portions of 16 parcels into one parcel. The properties are located within the Downtown D-2 zoning district.
The hearing began at 7:25.
Planner Everett Joyce addressed the Planning Commission stating that this proposal is before them in order to accommodate a new Saab Dealership. The new dealership will replace the space currently used for auto sales and would require the demolition of the two existing structures. He explained that the new dealership would consist of 1.5 acres and would have frontage access on 200 East. The balance of the 2.5-acre site includes a Mercedes-Benz dealership and an interior car wash that serves the Ken Garff facilities. The entire Planned Development area is proposed to become a single parcel created out of 16 parcels. The Planned development would be bound and limited by the two public streets, Hamilton Court to the west and Hawthorne Avenue on the north. Although the entire Ken Garff complex is over 9 acres, the Applicant is requesting Planned Development approval of only the southeast quadrant of the complex. This approval would set the stage for future development and reconfiguration. The Petitioner is requesting a waiver for parking lot perimeter landscaping on interior lot lines to eliminate the potential 14-foot landscaping buffers between the different dealerships. The parking lot landscaping buffer eliminates the opportunity for reconfiguration as the market dictates. Mr. Joyce explained that the new building will be set back from the street and there will be a five-foot landscaping buffer along the public way, and they are also planning to install street trees along 200 East. Mr. Joyce recommended that the Planning Commission require the Applicant to submit a site plan to the Planning Director for review of the details and for final approval. The subdivision issues that arise creating one lot from 16 does meet the subdivision standards of section 20 of the City Code. Excluding the perimeter parking lot landscaping requirements, the site has been reviewed by the Development Review Team and it meets City standards. There will be changes to the public way infrastructure in relation to streets and sidewalks that are damaged to be rebuilt, and closure of dead end driveways will be completed as part of the new development. Mr. Joyce said the Public Utilities Department has requested that the Applicant provide easements for storm drains and other existing utilities that are shared by other parcels. Staff is also requesting a cross-over easement for vehicle access. The Community Councils have reviewed this project and they have not submitted written comment. Mr. Joyce has contacted the Chair of the Central City Community Council and she was not at the meeting, but spoke to someone that was and they said that there were no concerns with the development. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission give a favorable recommendation and approve the conditional use and minor subdivision for automotive sales with the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Chair Jonas asked if staff has imposed light standards. Mr. Joyce answered that the City ordinance light standards do not permit glare of lights onto adjacent properties. He added that if the Commission felt there was a need, they could require adjustment additional lighting limitations.
Commissioner Diamond inquired if there will be additional signage. Mr. Joyce replied that the Petitioner is not requesting signage permits at this time.
Mr. Jack Hammond from Architectural Nexus, representing the Applicant, addressed the Commission asking for approval.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lucy Otero DeCarbera, a resident of the Wasatch Manor, spoke in opposition saying that she had a personal encounter with the auto sales where she felt the Ken Garff dealership was dishonest. She said that she could not believe Ken Garff when they say the lights won’t be reflecting into the neighboring structures. She also voiced concern regarding the trucks that deliver new cars early in the morning and disturb the surrounding residents.
Ms. Ina Caldwell, a resident of the Wasatch Manor, spoke in opposition saying that the Ken Garff cargo is unloaded in the early hours of the morning and unloaded in the middle of the street making it impossible for the Wasatch Manor tenants to turn into their homes. She also spoke to concerns of the lights.
Ms. Kay Berger Arnold stated she was representing Safety Brake, Western Radiator, as well as the Jean Peri, which are surrounding property owners. She said that the Wasatch Manor is an enormous high-rise; Jean Paris Wigsis going to be a 95-unit apartment house that will probably be up and running by next year. Western Radiator may become a furniture store; and Safety Brake has not been able to come to any negotiations with Bob Garff. She said that her concern is that the people that come to these properties as potential buyers are retail people. She said that she is concerned that we think of that corner as having to go automotive and open that corner for a lot of things on 600 South. She added that if anything we are coming away from automotive and getting a lot of housing and shops in this area. The other issue is that they may have landscaping, but none is shown along the west property line of Safety Brake. If someone comes in and demolishes Safety Brake, then there will be no landscaping. She also said that 200 East is in need of better landscaping and now is the opportunity to do it.
Ms. Betty Leithead, a resident of the Wasatch Manor, spoke in opposition saying that the principal concern is the delivery of new cars. At the present time, delivery trucks park in the left turn lane heading north on 200 East, directly in front of the Wasatch Manor building. Most of the time the driveway into the apartment is either hindered or blocked. She added that sometimes there are two trucks and the residents of the Manor have to pull between the trucks to get into their driveway. The trucks are very disturbing during all hours of the night. She said that management of the Wasatch Manor has called Ken Garff several times and only to be given a number to a complaint line which no one ever answers. She said that they have complained to the Police and no response. Ms. Leithead said that she believes Ken Garff has not been a good neighbor and their loud speakers during the day are very disturbing as well. She also expressed concern about the light saying that she can read in her room on the 4th floor with the reflection of their lights at night. Lastly, she said that the alarms on the cars can go off at any given moment and that is very upsetting in the middle of the night.
Commissioner DeLay asked if it would make a difference if the cars were unloaded on another street. Ms. Leithead replied that she and the other residents would prefer that the cars are unloaded on the site rather than the street which is too dangerous.
Mr. William Love, owner of Safety Brake, addressed the Commission saying that he supported previous public comment, but his concerned is that the block is being used for automotive services. He had hoped to sell his property to a higher use such as housing rather than automotive sales. He mentioned that the staff report states that there will be a more comprehensive plan for the whole block. Chair Jonas clarified that the intent of that statement was related to the property; specifically, owned by Ken Garff rather than to say that Mr. Love’s property had to be used as automotive.
Chair Jonas read the following comments for the record:
Ms. Norma Peck, a resident of the Wasatch Manor, opposes the Ken Garff using 200 East for the loading and unloading of cars at all times of day and night.
Ms. Eleanor B. Hall, a resident of the Wasatch Manor, who is strongly opposed to this expansion. She sated that there is enough traffic on 200 East. Using the street for the private unloading of cars is disruptive to the residents of the Wasatch Manor.
Ms. Phyllis Grangroth, a resident of the Wasatch Manor, opposes expansion only because Ken Garff has imposed on the residents of the Wasatch manor in several ways: Trucks unloading cars in the turn lane on 200 East in front of the Wasatch Manor driveway causing drivers to make U-turns turning between two trucks without visibility of oncoming traffic; glaring lights are not helpful to a good night’s sleep; and trucks unloading quite loudly during the night. For the record, there are 200 apartments of people over 65 living in the Wasatch Manor.
Ms. P. Nell C. Naef, a resident of the Wasatch Manor also opposes the petition due to the parking of semis in the center of 200 East blocking the entrance and exit of the Wasatch Manor.
Mr. Jack Hammond spoke to rebut the public comment and said that Ken Garff would like the flexibility to develop within the confines of their property; they have no aspirations to force any other property owner to develop their property as automotive. He responded to the issue of landscaping explaining that Ken Garff is providing the requisite seven-foot landscaping strip of the portion of the property that they want to develop now. At the time that Phase 2 is developed, Ken Garff will also, by ordinance, be obligated to install seven-feet of landscaping. It is to Ken Garff’s advantage to install 5 percent of interior landscaping where it will not create barriers within the property as an impediment to effective operation of their business.
Commissioner McDonough raised the question as to why the Planned Development is broken into two phases in which the landscaping will be installed when the second phase is improved. Chair Jonas further inquired what the justification is for imposing landscaping requirements on the interior lot lines, but not on the exterior lot lines. Mr. Joyce answered that the Applicant is only requesting conditional use approval for Phase 1 at this time and Staff did not include Phase 2 because it is a future phase.
Commissioner DeLay asked Mr. Hammond to address the issues raised by the neighbors in regard to trucks unloading. She asked if there is a plan in place for an interior area for unloading. Mr. Hammond said that he would have to refer to the Garff’s as to how they run their business.
Mr. John Garff, President – Chief Operating Officer of the Garff Enterprises Group, spoke in respect to the neighboring residents’ comments. He said that he was not aware of a lot of the issues raised and had never heard of the issue with the trucks. He said that they are willing to look at those issues. He also said that the delivery trucks are not employed by Ken Garff, but he understands the neighbors’ concerns and said he would be happy to talk to those distributors. He said this is not a new dealership that they are applying for. Ken Garff recognizes their lack of parking and they intend to make more space for parking. He said that he appreciates the efforts the City has made, and Ken Garff has been working cooperatively with the City to keep Saab downtown which creates tax revenue for Downtown Salt Lake City.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chambless asked the Commission if it would be appropriate to hold this case until the Planning Staff and Ken Garff have the opportunity to work with the community and come back with solutions to the issues that have been raised.
Chair Jonas said that the issues seem to be traffic issues rather than land use and may be out of the Planning Commission’s purview.
Commissioner Scott felt that the standard for the conditional use, item D, the staff finding shows that the internal circulation system for automobile circulation is in fact properly designed; however, there seems to be a significant off loading problem that she struggles with. She also made reference to the noise and light issues that are enforcement issues which should be addressed as such. Ms. Scott said that although she would hate to set back the Petitioner, she would support a delay to allow the Petitioner to address the internal circulation and truck issues.
Commissioner McDonough retorted that the Commission will see a further proposal for Phase 2 and she was not sure that delaying this petition is going to give the Commission any more information for Phase 1.
Mr. Zunguze said that one of the things staff has stressed to Ken Garff during the course of discussions is that the Planning Division and Planning Commission need a more comprehensive understanding of how they want to operate that site. He further explained that the intention is to avoid approaching projects in a hiccup and piecemeal fashion, in which we fail to understand the cumulative impact. Mr. Zunguze felt it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to encourage the Petitioner to provide an understanding of their long range plan so that we can address all of these cumulative impact issues. He agreed with the sentiments that have already been expressed that this is the first phase and the Commission has the opportunity to send the message to the Applicant that they need to come back thinking more holistically. He cautioned the Commission to not mix some of the enforcement issues that have come up, those issues should be taken up with the appropriate agencies in the City that are there to address that.
Commissioner DeLay asked when the Commission should expect to see Phase 2. Mr. Joyce replied that there is no timeline for that. Mr. Garff answered that their intention is to bring Phase 2 back to the Planning Commission as soon as possible.
Commissioner McDonough asked Mr. Garff where he might envision a loading/unloading dock. Mr. Garff said that they were focusing on the Planned Development in order to meet a deadline that they set with Saab. He said that the designated area for loading and unloading is Hawthorne Avenue. He added that the reason that they do not use that area now is because the block is so congested with parking.
Commissioner Noda said that she has witnessed trucks unloading on 200 East and it is problematic; however, she felt that that was not reason to hold this petition, and she believes that Mr. Garff was willing to address concerns raised by the neighbors.
Motion for Petition 410-644
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the Conditional Use, Planned Development, and Minor Subdivision for automotive sales with the conditions set forth in the staff report. Commissioner DeLay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Pace if the Commission has the discretion to approve a project with a condition that the Applicant submits, within a number of days, a document that addresses appropriate traffic mitigation measures. Mr. Pace responded that the Commission has discretion to impose reasonable conditions. The difficulty in this case, is that the delivery trucks are outside entities that Garff has no control over. They do however have a business relationship with them. The Garff business may have the space to create a designated area to unload, which would eliminate the need to unload in the street. Mr. Pace said that he would be uncomfortable imposing a condition on this Applicant that hinges on a third party that the Applicant can not control. He added that if what Mr. Galli is proposing is that he would like to see a plan for Phase 2 and he would like the Applicant to address the location for off-loading in the plan, in that case, the Commission can give a reasonable time period to get that plan submitted and see how that issue will be addressed.
Mr. Galli asked to amend the motion to add a condition that appropriate traffic mitigation measures be submitted to the Planning Director within 60 days of the date of approval for Phase 1.
Commissioner Noda accepted that amendment. Commissioner DeLay accepted that as well.
Commissioner McDonough said that in the conditions it does not say that this project will come back to the Commission for Phase 2 approval.
Chair Jonas asked to make an amendment to the conditions that when the Commission sees Phase 2, that the Applicant will present a long term mitigation plan for the future development of the entire 9 acres.
Commissioner Daniels asked if they could add light and noise to the conditions as well.
Chair Jonas said that there are ordinances in place that relate to those things, but to add it would not be a problem. Commissioner Daniels replied that the public is obviously being affected by the current light and noise and he felt the Commission should add a condition to alleviate those concerns.
Commissioner Galli said that he was under the impression that there would not be additional light or noise. Mr. Joyce replied that there would be additional light and noise, but the Applicant must comply with the County standards for noise and City standards for lighting, which is handled through enforcement on a complaint basis.
Commissioner Scott asked to change condition 6 to read “noise and emissions”.
Commissioner Scott asked if she could add a number 7 to the conditions, having to deal with lights.
Commissioner McDonough was concerned that the Applicant is not going to be given clear language requesting that they come back to the Commission showing what Phase 2 is going to look like. Chair Jonas thought that he was proposing just that. Commissioner McDonough retorted that Chair Jonas suggested a loading and unloading mitigation plan.
Mr. Wilde interjected that the fact that the Commission is approving Phase 1 sets the stage to require Phase 2 to come back. Mr. Joyce added that it also has to come back because the actual use is a conditional use.
Commissioner Diamond said that the Planning Commission must delineate Phase 2. There is nothing in the recommendation that spells it out. He felt it is important to be more specific on Phase 1 because this is a blanket approval.
Chair Jonas suggested including all conditions of approval 1-7, condition 7 being the amended addition by Commissioner Galli; which would relate to Phase 1, and the 8th condition that Chair Jonas recommended relative to Phase 2 that a long term mitigation plan would be addressed at the time that Phase 2 would come back to the Commission.
Mr. Pace asked for clarity saying that Commissioner Daniels made a suggestion to include noise and light issues as conditions and whether or not that had been accepted in the motion. Chair Jonas said it had not.
Mr. Zunguze commented that perhaps the ordinance addresses the lighting issue associated with the glare and that perhaps the public is having a problem with the luminance. Although the light fixture is pointing down, it is the light luminance that is intensive enough to be a nuisance to the neighbors. He said that the Planning Staff will take a look at the lighting ordinance and perhaps address the luminance aspect of the ordinance.
Commissioner Noda said that she would accept the amendments. Commissioner
DeLay said that she would accept the amendment as well.
Amended motion for Petition 410-644
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the Conditional Use, Planned Development, and Minor Subdivision for automotive sales with the conditions set for in the staff report, and with the following modifications: Adding a condition 7 “that a plan with the appropriate traffic mitigation measures be submitted to the Planning Director within 60 days of the date of approval”; in addition, a condition 8 “that a long term mitigation plan would be addressed at the time that Phase 2 is presented to the Planning Commission”; and adding the words “All conditions of approval 1-7 relate to Phase 1, condition 8 is relative to Phase 2”. Commissioner DeLay seconded.
21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses.
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this title.
Discussion: Automobile sales/rental and service uses are permitted as a conditional use in the D-2 zoning district.
Finding: The proposed automotive dealership is specifically listed as a conditional use in 21A.30.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Discussion: The block where the proposal will be located, is designated in the draft Central Community Master Plan, as a support area for the Central Business District. During the 1995 zoning code rewrite the subject block was designated as a support area for the Central Business District and zoned Downtown D-2. This action modified the 1974 Central Community Master Plan future land use map. The 1974 master plan had designated the block for hotel, motel and visitor related services.
Finding: The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and is compatible with goals and objectives of applicable master plan and proposed master plan.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
Discussion: The proposed development will have access to 200 East Street. The Transportation Division has determined that the traffic generation from the proposed development would have minimal impact on the 200 East Street.
Finding: The proposed development access and the adjacent streets are suitable, and approval of the automotive dealership will not degrade existing service levels of adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Discussion: The Transportation Division has reviewed the proposed internal circulation system. Based on preliminary drawings, the site circulation meets geometric standards for vehicular access and maneuvering to parking stalls. The Transportation Division noted that the proposal needs to be modified to include pedestrian access from the 200 East Street public walkway, to the principal entrance of the dealership facility. The site plan has been modified to include this sidewalk.
Finding: The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed for automobile circulation. Final development plans should be delegated to Planning Director for review and approval.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Discussion: The Department of Public Services has noted that the existing site has adequate utility services. As such, any modifications or disconnections of utility services will need to meet City standards and approval by the Department of Public Services.
Finding: Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development, subject to City approval and requirements of the building permit plans.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Discussion: The proposed development is part of a larger block of automobile dealerships owned by Ken Garff Enterprises. The site is to be developed with a use similar to the existing uses on the block. The entire block, except the Safety Brake development immediately to the south of the proposed Saab dealership, is owned and controlled by the Ken Garff automotive enterprise. The proposed site plan provides the required perimeter landscaping for parking lots along the property lines of the Safety Brake site.
Finding: The proposed use is surrounded by similar uses therefore light, noise and visual impacts will be the same. Buffering to protect the adjacent Safety Brake land uses is provided with an eight foot perimeter landscape area.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Discussion: The proposed building has a significant amount of windows on the east street front elevation. The two building materials most present on the automotive dealership complex are brick and concrete masonry block. Adjacent building materials in the area are brick and concrete. The proposed facility is a one story showroom with a service area. The entire block consists of one story buildings.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing uses and building materials and is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development.
Discussion: The D-2 zoning district does not require any landscaped setbacks. The only landscaping required is perimeter landscaping along property lines for parking lots and the five percent interior landscaping within parking lots and vehicle sales lots. The proposed Saab dealership site plan shows that the five percent interior parking lot landscaping will be provided. Perimeter parking lot landscaping is provided along the front yard and corner side yard property lines. The front and corner side yards abut 200 East Street and Hawthorne Avenue. Parking lot perimeter landscaping along interior lot lines of adjacent properties that are not owned by the applicant are provided. For reasons noted above, Staff recommends that the interior property line perimeter parking lot landscaping, adjacent to the other existing automotive dealerships, not be a requirement.
Park strip trees are required along the 200 East Street frontage. The requirement is one tree for every 30 feet of frontage. The street trees may be clustered subject City Forester approval.
Finding: The proposed landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development, with respect to being a part of an overall larger automotive dealership complex. In this case, the elimination of the interior property line parking lot landscaping requirement is appropriate for such a multi-franchise automotive dealership complex. Therefore, the staff recommends the Planning Commission waive that requirement. The final landscape plan will need to provide street trees on 200 East Street.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property.
Discussion: The site is not located within a historic district and there are no significant architectural or environmental features on the property.
Finding: There are no historical, architectural or environmental features to preserve on the site.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with the adjacent land uses.
Discussion: The proposed site layout provides loading in the rear of the building. Operating and delivery hours will be typical of automobile dealerships. Adjacent land uses are other automobile dealerships and the Safety Brake development, which is an automotive repair facility.
Finding: The operating hours and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Discussion: Abutting land uses are non-residential uses. The adjacent zoning is D-2 and D-3. Land uses immediately across from the site on 200 East are offices, automotive repair use and a high-rise elderly housing complex.
Finding: The proposed conditional use, an automotive dealership, is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Discussion: Approval of the conditional use request will be subject to meeting all, applicable, City departmental requirements.
Finding: The proposed development will meet all other applicable codes and ordinances prior to the issuance of a building permit subject to zoning standards being modified, as part of a planned development review and approval process.
21.54.150 Planned Developments
The proposal meets the following objectives of the Planned Development purpose statement:
1. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations.
Discussion: Ninety percent of the block consists of individual automotive sales and service dealerships. Applying the planned development approach to the numerous dealerships will allow for flexible site layout design that encourages a concept of a comprehensive automotive dealership complex. The current proposed site plan design envisions modification of the requirement for perimeter parking landscaped setbacks on the interior of the block between similar uses and property ownership. This allows for an updated automobile dealership facility, which can provide internal circulation connections, sharing of vehicle storage areas and other single use facilities that serve the entire automobile complex, such as, the existing car wash. The elimination of the interior perimeter parking lot landscaping requirement will allow a more desirable site configuration and design environment for this multi-franchise automotive dealership complex.
Finding: The modification of perimeter parking landscape setbacks in the proposed development, along with the same modification for future redevelopment of individual dealerships, will provide for a more integrated facility than generally possible through the strict application of the zoning ordinance. This modification is consistent with the existing block land uses in the area.
2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities.
Discussion: The development proposal connects and integrates similar land use elements of the existing automotive dealerships and provides for land use and site plan development with orientation to the street. The site plan shows the loading dock and automotive storage areas at the interior of the block, with automotive sales and display areas located on the street fronts.
Finding: The proposed development will result in a better physical design layout and consistent design relationship within this multiple franchise automotive dealership sales complex.
3. Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible use through redevelopment or rehabilitation.
Discussion: The property consists of multiple-dealerships on multiple parcels. In a phased process of redevelopment and rehabilitation of outdated structures and inconsistent design elements will be eliminated over time. To provide adequate flexibility in design and land use of the entire nine acres, it would be best to encourage comprehensive site layout with respect to the entire block and approve the various dealerships as they are upgraded through the planned development process. This approach would treat the entire site as a cohesive development and reviewed, as such, with respect to separate franchise dealerships and property lines.
Finding: The property consists of multiple-dealerships on multiple parcels. The phased redevelopment and rehabilitation will eliminate and upgrade old structures and multiple property lines. As such, the proposed development meets the intent and purpose of a planned development. Development of a new Saab automotive dealership through the planned development process will constitute the first phase of redevelopment on the block.
21A.54.15.E Other Planned Development Standards
1. Minimum Area: A planned development proposed for any parcel or tract of land under single ownership or control shall have a minimum net lot area for each zoning district as set forth in Table 21A.54.150 E 2.
Discussion: The minimum planned development size in the D-2 district is 2 acres. The planned development and minor subdivision request consists of 2.76 acres. The Saab dealership phase consists of 1.5 acres. The 1.26 acre balance of the planned development site includes the portion of the existing Mercedes-Benz facility located east of Hamilton court. Overall the Ken Garff site consists of nine acres and the entire restructuring and reinvestment process for the block will be phased over time.
Finding: The proposed Saab dealership and adjacent Mercedes parcels meet the minimum lot area requirement. The Saab dealership is the first phase of the development aimed at improving the southeast quadrant of the Ken Garff automotive dealership complex, which consists of approximately 9 acres of the ten acre block.
2. Density Limitations: Residential planned developments shall not exceed the density limitation of the zoning district where the planned development is proposed.
Discussion: The planned development is a commercial project in the D-2 district.
Finding: The residential density limitations do not apply to the proposed development.
3. Consideration of Reduced Width Public Street Dedication.
Discussion: The planned development does not propose any public or private streets within its boundaries.
Finding: The consideration of reduced street width does not apply to the proposed development.
20.20 Minor Subdivisions
A minor subdivision shall meet the following standards:
1. The general character of the surrounding area shall be well defined, and the minor subdivision shall conform to this general character.
Discussion: The existing block contains numerous small parcels with existing buildings over lot lines. The proposed lot line adjustments create a single parcel to accommodate the Saab dealership a portion of the existing Mercedes-Benz dealership. The subdivision combines sixteen lots and portions of two existing lots into one lot.
Finding: The proposed development lot line adjustments are consistent with existing uses and compatible with the general character of the adjacent neighborhood.
2. Lots created shall conform to the applicable requirements of the zoning ordinances of the City.
Discussion: The D-2 zoning district does not require any minimum lot area, lot width or minimum yard requirements.
Finding: The proposed development conforms to applicable, requirements of the zoning ordinance.
3. Utility easements shall be offered for dedication as necessary.
Discussion: The site is served by existing utilities and there are no requirements for dedicating utilities.
Finding: Dedicated utility easements are not required.
4. Water supply and sewage disposal shall be satisfactory to the City Engineer.
Discussion: The site is served by existing utilities. Any required relocation or upgrades will be reviewed through the building permit process.
Finding: The proposed development will be required to conform to applicable City standards, through the permit review process.
5. Public improvements shall be satisfactory to the Planning Director and City Engineer.
Discussion: The public way improvements required, include the installation of a new driveway approach, removal of eliminated driveways and related landscaping improvements. The final site plan shall meet the City standards for right of way improvements.
Finding: The proposed development will be required to conform to applicable City standards through the permit review process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings of fact, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use, the planned development and minor subdivision for an automotive sales and display facility, with the following conditions:
1. The Planning Commission waives the requirement for perimeter parking lot landscaping on the interior lot lines of the development.
2. The final site plan and landscape plan be approved by the Planning Director or designee;
3. That final plans meet applicable City standards for storm drainage and right of way improvements;
4. That crossover easements for utilities and vehicles be provided for the subject property and adjacent Ken Garff Enterprises parcels;
5. That a notice of property line adjustment be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s office; and
6. That the outdoor public address system meet Salt Lake City and County Health Department noise standards.
7. That a plan with appropriate traffic mitigation measures be submitted to the Planning Director within 60 days of the date of approval.
8. That a long term mitigation plan would be addressed at the time that Phase 2 would be presented to the Planning Commission.
All conditions of approval 1-7 relate to Phase 1, condition 8 is relative to Phase 2
Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels voted “Nay”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Scott Turville is requesting preliminary subdivision approval for the Carrigan View 2 Subdivision; a redesigned proposal of a 3-lot, single-family residential subdivision located at approximately 1977 South Lakeline Drive (2950 East) in a Foothill Residential “FR-2” Zoning District.
This hearing began at 8:52.
Mr. Wilde recused himself from this case due the fact that he lives in the neighborhood of the proposed project.
Planner Greg Mikolash briefly went over the subdivision proposal and staff report. He said that the only scenario that has changed from the May 14th, Issues Only hearing is the alignment of the Shoreline Trail. He presented a map of the subject and surrounding properties. He discussed the issues only hearing and said that the Petitioner originally proposed to have the trail run north of Lot 1 and that it became apparent at the Issues Only meeting that many people were in opposition of this proposed trail alignment. The Petitioner is now willing to re-align the proposed trial parallel with the most of the existing trail line. Mr. Mikolash described the site plan for the development of the proposed two new lots. The Petitioner is also installing an eight inch sewer line that would have to run down the gully. One of the biggest issues from a Planning standpoint is the revegetation of this area after construction and the Applicant will need to submit a revegetation plan to the City. Mr. Mikolash said that based on most of the standards listed in the staff report, Staff is recommending preliminary subdivision approval.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Mikolash why, despite concerns with the Site Development Ordinance, Staff is proposing approval of a sewer line installation with a significant slope, as opposed to pumping the sewer. Mr. Mikolash answered that Public Utilities does not have a problem with the proposed line. A landscape and revegetation plan will be required and, Planning staff does not have a problem with its installation; the Planning Director will have final approval authority.
Chair Jonas asked if the Lots 2 and 3 share a drive way coming to the cul-de-sac and then split. Mr. Mikolash answered yes.
Mr. Wheelwright addressed the Commission saying that in the past 20 years it has been frequently requested that the City allow disturbance of significantly steep slop areas for underground utility instillation and we have successfully installed revegetation on those slopes. He made reference to one specific utility line which is above 11th Avenue from the Chandler Subdivision. We call those exceptions to the site development regulations they have to be recommended to the Mayor by Planning Commission.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Shoreline Trail alternative 1 is still an option for the Commission to discuss or is the focus on alternative 2. Mr. Mikolash said that Staff recommendation, is to follow alternative 2; however, since alternative 1 is on the site plan, it remains an option.
Commissioner McDonough asked about Mr. Mikolash’s comment in reference to moving or adjusting the trail. Mr. Mikolash explained that the north boundary line of Lot 2 may have to shift to the south in order to not make such a significant cut and fill into the hillside. Commissioner McDonough asked if that is a recommendation. He answered yes.
Mr. Scott Turville, the Applicant addressed the Commission and went over the highlights of the staff report; he discussed the history of the property and how the lots have been reduced, but not by choice. He said that the main issue seemed to be the trail or the location of the trail as discussed at the Issues Only hearing. He said that the upper trail was primarily from the preference of a person that uses trails, the view was better etc. He said that he thought a lot of people are arguing this because they don’t understand grades and others are arguing because they just don’t want the development. He spoke about the other issues that they have dealt with such as the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Statement which says that trails should be high enough to be up away from the homes. Others say that it should coincide in the homes. He spoke to the issue of the width of the road and said that they designed this so to meet City ordinance without having to come back for a conditional use. He said that they have tried to be sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors and folks that use the trail. Mr. Turville noted that they have designed it so that the roads and utilities work; in addition he said that this is his last proposal for this property. When he bought the property, it was zoned for development and there was a printed Master Plan for this development. He knows it probably won’t please everyone, but he felt this proposal is the best option.
Commissioner Diamond asked about trail alternative 1 and if that exists right now. Mr. Turville said that alternative 1 was promoted and built as a switch back so that it could be constructed at a lower grade. It is a relatively flat trail, away from the homes and it has a better view. He felt that there was confusion with the grades and that is why people didn’t like that option, adding that they are tired of dealing with the trail and that is why they lowered it down, at Staff’s request, which he feels is an inferior trail.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Turville to speak to the issue of roads leading to the proposed homes and how many they are planning to have. Mr. Turville explained that the existing driveway will be a private driveway because of public concerns that they were taking the roads too far back and the amount of curb cuts they would have to make to put in separate driveways. Mr. Turville said that they will have a 50-foot wide right-of-way that the two lots share, and are planning to make more improvements by way of the ordinance.
Commissioner Diamond asked if they can just make one curb cut with one driveway. Mr. Turville explained that the road will be privately owned, but appearance wise, the road will look like one driveway.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Turville how wide he plans to make the roadway that wraps around Lot 2 and accesses Lot 3. Mr. Turville replied that they plan to make the road way almost 50 feet including the curb cut back to Lakeline Drive. Chair Jonas asked why so much. Mr. Turville replied that that amount meets the updated flag lot ordinance and meets fire code. Chair Jonas asked if the ordinance allows that the lots have a common drive and split between Lots 2 and 3 if it is a private drive. Mr. Wheelwright explained that staff left that to the discretion of the developer to decide if they wanted to build one driveway or two.
Chair Jonas made the point that it will be more difficult to delineate the trail head with two curb cuts equaling 48 or 50 feet verses one curb cut that would reduce the area to 20 feet. He said that Mr. Turville could do a better job if he allowed for more room.
Mr. Turville said that Chair Jonas is correct; however, Mr. Turville has not been given the charge to delineate. He has been given the charge to integrate the trial with the driveway and it is difficult to do both as well as weigh all of the issues that have come about. He felt that what Chair Jonas is asking is no small feat, and the engineering aspects of that are very difficult. He felt that they have labored over this and integrated the Staff and public suggestions as well as they can. He said that when the drive approach and trail head is built you are not going to look at something that is not aesthetically displeasing, but rather, will be a narrow drive and trail with decreased cut and fills, wide enough to get cars and emergency vehicles to the properties safely; integrating the trail to the way that most of the people who have attended public meetings have articulated.
Commissioner Diamond suggested a combination of the trail alternative 1 with alternative 2, explaining that Mr. Turville is combining too many elements which can be problematic. Mr. Turville said that he would be happy to follow and adhere to what Commissioner Diamond is suggesting but it is exactly opposite of what the public said that they wanted at the Issues Only hearing on the 14th of May.
Commissioner Chambless asked, where in relation to Lot 3, does Mr. Turville envision the structure of the home to be, and how close to the trail. Mr. Turville answered that it will meet City standards for side yard setbacks which is 20 feet but the house will not be parallel with the trail. When you build a house perpendicular to the grade or slope you have geometrical problems with your house and you increase the price of construction and you don’t get a good product in the end, because you are stepping down to walk into the house and down to another room. In the foothills you should place your house with the contours. The home for Lot 3 may be 50 or 60 feet away from the trail.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jerry Bergosh, the Vice Chair of “H” Rock Community Council addressed the Commission and made a few clarifications. First he disagreed with the “Issues Only Topics of Concern” table listed in the staff report stating it was a very skewed chart. He gave a description of his property related to Mr. Turville’s property and a description of the location of the trail. He said he would like the trail to be kept where it essentially is and move the trail in front of Lot 2; all other options are too complicated. He didn’t understand the large curb cut and fill off of Lakeline Drive agreeing with the one driveway cut and only cutting into 30% grade slope for utilities and the Shoreline trail. He specifically disagreed with the staff report which says that Lot 3 is within character of the neighborhood; he felt the lots should be limited to the developable area with less than a 30% grade. He said the utility cuts would be cutting through a lot of significant steep slope area and that is an infringement that we don’t need to have on the hillside. It should be placed along the pipeline. Dedication of the open space should not go to a Home Owners Association and should be subject to a manageable agency. He also stated that they would like to see this subdivision finished.
Chair Jonas asked what the practical difference is if Lot 3 is reduced to the buildable area. Mr. Bergosh replied that that would eliminate the risk of future encroachments. Chair Jonas said that he felt that Mr. Bergosh wanted to preserve a trail through the excess area of Lot 3. Mr. Bergosh said that that was not true and that history has shown that when a new owner comes in they start having encroachment issues especially by the third owner.
Mr. Bruce Alder, representing the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark, spoke to the Commission saying that he would like to see the Trail remain where it is. He said that he served in the Bonneville Shoreline trail Committee for 6 years. A problem that he noticed was what the trail looks like in Parleys. He said that people don’t want the trail behind the hills. He agreed with the suggestion of moving Lot 2 to the north and bringing the trail around parallel with Lot 2.
Ms. Janis Mabey, residing at 2155 Lakeline Drive, spoke to the Commission stating that she is not opposed to them building on these lots. She has issues with where they want to move the trail, a substantial difference, especially for the elderly. She spoke to support the idea to leave the trail where it is.
Ms. Hallie Robins, resides at 1925 S. Wasatch Drive, spoke saying Mr. Turville has created altercation where there is none, adding that no one from the community has denied agreement for closure. Everyone agrees that the Small Area Master plan has served a purpose in terms of three lots and houses. She said that in terms of Open Space, Lot 3 is needlessly cutting into her trail access. In terms of changing acreage she felt it was the responsibility of the Commission to manage Open Space. She said that a revegetation bond should be put in place.
Ms. Andrea Barrows, 2119 South Lakeline Drive, spoke in support of this proposal; however, the trail exists and people are very comfortable with the trail where it is. Pull Lot 2 back into the mountain and keep the trail where it is. She said that she would like to see this approved tonight.
Mr. Barry Glickman, resides 2824 East 2100 South, spoke to the issue of trail access, stating that when they eliminated the trail access, he has no other way of getting to the Shoreline trail other than walking through someone else’s property. He also spoke about the traffic that will result from the new development on 2100 South and asked the Commission to help regulate speed during the construction of homes.
Ms. Sharon Kern, spoke to the Commission saying that any development is going to be obtrusive. One of the things that she would like to see added to the recommendation is for the revegetation of disturbed areas, asking specifically for no fences.
Mr. Jim Samuels resides on Scenic Drive, addressed the Commission saying that his access for the trail is through Lot 3 and the proposal is to cut that access off.
Ms. Dian Banks, who resides on Lakeline Drive, spoke to the Commission saying that she agrees with most of the comments already expressed and she would like to see the trail stay where it is. She said that she likes to get her exercise but she runs on a flat area. The trail is used by people who want a flat area, not a hike. She worried that moving the trail would cut down on the people who are able to use it because of the grade change.
Mr. Don Topham, resides at 2321 Lakeline Drive, said that he echoed what has been said and would hope that the trail can remain where it is, but if that is not possible, he feels that Mr. Turville has made a substantial compromise and concessions and he feels that alternative 2 is better than alternative 1. He said that this should be settled tonight.
Chair Jonas read the following comment for public record: Mr. Craig Livingston who resides at 2144 Lakeline Drive, states, revegetation in aftermath of 1997 pipeline flood demonstrates how long it takes to regenerate vegetation.
Mr. Turville spoke to rebut, he said that people need to know that the trail, as is, is not on flat ground as far as the City’s legal description. As far as the curb cuts, it is one curb cut. In terms of lot size people claim that Lot 3 is out of character with the community. He said that that comment paints a deceptive picture, there are several lots that exceed 20-acres nearby and these lots are not out of character. He said that this proposal meets the ordinance and is the least intrusive cut into the hillside.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Turville about the lower trail and the traverses in the hillside and if he needed Lot 3 to encompass the trail which is located in the unbuildable area. Mr. Turville said that they do, and retorted how may trails is he required to provide? It is impossible for him to accommodate every person that claims Mr. Turville is taking away “their” trail. Those trails are on private property. The public has the Bonneville Shoreline trail and the Wasatch Trail; the other trails outside of these are trespassing.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that they discuss the option of moving the Shoreline trial with Mr. Turville.
Commissioner DeLay spoke of the common suggestions; keep the trail where it is; pull back Lot 2; or cut Lot 3 down to the buildable area and donate the remainder to Open Space. Chair Jonas said that the last suggestion is not an option according to the developer.
Commissioner Diamond explained another suggestion to redevelop the plan.
Mr. Pace said the public has discussed the option of pushing back Lot 2, into the hillside, leaving the Shoreline trail in its existing location; however, to do this will make Lot 2 an undevelopable lot because it will encroach into the 30 percent slope area. What you end up doing is reducing the size of lot 2.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright which trail is more level to walk. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the existing trail is the most level; any deviation will be steeper.
Mr. Wheelwright commented that Staff would not recommend that the Planning Commission dictate that the excess property has to be dedicated to the City. He felt that the public purpose is met if the land is permanently protected and governed by a private agency.
Commissioner McDonough felt that Lot 2 could still be Lot 2 in a modified fashion if the trail remains in its existing “habit” location, by dividing Lot 3 in half, allowing for two lots.
Chair Jonas said that Planning Commission previously approved this to be a six lot subdivision; however, the City Council approved it for three lots because they were unwilling to amend the master plan.
Commissioner McDonough felt that another good option would be for Mr. Turville to abandon Lot 2 and subdivide Lot 3 to still maintain the number of lots.
Mr. Wheelwright said that staff suggested that option to Mr. Turville and his response was that he already has a buyer for Lot 3 as it is configured now, and they probably won’t buy if that lot is reconfigured, and there are very few people in the market for a Foothill lot and even less in the market for the mega lot.
Commissioner Galli mentioned that it seems odd for members of the Commission to try to redesign a project at this juncture.
Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner Galli and added that to try to re engineer this project at this juncture is highly problematic. She said that she didn’t sense movement from the developer in terms of the proposal of leaving the trail where it is and pushing Lot 2 up to steeper slopes probably creates issues for the Developer. She added that she is inclined to go with Staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Scott referred to the access and said to be sensitive to the concerns of the Developer suggesting that the trail be a shared access driveway.
Commissioner Chambless added that the existing trail is the most appropriate for the people that are going to be using it and there is no need to reengineer it. He said that the City should be responsible for maintaining the remaining area of the lots that shall be deeded to another entity outside of the subdivision area.
Chair Jonas said that what it comes down to is what is fair to the Petitioner and the trail users. He invited Mr. Turville to speak to the issues that the Commission is milling through.
Mr. Turville said that every lot is critical. When you have lost so many lots over the years, every lot counts. He said that the most disturbing thing is that this proposal meets every aspect of the ordinance and staff gives 13 items which are in the appropriate guidelines; then the Commission devises new ideas to develop the land; he said that he won’t have it. Mr. Turville explained that he is not going to please all of the people. He said that project is what it is and he won’t modify any of the lots in the present proposal. He asked the Commission to approve this project or disapprove it in its entirety, adding that this is not a threat; he will just be done with the project.
Mr. Zunguze observed that it is not the Commission’s charge to make any developer any kind of guarantee of economic return; it is the charge of the Commission to do what is best for the community. He said that they have the right to modify what is in front of them if they think it is appropriate.
Chair Jonas said that he was prepared, until the fieldtrip, to say this is a crazy proposal but after walking the trail, it seems to be a workable plan.
Commissioner Noda is in agreement with the Chair that the Commission has received substantial amount of input. She said that they have the right to modify the proposal but she didn’t want to re-engineer the lots.
Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion based upon the findings of fact set forth in the staff report that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval of the Carrigan View #2 subject to conditions 1 through 13 set forth in the staff report. Commissioner DeLay seconded the motion.
Commissioner McDonough proposed an amendment to the motion to add a condition number 14 that the northern most curve of the trail be reduced in elevation so that it is not necessary to cut into the hill side.
Commissioner Noda accepted the amendment. Commissioner DeLay accepted the amendment as well.
Commissioner Diamond asked to amend the motion to add another condition that would allow the developer to make a choice to the alignment of the trail; allowing for the trail to connect with alternative 1 at the northern apex of Lot 2, where the trail could then continue east to the existing pipeline trail head.
Commissioner Noda felt inclined to not accept the second amendment. She felt the Commission had explored most those options and she didn’t believe that the developer is willing to consider that as an option.
Chair Jonas brought up condition number 12, where it asks about an association of future lot owners as an owning entity of the preserved open space, he asked the Commission is they wanted to strike that option.
Commissioner Noda asked for Staff feedback. Mr. Wheelwright reiterated that staff did not want to dictate that. Any of the methods listed would accomplish the purpose to insure that that land is not going to be the subject of future development.
Mr. Zunguze added that the option that may give the greatest amount of protection is to get away from the Home Owners Association, and giving it to a public agency or the City.
Chair Jonas said that his concern was, if the land is controlled by an association of future lot owners and we have areas were we are cutting off a trail, the owners may have less incentive to make a trail to connect back up than a public entity would.
Commissioner accepted the amendment to strike the Home Owners Association. Commissioner DeLay accepted that as well.
Chair Jonas asked about the sewer line and its placement through Lot 3, and that that may be potentially troubling. Mr. Wheelwright replied that he felt the City would have control enforcement upon installation and revegetation of the disturbed area.
Amended Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion based upon the findings of fact set forth in the staff report that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval of the Carrigan View #2 subdivision subject to the conditions 1 through 13 set forth in the staff report and with the following modifications: to add a condition 14 that shall read: “That the northern most curve of the trail be reduced in elevation so that it is not necessary to cut into the hill side”; and strike the words, ”or an association of the future lot owners” from condition 12. Commissioner DeLay seconded the motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The general character of the surrounding is well defined, and this proposed foothill subdivision conforms to the general character of the neighborhood.
2. The three lots as being proposed conform to all applicable requirements of the Salt Lake City Corporation Zoning Ordinance.
3. Utility and trail easements will recorded for dedication as necessary.
4. Water supply and sewage disposal will be satisfactory to the City Engineers standards.
5. All required public improvements will be installed in a satisfactory manner.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings of fact, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval for the Carrigan View 2 Subdivision; a 3-lot, single-family residential subdivision located at approximately 1977 South Lakeline Drive in a Foothill Residential “FR-2” Zoning District, subject to the following conditions:
1. All undevelopable portions of each lot within the subdivision shall be identified by boundary line and legal description on the final plat, and that any limitations to the use of the land should be made a part of the subdivisions restrictive covenants, which shall also be declared on the final plat.
2. Development Limit Lines - the 10-foot minimum and the 20-foot average Transition Lines shall be shown on the final recordable plat. Once noted on the final subdivision plat, the development limit line shall be delineated on all building permit site plans and shall be staked in the field prior to construction on any lot affected by the Development Limit Lines.
3. The proposed 6” sewer line that connects Lot 3 with the existing sewer line at Scenic Circle shall provide at least a 7-foot utility easement, which also shall be shown on the final plat, in favor of the City.
4. Pedestrian easement shall be granted for public use of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail through those portions of the trail that traverse all private areas within the Carrigan View Phase 2 subdivision boundary.
5. Twenty-four hour access will need to be provided for maintenance of the relocated water transmission line along the rear portion of Lot 2 of Carrigan View 2 and Lot 6 of Carrigan View Phase 1. Existing easements for water lines shall be quit-claimed by the City in exchange for new easements along the relocated pipes, typically 30-ft. No structures will be allowed within these easements.
6. The Petitioner must submit an updated Geotechnical Report or a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer stating that the to the report as prepared by SHB AGRA, Inc. dated March 2, 1993, is still correct, in regards to this proposed 3-lot development plan.
7. Installation of a trailhead sign, delineating the Bonneville Shoreline Trail from the private driveway approaches of Lots 2 and 3.
8. A requirement for fire retardant roofing materials should be applied to the design guidelines of the restrictive covenants and noted on the final plat under “notice to purchasers”.
9. Lawns and gardens are prohibited in the undevelopable areas. Native and drought tolerant plant species established in undevelopable areas may be irrigated and supplemental planning may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. This comment shall be applied to the plat under “notice to purchasers”.
10. The Petitioner shall adhere to all departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.
11. Final plat and landscape plan approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
12. Denotation of the remaining Turville controlled real property outside of the tree lot area, (approximately 24.5 acres) to an agency acceptable to the City, open space preservation property entity, or an association of the future lot owners, to provide for a long-term ownership and maintenance responsibilities, and to prevent future development of steep lands.
13. Specific exception to the Site Development Ordinance requirement that limits development of significant steep slope areas is granted to allow the subsurface location of a private sewer outfall line to connect to this existing City operated sanitary sewer manhole in Scenic Circle, according to detail plans and specification approved by the City, and bonded for in the subdivision improvements contract with the City, with the provision that disturbed surface of the ground shall be restored and revegetated.
14. That the northern most curve of the trail be reduced in elevation so that it is not necessary to cut into the hill side.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless and Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”. Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m.