Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:29:07 PM . Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Angela Dean, Vice Chair Michael Gallegos and Commissioners, Lisa Adams, Michael Fife, Kathleen Hill, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Clark Ruttinger, Marie Taylor, Matthew Wirthlin, and Mary Woodhead. Commissioner Emily Drown was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn. Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Nick Britton, Senior Planner, Elizabeth Buehler, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Principal Planner; Paul Nielson, City Land Attorney; and Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary.
FIELD TRIP NOTES:
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Commissioners Lisa Adam, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Clark Ruttinger and Marie Taylor. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, Nick Britton, Ana Valdemoros and Elizabeth Buehler. The following locations were visited:
The Commission toured the West Salt Lake area. Staff identified the key areas of change in the community including the 900 West business nodes, Jordan River, Surplus Canal, Redwood Road, Industrial area and the Indian and Redwood Road Intersection. The Commission asked questions about the 9 Line trail, Jordan River and connection to other regional hubs such as the PRATT project in Sugarhouse.
The Commission asked what about the housing density and growth areas, the chances of UDOT giving the City ownership of Redwood Road and the rail transit in the area. They asked Staff about parking on Redwood Road.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 23, 2012 MEETING
MOTION
Commissioner Woodhead made a motion to approve the May 23, 2012 minutes.
Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallegos, Adams, Fife, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Ruttinger, Wirthlin, and Woodhead voted “aye”. Commissioner Taylor voted “nay”. The motion passed 7-1.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Dean and Vice Chairperson Gallegos stated they had nothing to report at this time.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director, stated he had nothing to report at this time.
PLNPCM2010-00656 West Salt Lake Master Plan - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker to update the West Salt Lake Master Plan. The purpose of the West Salt Lake Master Plan is to guide future development in the West Salt Lake Planning Community and as a decision making tool for zoning changes, development proposals, budget proposals and other improvements in the community. The public draft of the proposed updated master plan is available at www.westsaltlake.com. The proposed master plan update includes an updated future land use map. The West Salt Lake planning area is in Council District 2, represented by Kyle LaMalfa (Staff: Nick Britton at 801-535-6107 or nick.britton@slcgov.com).
Mr. Nick Britton, Senior Planner reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file).
Commissioner Woodhead asked about the boundaries for the Master Plan and what the determining factors were for the boundaries.
Mr. Britton reviewed the boundaries and explained the boundaries were set in place, in the past, and he was not certain on the reasoning. He reviewed which areas were covered by the different Master Plans on the west side of Salt Lake.
The Commission discussed the signs welcoming people into West Salt Lake. They discussed how it could be seen as a negative statement and how other communities have used similar signs.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the density in the area and the areas where growth would be ideal. They discussed the lot sizes and usage of the properties in the area. The Commissioners and Staff discussed the location of Commercial nodes in the area and how the Master Plan suggested accommodating more of these areas.
Mr. Britton reviewed the intersection of Indian Avenue and Redwood Road. He reviewed the Public Comments regarding bus and bike routes in the area as outlined in the Staff Report
The Commission and Staff discussed the plans for a street car in West Salt Lake. They discussed how the Jordan River should be highlighted and possible ways to positively use the River as an enhancement to the area. The Commission asked if the City was willing to help enhance the Jordan River Parkway to make it more inviting, as most of the improvements to the Parkway were done by the neighborhoods. Staff stated the issue of funding was always prevalent although work continued to happen. Staff said neighborhood involvement was a positive approach to that helped people take pride in the areas.
Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Manager, stated the Master Plan was not only a land use tool but a budgeting tool as well. He stated all of the Master Plans had implementation steps that were reviewed by the City Council which the Council used to create their budget. Mr. Norris reviewed the Volunteer Coordination Position and how it would also help with these types of projects.
Mr. Britton reviewed the areas of the Surplus Canal, public art, and the industrial areas in West Salt Lake. He reviewed the meetings with the business owners in the area and the comments they had. Mr. Britton reviewed the transportation and connectivity to West Salt Lake. He reviewed the historic aspects of West Salt Lake and the nationally registered buildings in the area. Mr. Britton spoke of the community outreach conducted for the proposal.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the urban design elements that were important to implement. Staff indicated it was the City’s goal to incorporate urban design into the Master Plan. The Commission stated the proposal was well done and researched thoroughly.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Dean opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposal:
Kyle Lamalfa, Jeff Salt, Ray Wheeler, Dan Potts and Jeremy King
The following comments were made:
• Plan was not ready for main stream.
• Street car was very important for the area and should extend into the community farther than 900 West.
• Commercial nodes were ideal but not as long stretch of commercial areas.
• Keep the historical areas protected from development.
• Combining the industrial area and the residential areas in the same plan was not a good idea.
• Public outreach was not as extensive as the Staff Report stated. More people need to be involved in the process.
• Public input was not properly reflected in the document.
• Steering Committees had been used in the past but not for the subject Master Plan.
• Policy statements did not guide development as a Master Plan should.
• Jordan River elements needed to be included in the plan.
• More specific points needed to be added and the vague areas outlined thoroughly.
• The natural open spaces and wildlife habitat in the area needed to be protected.
• Recreation areas needed to be added to the plan such as soccer fields.
• Sustainability code was a good start but needed to be addressed more thoroughly.
Mr. Norris stated the funds for the project were limited and taken from the Planning Departments internal budget.
Commissioner Adams asked for specific direction for the Public Outreach. She explained sometimes no matter how the outreach was conducted the end result was not always ideal.
Commissioner Adams asked how Mr. Lamalfa suggested Staff reach out to the Public and make them care about the proposed Master Plan.
Mr. Lamalfa referred to the Mayor’s Public Engagement document that directed City employees on how to engage the Public and suggested Staff use those guidelines.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal:
Charlotte Fife-Jeppersen, and Maria Garciaz
The following comments were made:
• The vague language helped to allow for negotiation during development.
• Public Outreach was addressed correctly and done in a creative way; some groups refuse to participate no matter the process.
• Multiple uses for areas, such as the Jordan River, were possible while still being sensitive to the wildlife and environment.
The Commissioner asked if the notion of commercial nodes made sense.
Ms. Fife –Jepperson stated it made sense to her, especially with all of the historical houses on 900 West. She stated there were areas that needed to be protected and the proposed Master Plan would do that.
Chairperson Dean closed the Public Hearing.
Discussion
Mr. Britton reviewed the future land use map and how commercial nodes would be laid out in the area and explained the nodes could be changed to reflect the public comments.
Chairperson Dean asked about the Jordan River corridor protection and what was in place that would overlay the area to address the issues of riparian, wildlife and open spaces
Mr. Norris stated currently the biggest thing in place was the riparian overlay corridor zone that limited certain activities within certain distances of water ways. He stated he was not certain if it was sufficient for the Jordan River but it could be expanded on. He stated a full environmental assessment of the parcels next to the river needed to be done to determine what type of open space was most appropriate as the Master Plan outlined. Mr. Norris stated the proposed Master Plan was not the right place to do the full environmental assessment as it was a technical document.
Mr. Britton stated the Oxbow was not in the plan as the money had all ready been granted for it. He stated the proposed plan recommended what the use should be therefore, moving toward establishing where the open spaces zones were. He stated Staff was moving closer to identifying more of the open space parcels and as Mr. Norris was stating working toward inventorying all of the parcels to determine the actual uses. He stated it was not specifically outlined in the proposed Master Plan as it was not the goal of a land use plan to specifically identify the use for individual parcels.
Chairperson Dean was asked if there was a way to include language as a purpose statement for open space in a general terms that made reference to why the environmental assessment was being conducted. She asked if something similar was listed in the Master Plan
Mr. Britton stated the strategy was listed and read the section for the Commission.
Commissioner Gallegos asked about the area between Redwood Road and I-215, did Staff see the area becoming a transitional area where some of the manufacturing declined and moved further west.
Mr. Britton stated yes the idea was to limit additional existing uses from locating there because the buffer between the residential uses on the east side of the road and the industrial on the west side of the road was not sufficient. He stated there were ways, through design, to limit the amount of expansion for certain uses. Mr. Britton stated the goal was to add provisions specifically east of I-215 that would address an industrial expansion or a similar use. He stated the goal would be that manufacturing uses would be west of I-215 as it was in affect the manufacturing district of the City.
Commissioner Woodhead asked if Staff thought it would be appropriate in the future to do a small area plan for the industrial areas, either overlapping the proposed plan or in addition.
Mr. Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director stated the suggestion had been made to separate the areas. He stated the reason it was not separated was because the designated communities. He stated the industrial area could be separated out in a separate plan.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the areas that should be covered in the industrial area plan, west of Redwood road to the West boundary of the City. They discussed the use of form based zoning in the area.
Mr. Sommerkorn explained the issues with the future land use maps and how the Planning Department was moving toward a more general approach. He reviewed the nodes and the land use plan for West Salt Lake and explained the difficulty in depicting the size of commercial nodes on the land use maps.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed how to protect areas from development and where more of the nodes could be added. Staff stated the concept would be readdressed and clarified.
Commissioner Hill asked if RDA money was available for West Salt Lake.
Mr. Norris explained the process of allocating RDA funds and the way projects were selected.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the option of tabling the petition to allow it to be reviewed and updated. They stated the public outreach was done correctly but that was not to say that more couldn’t be done in the future. Staff asked for specific direction on what the Commission would like changed and their suggestions for updates.
The Commission and Staff discussed the process of separating the west side of Redwood road from the proposed master plan. The Commissioners stated it was not the time to create another plan as funding and time would be needed. Staff explained there was not a Master Plan for anything west of Bangerter Highway and would therefore create more issues with separating the current proposal. The Commissioners decided to process the current West Salt Lake Master Plan and make amendments at a later date.
The Commissioners asked if pieces of the proposed Master Plan could be approved and other sections edited. Staff stated they would prefer to forward the document as a whole, to the City Council, and not in pieces.
Commissioner Fife stated regarding the polices for the Jordan River, he did not see anything that addressed the creation of natural habitat. He suggested the language regarding the transit line for the street car maybe be changed so it did not specifically indicate 900 South but talked about connecting by fixed transit to the TRAX infrastructure on the east side.
Mr. Sommerkorn stated the language needed to be strengthened and address connecting the community. He stated the specific alignments would require a more detailed study and funding such as what was happening in Sugarhouse.
Commissioner Fife stated he would like to see information exploring connectivity and not identifying a specific corridor.
Chairperson Dean asked to reiterate the definition of sustainability as she thought that section could be strengthened.
The Commissioners stated they would email comments to Staff as they reviewed the proposed Master Plan.
Mr. Norris asked the Commission for suggestions on how the Commission could be more involved with the Master Plan process at the beginning of the process.
Commissioner Woodhead stated conducting Issues Only Hearings would allow for comments with the understanding that a vote would not happen.
The Commissioners stated they were in favor of having these types of hearings in the future.
Motion
Commissioner Woodhead stated in regards to PLNPCM2010-00656 West Salt Lake Master Plan she moved that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing and bring the matter back to the table on July 11, 2012. Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned 7:49:12 PM
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:34:21 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were:, Vice Chair Michael Gallegos and Commissioners, Emily Drown, Michael Fife, , Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Marie Taylor and Mary Woodhead. Commissioners Chairperson Angela Dean, Lisa Adams, Clark Ruttinger, Kathleen Hill and Matthew Wirthlin were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn. Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Nick Britton, Senior Planner; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Buehler, Principal Planner; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Principal Planner; Paul Nielson, City Land Attorney; and Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary.
FIELD TRIP NOTES:
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Commissioners Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, and Michael Fife. Staff members in attendance were Joel Paterson, and Lex Traughber. The following locations were visited:
PLNPCM2012-00243-Liberty Village Apartments, Housing project in Sugar House. The Commissioners asked questions about the parking entrance/exits on Elm Street, proposed live work unites on 1000 East and the architecture of the building.
5:34:41 PM
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 13, 2012 MEETING
MOTION
Commissioner Fife made a motion to approve the June 13, 2012 minutes.
Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Commissioners Fife, Bernardo Flores-Sahagun, Taylor and Woodhead voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
5:35:00 PM
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Vice Chairperson Gallegos stated Commissioners Fife, Chairperson Dean and Vice Chairperson Gallegos were reappointed to the Planning Commission at the City Council meeting on June 19, 2012.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director stated twenty thousand dollars was granted to the West Salt Lake Plan for additional Public Outreach. He stated Councilman Lamalfa would be working with Staff regarding the Public Outreach; therefore the plan would not be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval later this summer.
PLNPCM2012-00344 Appeals Hearing Officer regulations Fine Tuning - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a Zoning Text Amendment to fine tune various regulations relating to the Appeals Hearing Officer decision making process generally including the request is to clarify noticing requirements, eliminate conflicts with other proposed text amendments and to clarify the administrative decision making authority of the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission. The amendment will generally affect sections 21A.6, Decision Making Bodies and Officials; and 21A.16, Appeals of Administrative Decisions. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at (801) 535-6188 or cheri.coffey@slcgov.com).
Ms. Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report. She stated it was Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed how the Planning Commissioners were notified of cases that were sent before the Appeals Hearing Officer. Staff explained the Listserv notification and stated final decisions regarding Planning Commission appeals would be sent to the Planning Commissioners. The Commissioners and Staff discussed how the Appeals Hearings functioned and the Commissioners role in them.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice Chairperson Gallegos opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one in the Audience wanted to speak regarding the issue Vice Chairperson Gallegos closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Fife stated in regards to PLNPCM2012-00344 Appeals Hearing Officer Regulations Fine tuning he moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Drown seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
PLNPCM2012-00243, Liberty Village Apartments - A request for Conditional Building and Site Design Review by Cowboy Partners, represented by Scot Safford, for a new apartment building located at approximately 2150 S. McClelland Street. The proposal involves construction of a new building of 171 units with underground parking. The subject property is zoned C-SHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) and is located in Council District 7 represented by Søren Simonsen. (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com).
Mr. Lex Traughber, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report. He stated Staff was recommending approval of the petition as presented.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the current zoning for the property and if the future mass transit plans had been considered during the review of the proposal. Staff stated the mass transit was not an issue when the zoning was determined for the property. The Commissions and Staff discussed the required parking for the proposal and why if mass transit was going to be in the area so much parking was needed.
Mr. Joel Paterson, Planning Manager, stated the Planning Commission could not lessen the parking requirements for a project unless it was specifically written into the zone.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the use for the property. It was stated that the Community Council was not in favor of the proposal as it was not a mixed use. Staff stated the proposal was not for mixed use; it was strictly residential and was a permitted use under the current zoning.
Mr. Don Lofgren, Cowboy Partners, reviewed the elevations, parking access to the property, layout of the proposed building and the buildings interaction with the street. He reviewed the garage door location and how the esthetics had been changed to address the concerns of the Community Council. Mr. Lofgren reviewed the loading dock issue and stated it was not necessary for the proposed structure to have a loading dock. He asked the Commission to waive the requirement.
The Commissioners asked how the garbage and recycling would be addressed.
Mr. Lofgren stated the dumpsters would be located in the parking garage and rolled out to the street on pick up days. He explained the building was large enough that it could accommodate an additional garbage chute for recycling purposes if required.
The Commissioners asked what the proposed roof materials were, whether or not a roof top patio would be more appropriate and if a green roof was an option.
Mr. Lofgren stated the idea was to invite the residents down to the street instead of to the roof top. He stated they had not looked at a green roof but it could be considered.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice Chairperson Gallegos opened the Public Hearing.
The following individual spoke in support of the proposal:
Ms. Judy Short made the following comments:
• Affordable housing was a wonderful addition to the area.
• Biggest issue was parking on the first floor where residential or commercial should be but if that was the trade off to allow for the affordable housing it was welcomed.
• All of the proposed projects in the area needed to be addressed together to make the area function at its best.
• Traffic on Elm Street needed to be minimized to allow for better traffic flow and trail access.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposal:
Ms. Amy Barry and John Sawyer
The following comments were made:
• RDA money had been used to track the flow of traffic and the proposal was not following it.
• Trail access needed to be addressed and accommodated.
• The parking access should be on 1000 East as it would be more appropriate.
• Allowing customers to park in the proposed parking garage would help with business parking in the area.
• RDA funds should be used to move the project along.
The Commissioners asked Mr. Sawyer if the additional parking was part of the initial permitting for his project.
Mr. Sawyer stated he was not certain but an arrangement had been made to allow the businesses to use the parking lot. He explained during peak hours the parking was full and if it was not available it would cause people to park in the street or business to be lost.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the parking entrance and exits. The Commissioners asked if Staff saw an issue with the parking and uses of the property. Staff explained the use had been approved in a prior project and a precedent set for the area. Staff stated the proposal did not conflict with the trail and the parking issue was not something that the Planning Commission had purview over. The Commissioners and Staff discussed the parking in the area, the Transportation Departments comments regarding the parking entrance and the coordination of the multiple projects in the area.
Commissioner Bernardo Flores-Sahagun asked if the Applicant had considered adding housing that faced Elm Street.
Mr. Lofgren stated a number of studies had been done to configure housing on Elm but they were not ideal or preferred for the area.
Commissioner Woodhead asked for Staff to address the loading dock issue.
Mr. Traughber asked the Commission to include the loading dock as a condition to the motion. He stated there was not a real reason to require a loading dock for the project.
Vice Chairperson Gallegos asked about the requirement for public space and if Staff felt there was adequate public amenities to serve the area.
Mr. Traughber stated having the public spaces available for the general public would probably be more of a nuisance in a purely residential development of this nature. He explained there were amenities in the area to serve that purpose.
Vice Chairperson Gallegos closed the Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Fife stated a condition removing the requirement for a loading dock needed to be added to the motion. He asked if a condition should be added to require a dual garbage chute for recycling purposes.
Commissioner Woodhead asked it the Planning Commission could make that requirement.
Mr. Lofgren stated he would add it to the plans as requested without it being a condition.
The Commissioners discussed accessibility to the building by moving and delivery vehicles and services.
MOTION
Commissioner Drown stated in regards to PLNPCM2012-00243 Liberty Village Apartments, she moved that based on the information in the Staff Report and testimony given, that the Planning Commission approved the proposed project with the conditions listed in the Staff report and the following additional conditions
• Addition of a dual garbage chute
• Removal of the loading dock requirement
Commissioner Bernardo Flores-Sahagun asked if the roof treatment could be added as a requirement.
The Commission discussed what a green roof required and decided they did not want to make it a condition of approval.
Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion.
Commissioner Taylor asked if modifications to the parking exits were being recommended.
The Commissioners discussed the design of the proposal, how the parking worked with the area and was consistent with the master plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned