SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Srr1ith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Gilbert lker, Andrea Barrows, Diana Kirk and Mike Steed. Jim McRea, Aria Funk, Craig Mariger and Fred Fife were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Cheri Coffey, Bill Allayaud, Everett Joyce, Craig Hinckley and Doug Wheelwright.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. lker moved to approve the n1inutes of Thursday, June 4, 1998. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. McRea, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Petition No. 400-98-39 by Michael LePrey of Green Street requesting approval of a liquor license for a Private Club located in a building at Trolley Square (602 East 500 South). which does not front on a major street.
Mr. Brent Wilde presented the staff report outlining the n1ajor issues of the case, the ·findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-39:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the Mayor for the approval of Petition No. 400-98-39 to allow a private club on an interior court not having frontage on a major street. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. McRea, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-98-41 by Counciln1ember Carlton Christensen requesting to rezone four parcels between the Jordan River and Cornell Street (1555 West 1000 North. 825 North Cornell Street. 875 North Cornell Street and 951 North Cornell Street) from Residential "R-1-7000" to Open Space "OS" zoning district.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Councilmember Carlton Christen, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Pearl Nelson, recently retired Vice-Chairperson of the Rosepark Community Council, spoke in favor of rezoning the four parcels to Open Space.
Mr. Peter Lassig, landscape architect for the proposed park, stated that the parcels are located at the last natural bend of the Jordan River before it exits the City. His plans are to create a nontraditional park which is vital open space that is needed for the community. Mr. Lassig then stated that many types of wildlife are already living in the area and that the corr1munity has planted about 200 trees.
Ms. Donna Madsen, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of rezoning the four parcels to Open Space.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the. Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-41:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the approval of Petition No. 400-98-41 to amend the Northwest Community Zoning Map from "R-1-7000" to Open Space for the properties at 1555 West 1000 North, 825 North Cornell Street, 875 North Cornell Street and 951 North Cornell Street. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. McRea, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-310 First Security Bank requesting a planned development and a conditional use to construct a parking lot on a vacant lot located at approximately 1986 South 1100 East in a "C-SHBD" zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce and Mr. Bill Allayaud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Allayaud stated that the plans as submitted have access to the site via three driveways-an existing alley access on 2100 South to the west of the bank, an existing alley access from the north on Hollywood Avenue and a new driveway access from 11 00 East. This last access is of concern because of the congested nature of 1100 East. Mr. Allayaud then stated that the driveway on 1100 East was included at the request of the Sugar House Community Council because of their concern about maintaining options for the canal corridor trail. Planning staff agrees with the applicant's original plan of not having a driveway and recommends eliminating the driveway onto 11 00 East for the following reasons:
1 Minimizing curb cuts on 11 00 East is a crucial planning factor to help keep traffic moving on this busy arterial.
2 Creating a driveway at this location will eliminate two on-street parking spaces which are at a premium in the Sugar House Business District.
3 Instead of a driveway there could be a low wall with landscaping which would have the effect of buffering the new parking lot from an aesthetic standpoint.
4 Construction of a driveway will cause the loss of one large street tree.
5 An existing water meter would have to be relocated if the driveway was included.
Mr. Jeff Vincent, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Helen Peters, Executive Vice-President of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the community council is in favor of the proposed project and has a good working relationship with the petitioner. Ms. Peters then stated that she has received some input from neighbors with some concern as to the traffic patterns that might be created.
Mr. Rawlins Young, a concerned citizen, noted that the Sugar House Master Plan is one of the few plans that has an implementation strategy. Mr. Young addressed some of the strategies mentioned in the plan in relation to the Sugar House bicycle trail system, the traffic impact going west on Hollywood, a pedestrian/bikeway trail and the circulation of the traffic. Mr. Young then stated that he feels that the implementation of these strategies are vital to any new developments in the Sugar House area.
Mr. Mike Astill, a concerned citizen, spoke concerning the traffic congestion in the Sugar House Business District. Mr. Astill then suggested that perhaps First Security Bank could provide incentives to their employees to use alternative means of transportation rather than providing another parking lot.
Mr. Scott Kisling, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the community council voted in favor of this project. He then stated that there was some concern related to the possible increase of traffic on Hollywood Avenue.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
The Planning Commission members discussed possible options concerning the traffic circulation as it enters and exits the bank parking lot.
Mr. Wilde stated that the staff's recommendation is not to have a driveway on 1100 East, however, staff would support a driveway if the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate.
Ms. Kirk stated that she feels that having a driveway on 11 00 East would be appropriate because the community prefers having it there.
Motion for Petition No. 410-310:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition 410-310 to allow construction of a 34 staff off site private commercial parking lot on the west side of 1100 East, north of 2100 South with modification to the landscaping requirements that results in adequate landscaping and subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report (with one addition as noted):
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director, for his review and approval, a revised site plan and landscaping plan that indicates all of the following:
a. No driveway to 11 00 East. The 11 00 East frontage should consist of a wall and landscaping.
b. Realignment of the parking lot to have a more direct north/south route to 2100 South.
c. Reconfigured landscaping and parking on the western portion of the property to meet City codes.
d. Maxirr1ize the amount of landscaping on the northern and eastern property line while meeting minimum parking circulation requirements.
e. Signage shall be provided to encourage traffic flow to the south. away from Hollywood Avenue. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Planning Director shall approve the light fixtures chosen for the project.
2 The applicant shall request permission from the property owner of the private accessway to install a speed bump on the accessway between the two portions of the approved parking lot. If permission is given, the applicant shall install the speed bump as part of their site improvements.
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. McRea, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-98-24 by Panther Enterprises requesting to rezone the property at the southeast corner of 11 00 East and 2700 South from a Residential "RMF-30" to Commercial "CN" zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Dave Eldredge, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Helen Peters, Executive Vice-President of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the community council approved of the rezoning when it was presented.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-24:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition No. 400-98-24 to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan to a Neighborhood Commercial classification and to rezone the property at 1106 East 2700 South from a Residential "RMF-30" zoning classification to a Commercial Neighborhood "CN" zoning classification. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. McRea, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-98-35 Summit Resources. Inc. requesting to rezone the property at 2529 S. Stratford Avenue from a Residential "R-1-7000" to a Residential "RMF-30" zoning district. The petitioner is also requesting a minor subdivision approval to create one lot from two existing parcels that will front onto Stratford Avenue. a dead end street extending west off of 900 East Street.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Roger Sanders, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Paul Mecham, a property owner in the area, stated that he hopes that the proposal, for a 25 person residential health care facility, is built as it has been recommended by the Planning staff. He then stated that he fears that once the proposal is approved, a larger apartment building will be built and he is opposed to that.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Short stated that she is concerned that the proposed parking lot does not have enough stalls for the use. She feels that more stalls should be required so that parking does not overflow into the residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Wilde stated that the Planning Commission could direct staff to have a formal parking study be required as part of the permit approval.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-35:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 400-98-35 for a n1inor subdivision combining the existing parcels into one lot with frontage on Stratford Avenue. Ms. Kirk further moved, based on the findings of fact and the Future Land Use Plan of the Sugar House Community Master Plan, to recommend to the City Council to rezone the subject parcel from a Residential "R-1-7000" zoning classification to a Residential "RMF-30" zoning classification subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report (with one addition as noted):
1. That the ordinance not be published until a building permit application for the proposed elderly residential health care facility is submitted and meets zoning requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting June 18, 1998
6
2. That before any building permit is issued. a traffic and parking study for this parcel be completed. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. McRea, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -The Planning Commission will receive public comment and consider making recommendations to the City Council on the Arcadia Heights/"H" Rock Small Area Plan.
Mr. Brent Wilde recused himself as the Planning Staff liaison because he lives within the Arcadia Heights "H" Rock boundaries. Mr. Doug Wheelwright will be present for this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the master plan, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Lynne Modesitt, representing the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Neighborhood Council, stated that the neighbors and residents of this area have expressed great concern over the addition of large developments to the cornmunity which would impact the neighborhood especially in the areas of traffic, preserving wildlife and open space, access and trails to the hillside, density and maintaining the City's 30o/o slope restrictions. Ms. Modesitt then stated that she hopes that the highest priority would be given to low density proposals and that the recommendations made in the Small Area Plan will be honored.
Mr. Jerry Bergosh, representing the H Rock Comrnunity Council, stated that he was upset because he did not receive a copy of the staff report prior to tonight's meeting. He feels that the staff report does not reflect what has been discussed over the last five years concerning the City's 30% slope issue, man made slopes vs. natural slopes.
Ms. Tanta Lisa Clayton, representing the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Neighborhood Council, stated that she feels that the proposed master plan's staff recommendations have so many loop holes that the master plan is meaningless. She then asked the Planning Commission to please support the trail accesses on the east side. Ms. Clayton then stated that she feels that the foothills are not appropriately suited to have gated communities because it stops interaction among neighbors. She also feels that gated communities do not stop crime.
Mr. Lorin Brown, Chair of the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Neighborhood Council, addressed issues relative to transportation and traffic in the plan area. He stated that the language in the Small Area Plan is not strong enough; it should be specifically stated that a traffic signal at Thunderbird is a necessity due to the amount of bicyclists and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Brown then stated that he believes that traffic speeds need to be reduced at the corr1mercial properties.
Ms. Suzanne Weaver, representing the Southeast Community Council, addressed three concerns of the community. The first concern relates to the traffic volume from 2100 South from Foothill Boulevard to 2300 East which is a narrow, fairly steep road. The second concern relates to school safety which is also directly related to the traffic issue because there are three schools that are accessed north off of 2100 South between Foothill Boulevard and 2300 East. Finally, the last concern relates to aesthetics and further development of the hillside. The H Rock Hillside and acreage extending south and east of Scenic Drive are probably the last two remaining open space areas in the foothills east of Salt Lake City below the shoreline that have not been developed. These two open spaces are a reminder of what our valley once was and if they are developed, they can never go back to open spaces. Ms. Weaver then urged the Planning Commission to adhere to existing East Bench Master Plan policies and standards especially those emphasized and supported by the Small Area Plan.
Mr. Bruce Cohne, a concerned citizen, referenced Page 6 of the Small Area Plan and stated that he feels that Recommendation #2 under "Issue: Residential Density/Zoning Classification for Annexed Land" should be deleted.
Mr. Ralph Rohr, a resident in Arcadia Heights, stated that he is concerned with the proposed development of four homes at Lakeline Circle. He feels that it will be very difficult to get four lots around that circle and still preserve any passageway for the Shoreline Trail. He then spoke concerning a portion of the Shoreline Trail that is very steep and has many large boulders and rocks at the top of it. If there is public access to this trail, it is very possible that anyone could dislodge some of the boulders and rocks which could then smash into the windows at the back of his house. Mr. Rohr then stated that he fully supports the comments that have been spoken by all of the community council leaders especially those made by Mr. Brown in relation to the Thunderbird intersection.
Mr. Orris Albertson, a resident in the area, spoke concerning the City's policy which does not pern1it increasing extent of undevelopable man made slopes.
Mr. Scott Kisling, a concerned citizen, stated that public access to the public lands is very important, therefore, he is opposed to gated comrr1unities because they do keep people out. Also, if the foothills were developed, it could pose a hazard if there were a fire because it would spread so quickly.
Mr. Bruce Schroeder, a resident in the area, stated that he supports the 30°/o slope restriction on either natural or man made slopes.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a previous Planning Commissioner, stated that she feels that the development on the foothills cannot be done well enough to be proud of five or ten years in the future. She feels that even if the Planning Commission, the Planning Staff and the developers do a good job, the wrong people (people who are used to getting their way) will buy the lots. Ms. Cromer then stated that too many people have tried with other hillside developments and have failed. Issues to consider are to protect access for the wildlife to get to the grassy slope and concentrate on recreational access. If there is not a clear right to develop, do not grant one. Ms. Cromer continued by stating that she feels that there is no house that can be built in this area that will significantly improve this area or the City. The potential here is for viewshed, recreational use and habitat.
Mr. Scott Turville, a developer, stated that he supports most of the staff recommendations listed in the staff report. Mr. Turville then stated that he has personally been involved in this project since 1992. He made an appeal to the Planning Commission and to the City Council stating that this project needs to be brought to a head and moved forward.
Mr. Shawn McMillen, a resident in the area, stated that he feels that new development should be limited because it will increase the traffic flow which is already at dangerous levels. Mr. McMillen is also concerned that new development could hinder access to the Shoreline Trail and the open spaces.
Mr. James Oyler, a resident in the area, stated that he feels that it would be a serious mistake to start with exceptions to the 30% restriction because it is too difficult to stop exceptions once they start. Mr. Oyler then stated that in the Small Area Plan on the n1ap entitled "Trails and Parks", there is a sn1all park shown below the water tanks which sit to the east of Lakeline Drive. He feels that this park would be a mistake because it is a very isolated area and it is too small to be very useful.
Mr. Tony Rornney, representing Romney Lumber, stated that there are three major trailhead access points that runs through his property. His position on this development is he would like to see the foothills preserved. He has owned the property since 1966 and it has always been his intent to develop it. The hikers have always been allowed access without any reservations. Mr. Romney stated that a traffic study was done in 1995 when he was proposing a development of 70 lots in his subdivision. The traffic ratings did not change with the addition of the 70 lots. His proposal now is a total of 17 lots.
Mr. Gene Hansen, a resident in the area, stated that he is not in favor of upgrading Wasatch Drive to a n1ajor thoroughfare. He feels that there is already too much traffic on Wasatch Drive. Mr. Hansen then stated that he feels that he is in favor of slowing the process down so that people understand what is being proposed.
Mr. Hinckley made a point of clarification. He stated that Wasatch Drive is already designated as a collector and has been since approximately 1986. Mr. Hinckley then stated that he is not aware of any plans to widen it or alter it from its existing condition.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Small Area Plan covers land that is currently in the City limits and land that is in the unincorporated Salt Lake County jurisdiction. Therefore, the rezoning part of this proposal is for the portions that are already in the City boundaries. As a part of annexation, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council, the ultimate decision body on the annexation, for recommended zoning.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows stated that she appreciates the participation of the property owners and the members on the Steering Committee through the long process. One thing that became apparent in tonight's hearing is that there were divergent views as to what is appropriate for the hillside. The nice thing about the Small Area Plan was the opportunity to show the vision from the community. Those involved did find some common interest concerning open space, recreational opportunities and wildlife. How those are particularly irr1plemented is what is part of this plan. Ms. Barrows noted that the Small Area Plan does not negate the eloquence of the existing East Bench Master Plan. The East Bench Master Plan is a very thorough document and the Small Area Plan gives everyone the opportunity to address issues that have come up over the years since the master plan was created years ago. An important part of the plan to the City is to be able to set guidelines for the properties outside its corporate boundaries. The Planning Commission's role tonight is basically to make policy decisions not to make development proposal decisions. There are recommendations within this plan that describe particular developments as acceptable or not acceptable. It is recognized that those properties that are undevelopable, based on slope, are extremely valuable to the community based on the aesthetic qualities ..
Ms. Barrows continued by stating that she is sorry to hear that the neighborhood councils did not have access to the staff report prior to tonight's meeting. In the staff report, there are three basic recommendations listed. One addresses the 30o/o slope, natural vs. man made. When this issue came before the Steering Committee it was a 50-50 vote. The staff report states that "Development of slopes over 30% which were created by human intervention prior to August 18, 1981 may be perrr1itted." Perhaps the community would feel better with at the discretion of the Planning Commission where it can be demonstrated by a petitioner that further disturbance will not appreciably change the conditions of the slopes". Ms. Barrows then stated that the Planning Commission is on the record for supporting the 30°k restriction and that they would like the discretion. Ms. Barrows continued by stating that she understands if the community has some distrust for the Planning Commission because she may have had some feelings of distrust prior to becoming a Planning Commission member. She then noted that the individuals that make up the Planning Commission body have such high integrity. There will be support by the Planning Commission when it comes to the 30% restriction. Ms. Barrows addressed the other two staff recommendations which related to residential density/zoning classification for annexed land and public vs. private streets. (Please refer to the motion for further discussion in relation to the last two staff recommendations.)
Ms. Barrows continued by stating that she is extremely excited about the change in the zoning to make the majority of the neighborhood an "FR-3" zoning classification. This is a big change, but she feels that it will protect the compatibility of the neighborhoods. Also, the Steering Committee made an exciting change that undevelopable land will not be considered in calculating permitted density.
Mr. lker asked the difference between the current zoning classification, "R-1-12000", and the proposed zoning classification, "FR-3".
Ms. Barrows stated that the biggest differences is the way the height is measured. In the existing "R-1-12000" zoning classification, a home can be built up to 30 feet in height which is measured straight up from the grade to half way up the gable. In the "FR-3" zoning classification, a home can be built 28 feet from the natural grade. The number of stories that can be visible is also different. The "R-1-12000" zone allows three visible stories and the "FR-3" zone allows 2% stories.
Ms. Kirk spoke concerning gated communities. In general, the Planning Commission discourages gated communities. Ms. Kirk then stated that she wants the community to understand that she strongly discourages gated communities. A gated community would need an exceptional reason for the Planning Commission to even entertain the proposal.
Mr. Wheelwright addressed the issue concerning the staff report not being made available prior to tonight's meeting. He stated that Mr. Hinckley was on vacation the week that the staff report was finalized and distributed to the Planning Commission. If Mr. Hinckley had been working the day that the staff report was distributed, he would have at least included distribution to the subcommittee men1bers.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-37:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to recommend approval to the City Council for Petition No. 400-98-37 for a Small Area Plan with the following modifications for each issue:
Issue 1: Development restrictions on slopes equal to or greater than 30°/o.
3. In keeping with the current City policy, development of slopes less than 30% which were existing, or created, prior to August 18, 1981, is permitted. Development of slopes over 30°/o which were created by human intervention prior to August 18, 1981, may be permitted at the discretion of the Planning Commission where it can be demonstrated by a petitioner that further disturbance will not appreciable change the condition of those slopes.
Issue 2: Residential Density/zoning classification for annexed land.
1. Residents and public sentiment have expressed opposition to any further foothill development. Properties which are undeveloped should remain as they are in order to maintain the aesthetic qualities of the foothills and the City's natural, undeveloped mountainous backdrop. Public acquisition of these areas is encouraged.
2. If additional development is considered, it should be very low density that does not impair the natural qualities of the area and preserves the maximum amount of open space. Restrictions on development affecting slopes equal to or greater than 30°/o, whether natural or man made, should be strictly enforced and interpreted according to written administrative policies established by the City. Gated developments should be strongly discouraged.
Issue 3: Public vs. private streets.
1. In order to better integrate new development into existing neighborhoods and preserve public access to public lands, streets which are proposed as an element of new development should be dedicated as public streets and improved to City standards.
Issue 4: Thunderbird Drive.
2. Signalization should be made highest priority and if signalization is not possible the City should coordinate with UDOT to create a traffic calming program.
Issue 5: Separation of Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic.
Eliminate Recommendation #3 on Page 17 of the Small Area Plan.
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. McRea, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-271 by Craig Mecham requesting a conditional use and a commercial planned development to build a six story office building with underground parking located at approximately 2170 South 1300 East in a Commercial "C-SHBD" zoning district.
Mr. Bill Allayaud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Allayaud discussed the most important or controversial aspects of the project and how the Planning Commission could make findings of consistency with the relevant sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Allayaud addressed several issues including the overall building size, style of architecture, traffic, parking and public amenities. He then showed nine color slides of the site from various angles to help express some of the issues he had discussed.
Mr. Craig Mecham, the petitioner, introduced his project by explaining his long term ties and corr1mitment to· the Sugar House area. He stated that he believed the project would be good for the immediate area and the greater Sugar House area. Mr. Mecham then stated that he has worked very hard with the community and the staff to revise the project to meet concerns. He recently began working with the adjacent property owners, Mr. Mendenhall and Mr. Woodbury, and feels that he has made a sincere effort to meet their needs too.
Mr. Fred Babcock, the architect for the project, explained the evolution of the design and how it is meant to provide visual relief through setbacks on each side. He described the public amenities in the project which include a stairway leading to the Hidden Hollow area. Mr. Babcock used a scale model to show how the project has been changed to provide view corridors and to show the relationship to the existing buildings on either side. He also had color renderings on a presentation board that gave different perspectives of the proposed building.
Mr. lker stated that he feels that Mr. Mecham's intent is to improve the space by including amenities that are pleasant and that will attract traffic from Hidden Hollow and 1300 East. Mr. lker then addressed some of the Sugar House Community Council's concerns which include delivery vehicles on 1300 East, ADA accessibility from Hidden Hollow to the plaza and Utah Department of Transportation's (UDOT) role in providing a protective pedestrian crossing at 1300 East and Wilmington Avenue. Mr. Kevin Young, Transportation Planning Engineer, stated that UDOT's response to providing a protective pedestrian crossing is that it does not meet warrants, therefore, very little progress has been made. Mr. lker then asked the question "How many people have to die before UDOT takes action?"
Ms. Short asked about the petitioner's plans to preserve Hidden Hollow without
destroying the park.
Mr. Babcock responded by stating that this project will provide the opportunity for the City and the private sector to work together which will make the process easier.
Mr. Wilde noted that from staffs perspective there are three major objectives for interfacing the project with Hidden Hollow. 1) have a workable pedestrian access from Hidden Hollow to 1300 East; 2) a visually and functionally soft transition from Hidden Hollow up to the public space; and 3) some type of berm to soften the parking structure. There are a variety of ways to achieve these goals such as having some retail space and some type of functional space on the lower level that can be an attraction from Hidden Hollow.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Scott Kisling, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, submitted a letter stating the corr1munity council's concerns, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Kisling stated that some of the community council's concerns address the details of how to make the proposed project a successful building. He then summarized the comments that have been made by the residents of the community in relation to the excessive size of the building and traffic concerns. Mr. Kisling then noted that the entire process has been a struggle to meet all of the community's concerns.
Mr. Rich Bennett, a concerned citizen, addressed the massive size of the building and questioned why it needed to be so large. Mr. Bennett then noted that a large building will make a strong irrtpact on Hidden Hollow. He stated that he can see the existing Parkview Plaza building when hiking in the foothills. He feels that the project should not be before the Planning Commission at this time because he feels it is not ready. The plan has changed countless times with the most recent being less than a week ago. Mr. Bennett also addressed traffic concerns.
Ms. Lynne Olson, a concerned citizen who works with the KOPE (Kids Organized to Protect our Environment) Kids, stated that she would like to credit Mr. Mecham for his commitment to the Sugar House community. She then noted that the staff report states that the proposed development is compatible with the goals and objectives of the many Sugar House master plans. Ms. Olson then stated that she disagrees with that because she feels that the project is extreme in every regard (i.e. excessive amount of parking, excessive size of the building, construction will disrupt the community). Ms. Olson continued by stating that she feels that there are many unanswered questions that the Planning Commission should get answers to before a decision is made.
Planning Commission Meeting June 18, 1998
14
Mr. Richard Mendenhall, an abutting property owner, stated that he supports the development of a multi story office building. He also supports the preservation of Hidden Hollow and he feels that the plan does not relate well to the properties to the north in terms of design, scale and vehicular and pedestrian access. Mr. Mendenhall then stated that he feels that there are still some issues that need to be addressed thoroughly and exhaustively before the Planning Commission makes their decision.
Ms. Christina Coloroso, representing the KOPE Kids, stated that she believes that the proposed project can have some seriously negative affects to Hidden Hollow. The construction digging can cut through tree roots and end up damaging trees that are between 40 and 100 years old. These trees are part of the character and history of Hidden Hollow and once they are dead, they cannot be replaced. Ms. Coloroso then stated that the large size of the proposed building will also keep sunlight from the trees, plants and wildlife during the morning hours. The KOPE Kids have worked very hard for the past eight years to get Hidden Hollow where it is today and they feel it would not be fair if Hidden Hollow were to sink out of sight because of a large building. Some solutions are to not allow the building to be so close to Hidden Hollow, to not allow a large building and to require the petitioner to take out a bond which will assure the safety of Hidden Hollow during construction.
Mr. Rawlins Young, trustee for the Sugar House Community Council, stated that he is concerned about the transit/pedestrian corridor along 1300 East. Access needs to be provided for bicyclists and pedestrians on the west side. Mr. Young then stated that he feels that developers should be required to provide transit/pedestrian corridors because they are vitally important to keep developments alive. Mr. Young then stated that he feels that the City should enforce parking requirements and not allow for excessive parking for a new development. He continued by stating that he believes that the project is not ready to be before the Planning Commission.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Steed stated that he is concerned with the proposed size of the building. He feels that the building size is excessive and that the site does not support such a large building.
Ms. Kirk agreed with Mr. Steed and also stated that she feels that the building is not compatible with any Sugar House master plan. Ms. Kirk then stated that she cannot support this project.
Ms. Barrows stated that, on its own merit, she can see that the proposed building is appropriate for the location. However, the building is not the vision of the community and it is not ready for Planning Commission action.
Mr. lker stated that he feels that the Planning Commission should approve the project conditionally and then use a design review committee to work out the details and the unresolved issues.
Mr. Smith stated that Mr. lker, Ms. Short and himself have been involved with a subcommittee for this project which included representatives from the community council, Mr. Mecham and Mr. Babcock. There have been numerous meetings and discussions. Mr. Srr1ith noted that his personal opinion is that he is not concerned about the size because he feels that it will create an urban neighborhood that includes both the west and the east side of the block. Mr. Smith then stated that in order for these kinds of urban spaces to succeed, a critical mass of population needs to be reached. By bringing the east office workers into this area of town, it introduces them into an urban community to support the restaurants, shops and Sugar House. Mr. Smith then stated that the Planning Commission should not be frightened of the size of the building.
Ms. Short stated that part of the concern of the community is knowing, or wondering, what will become of the block directly west of Highland Drive. She feels that the excessive size of the proposed building will in1pact the Hidden Hollow.
Mr. lker stated that he feels that the Planning Con1mission should move ahead with what has been proposed and then continue to work on the issues. He feels that it would be very unconstructive to sirr1ply deny the petition because it is not the way to solve the problems.
Ms. Kirk stated that her reasoning for wanting to deny the petition is because she does not feel that the project is close to where it needs to be. She also feels that if the project were approved in principle it would send the wrong message because she feels that there are too many unresolved issues for a subcommittee to work out.
Mr. Steed noted that three different models were presented earlier by Mr. Babcock; all three models were relatively the same size. He feels that taking the project back to a subcommittee will not result in the size of the building decreasing.
Mr. Smith stated that he does not feel that the subcommittee has been very clear in directing the petitioner to reduce the size of the building. There were some issues relative to size, however, most of the direction was related to opening a view corridor and the connection with Hidden Hollow.
Ms. Short stated that she feels that it would be very difficult to form a subcommittee to represent all the points of view.
Motion for Petition No. 410-271:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the Planning Commission's findings as outlined above, to deny Petition No. 410-271. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. lker was opposed. Mr. McRea,
Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Srr1ith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.n1.