SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 126 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 5:32:39 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 Emily Drown, Vice Chair Clark Ruttinger, Commissioners Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, James Guilkey, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Marie Taylor and Mary Woodhead. Commissioners Angela Dean and Matthew Wirthlin were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Joel Paterson, Planning Program Supervisor; Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner; Chris Lee, Associate Planner; Deborah Severson, Senior Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
FIELD TRIP
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Emily Drown, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Carolynn Hoskins, James Guilkey, Matt Lyon, Clark Ruttinger and Mary Woodhead. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, Joel Paterson, Daniel Echeverria and Chris Lee.
The following locations were visited:
• Bishop Place: Staff gave an overview of the project.
• Harvard Place: Staff gave an overview of the project. The Commissioners asked what the demolition process would be if the district was approved.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:33:18 PM
Chairperson Drown stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Ruttinger stated he had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:33:27 PM
Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Manager, stated the Planning Commission’s decision regarding the Road Home overflow shelter was reversed and the petition would be coming back to the Commission for a re-hearing.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed a time table and the reasoning behind reversing the decision.
5:35:31 PM
Post Street Alley Vacation at approximately 762 South Post Street - Ryan McFarland, representing Salt Lake City Corporation, is requesting that the City vacate an alley located south of the parcel at approximately 762 South Post Street. The purpose of the vacation is meant to provide better access to the rear of fire station #6 which sits on the two parcels to the south of the alley. The Planning Commission is required to transmit a recommendation to the City Council for alley closure requests. The subject property is located within Council District #2, represented by Kyle LaMalfa. (Staff contact: Chris Lee at (801)535-7706 or chris.lee@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2014-00141
Mr. Chris Lee, Associate Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated that Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:39:51 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one in the audience wished to speak to the petition, Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 5:40:08 PM
Commissioner Fife stated regarding petition PLNPCM2014-00141, Post Street Alley Vacation; based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council relating to this request to vacate the alley, located adjacent to the southern edge of the parcel at 762 S. Post Street subject to the conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
5:41:18 PM
Bishop Place Preliminary Subdivision, Planned Development, and Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 432 N 300 West - John Maxim, representing International Real Estate Solutions, is requesting approval from the City to develop a thirteen (13) lot subdivision at the above listed address, including all properties that abut the street Bishop Place to the east of the address. Currently the land is occupied by nine (9) vacant single family homes, one (1) occupied single-family home, and two (2) vacant parcels. This type of project requires Planned Development, Preliminary Subdivision, and Zoning Amendment review. The subject properties are zoned RMF-35 (Multifamily Residential) and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) and are located within Council District 3 represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com.) Case numbers PLNSUB2014-00019, PLNSUB2014-00020, & PLNPCM2014-00021.
a. Preliminary Subdivision- In order to build the project noted above, a preliminary subdivision is required to dedicate Bishop Place as a public right-of-way and divide existing properties. Bishop Place currently exists as a private right-of-way and is not maintained by the City. This request will require that the street and associated public utilities be brought up to current City standards. Certain aspects of the proposed subdivision are being modified by the associated Planned Development review. Case number PLNSUB2014-00019
b. Planned Development- In order to build the project noted above, a Planned Development is required to modify certain standards of the zoning ordinance, including setbacks, lot coverage, and lot size, as well as certain subdivision standards. The purpose of the zoning modifications is to allow for expansions to revitalize the existing vacant homes and better accommodate potential residents, while preserving the historic features of the homes. The proposed subdivision standard modifications are related to street design and are due to the limited street width available between the existing historic homes. Case number PLNSUB2014-00020
c. Zoning Map Amendment- In order to build the project noted above, the applicant is requesting to rezone 432 North 300 West from RMF-35 (Multifamily Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential.) The applicant is proposing to convert the existing structure into a twin home. This would exceed the density limitation for the current RMF-35 zone. A zoning map amendment to SR-3 would allow for the proposed density. Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to the SR-3 zone, consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The proposed regulations can be found at http://www.slcgov.com/node/1081. Case number PLNPCM2014-00021
Mr. Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated that Staff was recommending that the Planning
Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding item A and approve items B & C as listed in the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The demolition protection for the houses.
o The existing houses were given a contributing status in 2005. If the Developer wanted to demolish the homes, they would need to apply for a permit which would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. The Developer would also have to apply for economic hardship to get approval for demolition.
• The process for demolishing a contributing structure in a historic district.
• The rear yard setbacks for the property.
• Why the City would want a public street rather than a private drive.
o There have been issues with maintaining private drives in the past.
• The rating for the homes on the 2005 Capitol Hill Survey and the protections given with the ratings.
• How the surveys are configured, what the ratings determine and if deteriorating structures would result in loss of status.
o Decay by neglect would not be criteria for a structure to change from contributing to non-contributing. This was to discourage people from going around the historic preservation regulations.
• What happened when the houses where condemned by the Health Department and the result this had on the project.
Mr. Don Armstrong, Property Owner, and Mr. John Maxim, Developer, reviewed the history of the property and the cost to repair the existing structures.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• If the Applicant had gone through the Economic Hardship process and the outcome of that process.
• The purpose of working with the RDA.
• The Applicant’s preference for approval or denial of the present petition.
• The RDA’s proposal and conditions.
• The reasoning of not going through the historic process for demolition.
o The Applicant stated the historic process was ornerous and would not allow the property to be developed in a way that benefited both the City and the Developer.
• The proposal in relation to the location of the current houses.
• If the Planning Commission could apply conditions to the project that went against the Historic Landmark process and what would happen to the project if the Historic Landmark Commission did not approve the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval.
• The Commissions purview over the project.
The Commission stated they were troubled by the situation as it was expensive to rehabilitate the homes and the conditions from the RDA needed to be met.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:03:30 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.
The following individual spoke to the petition: Ms. Cindy Cromer.
The following comments were made:
• This project was sustained redevelopment.
• It created additional affordable houses in a closed in neighborhood.
• Would use local business to construct the proposal.
• The Commission really needed to look at what was happening to density in downtown Salt Lake City.
• Project was not easy but would benefit the area.
• Tax credits are available that would benefit the future property owners.
• Should have a joint meeting with the Historic Landmark Commission which would provide a better outcome for the project.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION 6:08:20 PM
The Commission, Staff and Applicants discussed the following:
• The Applicant’s determination to see the project through to completion.
• If the approval to make changes to the existing houses had been granted by the Historic Landmark Commission.
o Some of the approvals could be given administratively but currently the Site Plan was the only petition being reviewed. All exterior changes would be subject to review by the HLC or by staff, depending on the scope of the changes to the contributing structures.
• The process for approving the project through the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission.
• If there were conditional uses on the properties.
• What would remain of the historic structures.
The Commission discussed what approving the petition would mean.
MOTIONS 6:15:45 PM
Commissioner Woodhead stated regarding petition PLNPCM2014-00021, Bishop Place Subdivision Planned Development Zoning Map Amendment, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, field trip, the testimony and plans presented, she moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the
City Council. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Woodhead stated regarding petition PLNPCM2014-00019, PLNPCM2014-00020, Bishop Place Preliminary Subdivision and Planned Development, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, field trip, the testimony and plans presented, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Subdivision and Planned Development request as proposed and for the zoning amendment for Lots 1 and 2 of the property at 432 N 300 West, subject to the conditions one through five as listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Guilkey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6:18:34 PM
Harvard Park Local Historic District Designation – Kelly Marinan is requesting that the City designate a new local historic district for the Harvard Park Subdivision which includes all of the properties located on Harvard Avenue between 1700 East and 1800 East. If the proposed local historic district is approved, the Salt Lake City Zoning Map will be amended to include the Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District for the properties located in the Harvard Park Subdivision. The proposed local historic district regulations can be found in section 21A.34.020. of the Zoning Ordinance http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=672%20). The proposed local historic district is located in City Council District 6, represented by Charlie Luke. (Staff contact: Joel Paterson at (801) 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com. Case number PLNHLC2013-00816)
Mr. Joel Paterson, Zoning Administrator, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated that Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Limitations to demolitions in the area.
• If the City Council had ever denied a historical district.
o The Yalecrest area in 2010, which did not get through the entire process.
• The moratorium for historical districts in Salt Lake City.
• How density in the area would be affected.
• The information the City Council would review while considering the proposal.
• The coordinates of the proposed district.
• The applications for future Historic Districts in the area and how they would relate to the current proposal.
• If the applications should be reviewed as a whole or separately.
o They are separate applications and should be adopted separately although they all follow the same standards.
• The status of the other applications.
• How block faces are determined in the proposals.
• Why a structure would be determined non-contributing.
• Who the public ballot would be sent to.
o Each property would receive a ballot with one vote per property.
Ms. Kelly Marinan, Applicant, thanked Staff for a job well done. She gave a history of the neighborhood and the need for the historic district to protect the homes in the area. She reviewed how the proposal met the standards and why it should be approved. Ms. Marinan encouraged the Planning Commissioners to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:44:15 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Lynn K Pershing, Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, stated the application was presented to the Council and was fully supported.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. Ralph Goodmanson, Mr. Jon Dewey, Ms. Tracey Harty, Ms. Luli Josephson, Ms. Kathy Beeley, Mr. Steven Cosakas and Ms. Lynn K Pershing.
The following comments were made:
• Adjustments to homes in historic districts are difficult and restrict the use of the homes.
• Would prohibit young families from moving into the small homes that currently exist if the home cannot be remodeled.
• There have been significant changes to homes in the area that make them non-contributing.
• What made this area different than the areas around it; nothing.
• Friendships have been lost due to this petition.
• The proposal met the standards.
• It is a unique and special neighborhood that needs to be protected.
• Changes can be made that compliment the character of the homes and do not change the contributing status of the structures.
• A historic district did not prohibit the advancement of the neighborhood just the manner in how changes were made.
• This was one of seven blocks that would be going through the process.
• There are a lot of great neighborhoods in the city, these are not special areas.
• Would like to see more areas go through the process to protect the historical homes in Salt Lake City.
• This was a big ploy from the people that could not get the district approved previously.
• Are there rules in place that protect the homes from currently being demolished?
o No there are no rules to prohibit demolition in this area.
• There are reasons why some of these homes need to be demolished and replaced and the proposal would hinder that.
• The biggest fear was that the homes are being torn down by developers who are not interested in the area.
• The area was well worth saving.
• There are financial and cultural reasons to protect the neighborhoods.
• The statistic of demolition show that more demolitions are happening now than in the past.
The Commission discussed if lots could be combined in the area and what the zoning allowed as per demolitions.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION 7:09:01 PM
The Commission Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• The changes that could be made to a house in a historic district.
• Why the decision was made to look at the areas individually instead of as a whole.
MOTION 7:13:59 PM
Commissioner Woodhead stated regarding petition PLNHLC2013-00816, Yalecrest Harvard Park Local Historic District Designation, based on the analysis and findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony, and information presented, she moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Map by adding the H Historic Preservation Overlay district to the Harvard Park subdivision located on Harvard Avenue between 1700 East and 1800 East for the purpose of designating the Yalecrest – Harvard Park local Historic District. Commissioner Guilkey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:16:49 PM
Commissioner Lyon left for the evening.
7:17:03 PM
The Commission took a short break.
7:26:52 PM
Downtown Master Plan – As part of the planning process for the Downtown Master Plan, Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on the status of the project. Planning Staff will be reviewing various sections of the Draft Plan with the Commission. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2013-00768
Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Manager, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He reviewed the next steps for the plan and was recommending that the Planning Commission review the document and forward any further comments or corrections to Staff.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• How the transportation in the proposed plan tied into the Transportation Plan and City Wide Transit Plan.
• The time frame for the proposed transportation upgrades.
• Midblock walkway connectivity.
• Medians with parking.
• Stepback guidelines.
• Requiring large buildings to address the street(s).
• If the language in the plan would allow for discussion on Conditional Use Zoning for homeless services in the Depot District.
o Staff would like to address this with the City Council.
• Activating the street(s).
• Creating more inviting streets to enter and exit the city.
• Ways to help with new development.
• The Fleet Block.
• Infrastructure in the Granary District.
o Entire district is a RDA district.
• Creating inviting areas out of unused sections of the city.
• Public Outreach for the proposal.
The meeting adjourned at 8:22:32 PM