SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Richard J. Howa, Jim McRea, Judi Short, Gil Iker, Aria Funk and Fred Fife. Kimball Young, Diana Kirk, Ann Roberts and Max Smith were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Ray McCandless, Elizabeth Egleston and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Becker. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. 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
Ms. Funk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 16, 1996 as presented. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted "Aye." Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-27 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division requesting to amend the text of Section 17.1.5 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to clarify alterations to structures within historic districts or sites listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources that require a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ms. Elizabeth Egleston presented the staff report on this matter and outlined the staff's recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-27. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Request by Meeks Wirthlin for conversion approval of the five unit Park Plaza Apartments to condominiums located at 1306 & 1308 East 100 South in a Residential “RMF-45" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker asked if it was normal process for the Planning Commission to examine the issues of curb, gutter and sidewalks. Mr. Wright responded that there was a review process to ensure infrastructure and building code issues were in compliance and added that this was slightly different since it was a new construction project.
Mr. Wright stated that the infrastructure requirements typically would be a requirement of new construction but for some reason, the handicap curb access had not been addressed.
Mr. Fife asked if there were any exceptions to the handicap curb access requirements. Mr. Wright explained that those were requirements imposed by the American Disabilities Act. Mr. Wright stated that there were no handicap ramps at this intersection, though it appeared the sidewalk had been replaced.
Ms. Pahl stated that the City Engineering Division had replaced the sidewalk in this area and had submitted bills to the abutting property owners for their portions of the total expenses.
Mr. Wright said that had been handled as a Special Improvement District during the past two years or so. Mr. Wright added that he did not know why this corner had not received the improvements for handicap accessibility.
Mr. Meeks Wirthlin, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wirthlin stated that over one year ago, heavy equipment trucks had broken up his sidewalk in order to be able to maneuver their equipment while replacing the curbs and gutters. He said they had informed him they would replace the broken sidewalk but had never actually done so.
Mr. Wirthlin stated that now, after having already paid $ 5200 as his share of the Special Improvement District assessment, he had been informed, through his contractor, that they would have to replace curbs and gutters on the site. He asked why this matter had not been addressed when they had been issued their building permit. He added that he had not known anything about this requirement until he had received his copy of the staff report. Mr. Wirthlin said he did not feel it was right to be required to comply with this request, at this late date, when he did not feel it was their responsibility after already paying their $5200 assessment.
Mr. Becker asked if his assessment had included what they were now being asked to pay for. Mr. Wirthlin handed a copy of his briefing to Mr. Becker and added that the City had included a letter apologizing for their tardiness and had then assessed a late fee for that tardiness. Mr. Wirthlin stated that he believed the City should have included the handicap ramp during the installation of the curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Funk said it was her understanding that it was the property owner's responsibility to maintain the curb and gutter on their property.
Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative and added that new building permits required infrastructure be brought up to code before building permits were issued.
Mr. Howa asked if the Planning Commission should require replacement of the curb and gutter originally installed by the City, which the property owner had paid for, as part of this approval process. Mr. Howa said he believed these were two separate issues and the condominium conversion should be separated from the infrastructure improvements. Mr. Howa said he believed it had been the City's obligation to install the handicap access at the time the previous improvements were made.
Ms. Funk said it did not appear to her that the recent improvements had gone all the way to the corner.
Mr. Becker said it appeared to him that even if the Planning Commission separated the two issues, the petitioner would still have to handle the infrastructure improvement issue with the City Engineering Division.
Mr. Wright said that was correct. Mr. Wright explained that it was an option to approve the conversion without dealing with the infrastructure issue and instruct the petitioner to negotiate with the City Engineer on that matter.
Mr. Howa moved to approve the condominium conversion request based on the analysis contained the staff report with the exclusion of the City Engineering Division's requirement that the sidewalk improvements be made by the petitioner, that that issue be dealt with by the Engineering Division.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted “Aye". Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Kimball Condominium Owners Association requesting approval for a condominium amendment to convert common area space into two additional condominium dwelling units in the Kimball Condominiums located at 150 North Main Street in a Residential “RMF-75" zoning district.
This item was postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-218 by Salt Lake City Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T Wireless Services requesting a conditional use for a cellular wall mount antenna to be located at 560 East South Temple Street in a Residential JJR-D" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. Brian Robinson, representing AT&T Wireless Communications, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Robinson stated that all of their equipment would be housed in an existing structure and that no new construction would occur. He explained that the antennae would not be visible since it would be contained within the existing structure.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. McRea moved to approve Petition No. 410 ... 218 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted “Aye". Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING • Petition No. 410-220 by Dan and Marla Dredson requesting a conditional use for a 17 unit bed and breakfast facility located at 225 North State Street in a Residential I/RMF-35" zoning district.
Ms. Elizabeth Egleston presented the staff report, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Egleston stated that her staff report listed the size of the building at 11,200 square feet which needed to be corrected to reflect 12,600 square feet.
Ms. Marla Dredson, the petitioner, gave a brief history of the structure, their purchase of the property, and their plans to renovate the structure and use it for a bed and breakfast facility. She requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker asked Ms. Dredson if they were willing to reduce the number of units from 17 to 13.
Ms. Dredson responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Eric Jensen, representing Ms. Lois Jensen, an abutting property owner, stated that he was in favor of the bed and breakfast but added that there were some serious concerns that needed to be addressed and handed out copies of the warranty deed for this property, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Jensen stated that this property did not have a recorded right-of-way for access onto Hillside Avenue. He passed around a photograph taken in 1962, a copy of which is filed with the minutes, and stated that the driveway had always been divided between the property owners at 58 and 64 Hillside Avenue. Mr. Jensen stated that in 1969 Ms. Jensen had shared the expense to blacktop the driveway between the two houses, which entitled them to a claim on that driveway. Mr. Jensen requested the conditional use approval be postponed until this issue could be resolved. He stated that legally, the petitioner, could not use this driveway to access her lot since she did have another point of access to her property.
Mr. Becker asked how long the property owners of the parcel now proposed for the bed and breakfast had been accessing their property from this driveway. An unidentified speaker stated that he thought it had been used since about 1978.
Mr. Jensen stated that no official right-of-way had been obtained for the rear parking lot but he thought 1980 was more accurate according to conditional use permit information.
Mr. Becker asked Mr. Jensen if he were against having this driveway used to access the Woodruff-Riter-Stewart mansion. Mr. Jensen stated that he was not against the use of the driveway but said he was against it being used without due consideration. Mr. Becker asked if he wanted compensation for that use. Mr. Jensen responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Becker stated that a dispute between the two property owners would have an affect on the access to the bed and breakfast facility, but added that it was a dispute between property owners that the City would not get involved in. Mr. Becker said it was his guess that the petitioners might be able to claim a prescriptive easement or some similar type of easement over the driveway.
Mr. Jensen said he did not see how the Planning Commission could approve a 1 3 room bed and breakfast facility it the petitioners were not able to gain access to the rear parking lot. Mr. Becker said the Planning Commission would take this information into consideration.
Mr. Ralph Reidel, representing the petitioners, stated that the dispute of the use of the driveway had started when Mr. Ron Holberg, a former property owner, had separated the property from the mansion itself. Mr. Reidel stated that the fourplex and the mansion had always had an easement coming through to the fourplex parking lot which was commonly shared with the mansion. He stated that in 1 982 or 1984 when Mr. Holberg separated the properties, he had deeded a right-of-way to the fourplex but added that the mansion had always had a right-of-way. Mr. Reidel stated that if they needed to, they could produce the necessary documentation.
Mr. Ken deConde, a resident in the area, stated that there was a severe parking shortage in the area. Mr. deConde stated that people parked in front of the gates to his property and in illegal parking areas instead of in the parking lot provided. He asked how the petitioners expected out-of-towners to be able to utilize the very narrow, steep access to the parking lot, especially during the winter months. Mr. deConde said the residents of the area were working on the possibility of residential parking permits due to the lack of parking in this area. He said he had no problem with the bed and breakfast but added that he wanted some assurance they would utilize the parking lot and not park on the street.
Mr. Bruce Daniger, a former owner of the Woodruff-Riter mansion, stated that when he had owned the property, he and his tenants parked in the rear lot. Mr. Daniger stated that if he or his tenants had chosen to, however, they could have parked on the street in the public two-hour parking. Mr. Daniger stated that Mr. deConde also parked on the street occasionally. Mr. Daniger stated that during the winter months he had kept the driveway plowed and he assumed the new owners would do the same. He stated that he had never had a tenant who had not been able to access the parking lot, even during the winter. Mr. Daniger stated that the parking problems in the area were not caused by the mansion, but rather, by the Covey Apartments and other apartments, duplexes, and four-plexes, which did not provide adequate parking for their tenants.
Mr. Eric Jergensen, Chair of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, stated that their executive committee had met with the petitioner earlier and had not been opposed to a bed and breakfast facility at this location, but rather, to the number of units proposed which had been 17 at that time. Mr. Jergensen said they would prefer eight to ten units. He added that the matter had been presented to the community council for consideration of the number of units, not the use. Mr. Jergensen stated that the community council wanted to ensure the house was preserved. Mr. Jergensen stated that the vote at the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council meeting had not been counted but had appeared to be even and added that he had ruled in favor of the request. He stated that following the meeting, several people had approached him stating they wished they had voted against the proposal. Mr. Jergensen stated that they had collected statements from residents in the area voicing their preferences for the number of units that should be allowed for the bed and breakfast facility, many of which requested no units be allowed. Copies of these statements are filed with the minutes. Mr. Jergensen stated that other concerns raised included the elderly sewer system in the neighborhood, parking problems, noise pollution, posted advertising on the building, and too much activity on the street. He requested the Planning Commission use sensitivity while considering this matter.
Mr. Howa asked exactly what it was the community council wanted since many of the people had expressed a desire that no units be allowed in the facility, yet
Mr. Jergensen stated that their main concern was the number of units, not the use of the structure for a bed and breakfast facility. Mr. Jergensen said their main concerns were the number of units allowed and the parking problems. Mr. Jergensen said they wanted to make sure the parking provided in the parking lot was utilized for this facility, not the parking on the street.
Mr. Howa stated that the Planning Commission could make sure ample parking was provided for this use, but enforcement of how that parking was actually utilized did not fall under their purview.
Mr. Jergensen stated that if this use were approved for 17 or 18 units, it was almost guaranteed the parking would spill over onto the street. Mr. Howa said he agreed with that assumption and asked Mr. Jergensen if 1 3 units was an acceptable number. Mr. Jergensen said they believed there would be no problem with eight to ten units but added that there was a good probability the parking would remain in the parking lot if 13 units were approved. Mr. Jergensen agreed with Mr. Daniger's comments that the parking problem came from the apartments
in the area, not the Woodruff-Riter mansion. Mr. Howa said he believed 13 units was a more reasonable number for a structure which provided 20 parking stalls than only eight units. Mr. Jergensen stated that his understanding was that though there were currently 20 parking stalls striped but that the Engineering Division would only approve 1 5 stalls. Mr. Jergensen added that they would support the petitioner but wanted to make sure the impacts to the neighborhood were minimized.
Mr. Patrick Mundt, a former owner of the Woodruff-Riter mansion and a resident of the area, stated that the mansion had adequate parking for this request. He stated that he had attended the community council meeting when the proposal had still included 1 7 rooms and it had been approved by an obvious majority vote for the 17 units. Mr. Mundt stated that he could recite a list of people who supported this use to equal those who did not want any units allowed.
Mr. Mark Hurlock, a property owner in the area, stated that there had been ample opportunity at the community council meeting for anyone to oppose this request but no one had done so.
Ms. Hermoine Jex, a resident of the area, stated that she preferred the Woodruff Riter mansion be used for needed housing, to include only one apartment on the main floor, preferably for the property owner, and a few smaller units on the upper floors. Ms. Jex stated that many people in the community council had not received agendas for their May 15th meeting and many of them were opposed to this structure being used for a bed and breakfast facility.
Ms. Kirra Hurlock, a property owner in the area, stated that she had observed people parking on the street even when the parking lot was available in the past. She stated that if there were only 13 units and 20 parking stalls were available, there should be ample parking.
Mr. Ken deConde asked what assurance the neighborhood had that the bed and breakfast facility would utilize the rear parking lot rather than the street. He asked if they were going to have to resort to a residential restricted parking program.
Mr. Greg Oredson, the son of the petitioner, stated that the customers of the bed and breakfast would probably feel safer and more comfortable with their cars parked in the parking lot rather than on the street.
Mr. Ralph Reidel stated that if he had the choice of living next to an office building or a bed and breakfast facility, he would choose the bed and breakfast. Mr. Reidel stated that the parking needs would be less for the bed and breakfast than for the office building.
Mr. Bruce Daniger stated that since the parking available on the street was usually filled by residents of the neighborhood, he doubted the customers of the bed and breakfast would be able to park on the street even if they desired to do so.
Mr. Becker requested the record reflect many written comments had been provided to the Planning Commission members, copies of which would be filed with the minutes.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on petition No. 41 0-220
Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 410-220 for 13 units, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Iker suggested Condition #2 requiring 2" caliper trees be the same kind of trees as the other trees along this portion of State Street. Mr. Howa and Ms. Short accepted the amendment to the motion and the second.
Ms. Funk asked if the approval needed to be conditioned upon available parking in the event the petitioner could not use one of the parking lots because of ownership disputes. Mr. Wright explained that the petitioner would not be able to obtain a building permit for more units than parking was provided for and the motion put a cap of 13 units on the approval. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-207 by Yannis Armaou requesting a conditional use for a drive through window for a restaurant located at 2761 Highland Drive in a 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. Yannis Armaou, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request. Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rich Bennett, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that their major concerns involved the stacking queue and the parking. Mr. Bennett added that several people had been upset when they had been told the drive-up window would not be used until approved, but had witnessed the window being utilized though not approved. He stated that even though the window had been built in during the construction of the building, the petitioner did not have permission to use it until this issue was approved by the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission consideration.
Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 410-207 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted "Aye." Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-186 by Eastland Regency Company requesting
a conditional use for a commercial planned development for the construction of an office building. service commercial. and restaurant as well as a conditional use for a building larger than 20,000 square feet and conditional use for additional height. This project is located at 2800 East Parleys Way in a Commercial "C-B" zoning district.
Mr. Jeff Woodbury, representing the Eastland Regency Company, gave a presentation of their revised plans for this project including parking, ingress and egress, the new proposed intersection, traffic impacts, interior traffic circulation, square footage of the buildings, building materials, hours of operation, lighting, the types of uses planned for the buildings and their landscaping plans. Mr. Woodbury explained that they had tried to incorporate as many suggestions from the residential community in the area as they possibly could in order to address their concerns.
Ms. Margaret Pahl 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. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rawlins Young, Chairperson of the Sugar House Community Council, stated
that one of their concerns dealt with problems external from the project itself. Mr. Young said the difficulty for this site was that the outside streets around this project had not been built to adequate standards. He stated that the access to the nearby freeway system was inadequate and encouraged traffic to filter through the residential neighborhoods. Mr. Young stated that the householders in the area were never compensated for having to bear the costs of these external problems such as loss of property value and denigration of neighborhoods. Mr. Young stated that they had hoped this project could correct some of the street system problems in this area but added that it did not seem to be doing so. He stated that if the problems were corrected on the site, the developer would bear the cost; if corrected on the arterial streets, the collective public would bear the cost while in this case, the neighbors would have to bear the costs for these problems.
Ms. Jan Haug, representing the Southeast Neighborhood Council, stated that their concerns were the size and density of the project which would generate too much traffic. She stated that they had wanted this site zoned for smaller, more neighborhood-oriented business. Ms. Haug said they felt strongly that the traffic this project would generate would have a negative effect on the surrounding residential neighborhoods, affecting their quality of life. She stated that there was a lot of vacant commercial use along 2100 South and potential uses for these vacant sites and the traffic they might generate also needed to be examined.
Ms. Andrea Barrows, representing the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Community Council, stated that she believed this project had been greatly improved over previous plans. Ms. Barrows stated that they believed there was a problem with the existing development in the area without any additional development relative to traffic concerns. She explained that they were not opposed to this request providing all of the project's building materials, not just the windows, were nonreflective; that the lighting placed on the east side of the building was no higher than the building itself, which might be restricted to 20 feet due to the grade of the land; that no mechanical equipment be placed on the roof tops of the structures; that no entry to the site for northbound vehicles or entry onto Foothill Drive in a northerly direction from the site be allowed; and that they be provided with written, legal approval on this project from the land owner.
Mr. Carl Empey, a resident of the area, stated that this project was now a better project than had originally been proposed. Mr. Empey stated that K-Mart was a terrible neighbor and its site was an eyesore to this neighborhood. He stated that he had been impressed by the concessions made to this design by the developer. Mr. Empey expressed concern relative to traffic and said he believed the proposed traffic signal would improve the traffic in this area.
Ms. Diana Hart, a resident of the area, stated that she was concerned about neighborhood safety, particularly for pedestrians having to cross 2100 South Street. She said she was still concerned about traffic safety along Foothill Drive and incremental, rather than total, planning. Ms. Hart also expressed concern for pedestrian access throughout the site.
Ms. Cheri Carlson, a resident of the Sugar House area, said she felt the process was being project driven, dragging the infrastructure issues along with it. Ms. Carlson said she felt the infrastructure issues should be resolved before development was approved. Ms. Carlson also expressed concern that a request had been made for a reduction in landscaping setbacks. She said an attitude that open space, in the form of parking strips or freeway buffering rights-of-way, could be expendable was not acceptable. She urged the Planning Commission to address her concerns for this open space.
Mr. Leon Halgren, a resident of the area, stated that 35 years ago, he had attended the public hearing to approve development of the K-Mart on this site and had been opposed to it. Mr. Halgren stated that this site had been an eyesore for that entire 35 years. He stated that this area was an eastern gateway to the City and this was an opportunity to create a beautiful gateway. He suggested the City consider the welfare of the entire City, not just the economic desires of one entity, to develop this area in a way that would benefit everyone. Mr. Halgren suggested the Woodbury Corporation donate land to such an effort.
Mr. Terry Green, a property owner in the area, stated that there appeared to be no surface flow or storm drain detention designed for the site which could be a major feature of the landscape design that could clean and improve the water quality in this area. He said he felt it was the developer's obligation to provide this and added that he felt the primary vegetation for this project should be on the site itself, not on the periphery of the surrounding properties. Mr. Green stated that the developer should encourage mass transit and provide bus bays on the site. Mr. Green said he believed there were American Disabilities Act proscriptions involved in this matter to ensure the disable could access this site on an assigned path. He suggested a campus-like design might work better than two story buildings on this site. Mr. Green also expressed concern relative to the various kinds of pollution that this project might contribute to.
Mr. Spencer Felt, a resident of the area, expressed concern that only one adequate access point was being proposed for this site. He asked what precedent might be set relative to future use change in the K-Mart structure. Mr. Felt said he was opposed to the increase in allowable square footage for this project from 20,000 square feet to 88,000 square feet.
Ms. Jackie Rosenblatt, a resident in the area, handed out copies of a map outlining where she lived, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Rosenblatt said she was also representing four other property owners who lived on her street. She stated that they were concerned that traffic from this site would filter onto their private driveway. She said this already happened frequently and they expected a major increase in the number of vehicles that would try to filter through the area on their private driveway. She requested the City help prevent this problem by possibly installing a divider placed at the point of entry on Wilshire Avenue to prevent this from occurring.
Ms. Janet Jenson, a resident of the area, stated that she felt the developments in this area were spreading like wildfire and added that she was very much opposed to any development any larger than normally allowed. Ms. Jenson stated that a project going from 20,000 square feet to 88,000 square feet was hardly a concession. She added that they did not want any additional disruption to their neighborhood.
Mr. Wright stated that it appeared there was a misconception that the zoning would only allow one 20,000 square foot building on this site and the petitioner was asked for an exception to that regulation by requesting 88,000 square feet. Mr. Wright said that was not true and explained that the petitioner had the right, under the existing zoning regulations, to construct five separate buildings of 20,000 square feet each on a lot this large, for a total of 100,000 square feet of building, meeting all of the zoning requirements, without having to obtain conditional use approval. Mr. Wright stated that the staff and the petitioner would rather have only two buildings constructed to equal 88,000 square feet than five separate buildings.
Mr. Fred Fairclough, a resident of the area, stated that he was in support of the project and that explained that he was friends with the petitioners and also had business dealings with them. Mr. Fairclough stated that City Council member Keith Christensen had stated, while campaigning, that he supported good development. Mr. Fairclough said he felt this was a good development as a result of the efforts put into this project.
Mr. Joseph Rich, a resident of the area, stated that he worked for a sister company to the Woodbury Corporation, but that he was speaking as a resident of the neighborhood. Mr. Rich said he felt the plan was a better plan now and felt the developer had responded to many of the neighborhood's concern. Mr. Rich stated that Mr. John Bradley had wanted to express his support for this project but had had to leave early.
Mr. Nick Hales, a resident of the area, stated that he was in support of this project and believed the improvements made to the intersection would benefit the community. Mr. Hales pointed out that the traffic problem was an already existing problem and the developer had come up with a way to mitigate that problem. Mr. Hales said he felt a compromise between the residents of the area and the developer had been reached on this matter and urged the Planning Commission to approve this request.
Ms. Marti Johnson, a resident of the area, said she was not so sure the residents of this area believed a compromise had been reached. Ms. Johnson stated that high school students had to catch their bus in this parking lot and expressed concern relative to their safety. She also expressed concern that there was only a small entrance to this site and that problem would never go away.
Ms. Laurie Nash, a resident of the area, stated that Councilmember Keith Christensen had informed their community council that he was not in support of this project. Ms. Nash stated that Ms. Pahl had said there were 86 homes in this subdivision but her family delivered papers to this subdivision and there were actually 119 homes. She said she felt this project should be modified to fit the “CB" zone.
Ms. Joy Lambert, a resident of the area, stated that Stringham Avenue consistently experienced heavy traffic traveling at high speeds and these traffic impacts needed to be taken into consideration. Ms. Lambert stated that the two service stations in the area compounded the traffic problems and created safety hazards relative to traffic and the design of existing traffic signals. She suggested the traffic patterns in this area be more intensively studied.
Ms. Mable Wilson, a resident of the area, stated that they could read the evening newspaper in their living room by the lighting from the K-Mart facility. Ms. Wilson suggested this parking lot would be an excellent meeting place for traffic accessing the canyons during the 2002 Olympics.
Mr. Charles Wilson, a resident of the area, stated that he believed people would accelerate to get through a yellow light at this intersection and he did not believe a traffic signal at this site would be a panacea for all of the traffic problems in the area. Mr. Wilson stated that access to the K-Mart site had been hazardous from the beginning of this development. He said he was opposed to this project. Mr. Wilson said the traffic in this area was not a steady flow of traffic and that during peak traffic hours it was a nuisance.
Mr. Blaine Wilcox, a resident of the area, expressed concern about a potential increase in crime in the area as well as an increase in the traffic in the area, particularly in relation to pedestrian safety. He stated that he was opposed to this proposal.
Mr. Peter Barth, a resident of the area, stated that Mr. Sid Baucom, also a resident of the area who had had to leave earlier who shared the same concerns Mr. Barth had. Mr. Barth stated that he was concerned about the lack of planning relative to pedestrian circulation on the interior of the site. He said this development should offer an opportunity to correct some of the difficulties connected with this site. Mr. Barth expressed appreciation for the efforts expended by the developer to make this a better project but added that not enough had been done to make this site a single site rather than a hodge-podge of two different developments.
Mr. Lynn Woodbury, representing the petitioners, stated that there seemed to be an impression that that issue of pedestrian and handicap access to this site had not been dealt with. Mr. Lynn Woodbury said that access had been studied extensively and explained the location of the sidewalk through the property. He stated that with the installation of the traffic signal, pedestrians would now be able to safely cross 21 00 South.
Ms. Andrea Barrows, a resident of the area, suggested the staff look at the “CB" zone again to determine if it needed to be amended. Ms. Barrows stated that when they had been in favor of zoning this area IICB", they had looked at this site as a site that could be developed with a 40,000 square foot building. She stated that when and if the K-Mart building were demolished, she would rather not see a new development go through a conditional use process to get a 120,000 square foot building; that she would rather see three 40,000 square foot buildings on that site. Ms. Barrows said the IICB" zone had been changed to accommodate the 900 South and 900 East commercial area where the IICB" zone fit better into the community. She added that the IICB" zone was not a “one size fits all" zoning district. Ms. Barrows stated the vision of the neighborhood may not be up to date but she did not feel zoning should take precedence over the master plan. She suggested an additional commercial zoning classification might need to be developed.
Mr. Terry Green suggested roof-top vegetation might be an attractive way to attenuate possible reflections to the residents above Foothill Drive. He also suggested xeroscaping be included in the landscaping of the project.
Mr. Fred Buchanon, a resident of the area, stated that the K-Mart store was one of the ugliest sites in this City. He asked what guarantees the City had that this new development would be an attractive development and not create additional blight.
Ms. Jan Haug stated that the Sugar House Master Plan was being reviewed and they were looking closely at the IICB" zone and how it fit into this area.
Mr. Ned Stevenson, an employee of the Woodbury Corporation as a project manager, stated that they did not have any control over the K-Mart property which seemed to generate a great deal of the negative comments being made tonight.
Mr. Stevenson promised that they would use first class materials and construct a first class project on this site which will be a tremendous asset to this community.
Mr. Leon Halgren suggested the Planning Commission approach their decision making process without having already made their decision. He stated that he had attended a meeting where he had been informed that a member of the Planning Commission was speaking favorably for this project as if it were already accomplished. Mr. Halgren said he hoped that were not the case and that that person had been reprimanded. He said it was wrong for any public body to ignore the wishes of the people attending the meeting. Mr. Halgren said he felt the developer should have to present evidence that their request would benefit the area without harming the public. He added that he did not feel this developer had accomplished that task.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission made neither presumptions of approval or denial before their hearings. Mr. Becker explained that the members of the Planning Commission took their responsibilities very seriously.
Mr. Rawlins Young said the State of Utah would be requesting bids for the 1-80 Corridor Study within a month and this area would fall under that review process.
Mr. Young expressed concern at a lack of participation on the part of the Utah Department of Transportation in the subcommittee process on this matter.
Ms. Laurie Hoffman, a resident of the area, questioned why a developer would
want to construct a first class building, as promised by Mr. Ned Stevenson, next to a structure like the K-Mart which was such an eyesore. She asked if they had any intention of somehow forcing K-Mart to upgrade their property.
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that a phone call had been received by Ms. Mary Mabey, a resident of the area, expressing her opposition to this project. There were fourteen speaker cards turned in by people expressing opposition to this request who did not wish to speak at the meeting and two cards by people in favor of the proposal. Those cards are filed with the case file.
Mr. Becker stated that many written comments had been provided to the Planning Commission members, copies of which would be filed with the minutes. Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission consideration.
Mr. Becker stated that since this matter involved many complex, technical issues, a subcommittee, Chaired by Mr. Iker, had been formed consisting of Planning Commission members, Planning Staff members, representatives of the community and the petitioners. Mr. Becker requested Mr. Iker address any of the issues the subcommittee had studied which had been expressed as concerns at this meeting by the community.
Mr. Iker said the subcommittee had met several times to work toward resolution of the conflicts and concerns relative to this project and its impacts on the community. Mr. Iker stated that one of their major concerns had been traffic. He explained that they had requested an updated traffic study of this area and the new traffic data indicated that the impacts were less severe than expected.
Mr. Iker said he believed the revised intersection proposal offered a significant improvement which would benefit the community. Mr. Iker said they had agreed the light pole height needed to be controlled and added that the comment to limit the height to the building height was an excellent suggestion. He said they had discussion nonreflective building materials but was not sure he agreed with the suggestion to plant vegetation on the roof top. Other items discussed by the subcommittee included hours of operation, landscaping issues, agreement that any future use of the K-Mart site requesting an increase in parking would require a public hearing process and careful consideration, and pedestrian access. Mr. Iker expressed regret that there may have been a misunderstanding relative to the total square footage of building this site would allow and reminded everyone that the size of this lot would permit five separate buildings with 20,000 square feet in each of them. Mr. Iker said they believed two buildings totaling 88,000 square feet, located farther away from the residential area, constituted a better plan than five buildings spread out over the total site.
Mr. Iker acknowledged that this was a difficult site due to the location of the major arterial roadways surrounding the property but added that this developer had done
a lot to mitigate traffic problems. Mr. Iker recommended the Woodbury Corporation negotiate with K-Mart to maintain the “hold-a-hill" portion of this site and upgrade it to eliminate the public eyesore it currently presents. Mr. Iker said he agreed with the comments that a storm drain could be used to irrigate planted areas on the site and should be engineered through the permit process.
Mr. Iker stated that one of the biggest single problems with this issue was that K-Mart was not involved in this matter. He stated that the Woodbury Corporation did not own the K-Mart site but could possibly work carefully with K-Mart to improve the K-Mart site. He said he agreed with the comment that this should be handled as one site, not two, but added that he did not know how to accomplish that feat.
Mr. Iker stated that he felt the K-Mart site was a site of urban blight but added that he believed this proposal would help mitigate that problem and keep it from spreading. Mr. Iker said he agreed the mechanical equipment needed to be kept away from the roof of the building. He suggested arrangements be made with UTA to bring their buses into the property for easier access.
Ms. Pahl stated that UTA had been approached with that suggestion and had not been agreeable to that suggestion.
Mr. Iker stated that he believed it was critical to keep the traffic from turning left onto Foothill Drive in a northerly direction, even if that required the installation of a barrier.
Mr. Halgren spoke from the audience and said he would like to hear some member of the Planning Commission speak in opposition to this proposal.
Mr. Becker explained that the public hearing portion of the meeting had ended and informed Mr. Halgren that he was out of order and asked him to sit down.
Mr. Fife asked if the K-Mart lot was lighted all night long.
Mr. Wright stated that he believed the lights were on timers. Mr. Wright stated that lighting for security purposes needed to be carefully studied to get the right amount of light without an over spraying of light where it was not desired.
Ms. Short stated that she had been active in the Sugar House Community Council for a number of years. Ms. Short said she believed this project had been improved but explained that she was still opposed to this project. She said she had informed Ms. Diana Hart that she would probably vote in favor of this project but had determined she could not do that since she did not feel there were any real solutions to the problems on this site.
Mr. Howa stated that he had been opposed to this project since the last meeting on this matter due to traffic concerns. Mr. Howa stated that this project would not produce enough traffic to overload the streets and he believed this project was not deniable from that standpoint. He said he had tried to come up with a reason to deny this project; that it could not be denied because of zoning, traffic, a conditional use or scale. Mr. Howa said he believed the Planning Commission needed a valid reason to deny this project, not just because someone from the public did not like this project.
Mr. Howa said he had carefully studied the staff report and he did not believe there were any valid reasons contained in the staff report that could support denial.
Mr. Howa said he believed the fate of this project had been sealed when it had been zoned IICB". Mr. Howa stated that if the Planning Commission denied this request based on public comment, the developer could then construct five separate buildings and increase the density of the project. He added that it was the obligation of the Planning Commission members to uphold the regulations contained within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Howa said he believed this proposal was superior to five separate buildings; that it was in scale with the rest of the Woodbury properties. He added that though he did not like the proposal, it was not his duty to be swayed by the tone of someone's voice or insults cast at the Planning Commission members. Mr. Howa said the Planning Commission's responsibility was to examine the information, understand public concern, but in the end, their decision had to be based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Mr. Howa stated that if this project were denied, five separate buildings with 100,000 square feet would be constructed on this site. He could support this project under a couple of scenarios. Mr. Howa said it was his inclination to request the Planning Commission initiate a petition to rezone the K-Mart property to a Commercial "CN" zoning district if the K-Mart property owners were not willing to improve their site. He said he believed, under that scenario, that if/when the K-Mart store eventually closed, the maximum size facility that could be constructed on that site would be 1 6,000 square feet. He reiterated that he could support this project if the K-Mart property were rezoned.
Ms. Andrea Barrows pointed out that the IICN" zone had a maximum district size and this property might be too large.
Mr. Howa stated that a new zone could be created if necessary to handle this matter in the best manner. Mr. Howa said he did not believe the Woodbury proposal should be sacrificed because of the condition of the K-Mart site.
Mr. Becker asked Mr. Wright to respond to the viability of the possibility of rezoning the K-Mart property.
Mr. Wright responded that the Planning Commission had the authority to initiate a rezoning petition though he wasn't sure "CN" was the correct zone. Mr. Wright suggested the motion direct the Planning Staff to study the best options and possibly develop another zone more appropriate for that property. Mr. Wright said they needed to make sure their motion did not benefit the Woodbury Corporation while being punitive to the K-Mart property. Mr. Wright said the motion needed to address the issues of size, scale, etc.
Mr. Howa said he was not trying to be punitive to K-Mart, but rather, he was trying to create a master plan for this site to prevent lighting over flow into the Wilsons' windows, to create a better gateway into the City and to recognize the public comment made at this meeting. Mr. Howa stated that the public comment had failed to address the findings contained in the staff report but added that they did have to live next to this development.
Ms. Short stated that one of her objections to the Shopko project in Sugar House was the size of the Shopko store in relation to the other shops in the shopping center. Ms. Short stated that she would like to see the K-Mart building demolished and several smaller buildings constructed which would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She explained that if that were to occur, the Woodbury project would then fit in. Ms. Short added that she was still very concerned about access to this site but added that she didn't think it could be resolved.
Ms. Funk said she agreed with Mr. Howa's statement that the findings of fact had not been addressed by the public. Ms. Funk stated that whether or not someone liked or disliked a particular project was not what the Zoning Ordinance was about and the Planning Commission had to support developers who worked within the guidelines of that ordinance. She said there might have been a mistake in zoning this land "CB" but stated that their decision had to be based on the existing zoning.
Ms. Funk said she agreed with Ms. Barrows' comment that the IICB" zone needed to be looked at again and possibly amended.
Mr. McRea stated that most of what he had heard tonight was how much everyone hated the K-Mart site. Mr. McRea asked if they wanted to remain with things as they were or if they wanted to move in a direction to possibly undo the damage done by the K-Mart project.
Mr. Fife stated that he felt this project would improve the overall site and could possibly encourage K-Mart clean up their site. Mr. Fife asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to rezone someone out of business.
Mr. Becker explained that they could not zone someone out of business but added that if the property were rezoned, the property would become nonconforming. Mr. Becker explained that if the property were nonconforming and they chose to make major changes in the future, they would have to bring the property into compliance with the existing zoning district before they could obtain any building permits.
Mr. Wright stated that nonconforming a property had two sides: 1) when it was time to redevelop a site, a new set of standards were applied to the property, and 2) it might lock in a particular development with no changes made to the property.
Mr. Fife said he felt some concern at that possibility. Mr. Fife said this was a bad site but added that he felt this project would improve the site and hoped it would influence the K-Mart property to make improvements.
Mr. Iker stated that the subcommittee had recommended the existing ordinance requirements be enforced on the K-Mart property such as landscaping.
Ms. Funk said she was still troubled by the Foothill Drive entrance and requested the Transportation Division address this issue and whether or not this access could be improved.
Mr. Kevin Young, representing the Transportation Division, stated that because of the grades of the land and the existing buildings, there really was no way to improve this access point. Ms.' Funk asked if the City had the ability to take out a portion of one of the existing buildings to make this access safer.
Mr. Young stated that the question of how to get traffic onto Foothill Drive was still the biggest issue considering the sight distance problems and vertical curves leading up to the freeway system, and that even if buildings were removed, there would still be a problem. Mr. Young explained that the traffic on the street at this location did not meet the criteria required for the State to install a traffic signal near this access point.
Motions relative to petition No. 410-1 86
Mr. Howa moved to have the Planning Commission initiate a petition to rezone the K-Mart property to a "CN" zoning district or a similar lower intensity commercial zone. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Ms. Funk voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Fife asked if this would include some kind of overall master planning process.
Mr. Wright stated that it would create a master plan amendment process to examine this zoning change.
Mr. Iker moved to approve Petition No. 410-186 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with an added condition that the height of the light poles not exceed the height of the building; that all surfaces of the buildings be nonreflective; the hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m.; the landscaping responsibilities of the developer would include the entire Parleys Way frontage of the total development; no mechanical systems placed on the roof tops; and the feasibility of utilizing the storm water run-off for on-site irrigation be examined. Mr. Iker further moved that any increased use for the Woodbury site would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, and Ms. Funk voted "Aye." Ms. Short voted "Nay." Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discuss July Planning Commission schedule.
Due to the holidays in July, it was agreed the Planning Commission would hold only one meeting on Thursday July 11th