SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Arla Funk Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kent Nelson, Laurie Noda
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright and Planners Melissa Anderson, Greg Mikolash, Doug Dansie, and Everett Joyce. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith was excused.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, May 16, 2002
Robert “Bip” Daniels referred to page 9, second paragraph, and requested that the spelling of Judy Short’s name be corrected to Judi Short.
Prescott Muir referred to page 9, toward the bottom of the last paragraph, and corrected the sentence to read, “Mr. Muir asked if allowing concrete for this building would set a double standard by applying one set of rules to the private sector and another to the City supported projects.” He referred to page 7, third paragraph, the reference to “leads points.” He noted that the spelling of “leads” should be “leed.”
Peggy McDonough referred to page 5, middle paragraph, and requested that Ms. Jonas be changed to Mr. Jonas. She referred to page 8, last sentence of the second paragraph, and asked the Commissioners if the reference to vertical lines should read horizontal lines. The Planning Commissioners concurred with the correction. Ms. McDonough referred to page 11, last paragraph, and requested that the words, “is a man made environment” be replaced with “needs softening,” to read, “Ms. McDonough agreed, particularly since the west side needs softening,” which she felt better clarified her intent. She referred to page 12, last paragraph, and requested that the second and third and fourth sentences be changed to read, “She also agreed that a diversity should be encouraged and that mandating one material for every structure built within a district may have some appropriateness, but she did not view a diverse material as unfair. She believed any materials could be appropriate if designed and built with quality. She believed they were looking at architectural concrete that would produce a quality result.” Ms. McDonough felt these changes better clarified her intent.
Kent Nelson referred to page 10, second paragraph, third line, and requested that the “s” be removed from developers to reflect that it was a single developer. At the bottom of that paragraph, he requested that a sentence be added to read, “The developer could not move forward for economic reasons.” The sentence was inserted before the last sentence of the paragraph.
Mr. Muir referred to page 46, second paragraph, referring to Ms. McDonough asking about the time line if the option to purchase is not made. Ms. McDonough asked a question, but the minutes do not reflect that she was given a response. Ms. McDonough suggested that the tapes be reviewed to verify that her question had been answered. Mr. Muir referred to page 49 and asked that the words a vacant city be changed to read a city of vacant buildings. He referred to the motion at the bottom of the second page and noted that Ms. McDonough’s name was left off as voting “Aye.”
Arla Funk referred to page 7, third paragraph, and the sentence that reads, “Mr. Vela stated that Ballet West is amendable to that, but it is not reliable. She felt the word reliable should be changed to responsible. There was discussion about Mr. Vela’s comment and whether it referred to Ballet West’s responsibility for landscaping or the fact that the space is small. It was suggested that the tape be reviewed to see what Mr. Vela was referring to.
John Diamond referred to page 7, third paragraph, first sentence, and requested that the word north be replaced with west and east. The corrected sentence would read, “Mr. Diamond asked if it would be possible to move the sidewalks to Hidden Hollow further west and east to allow for more landscaping between the sidewalks and the building.” Mr. Diamond referred to the fourth sentence of that same paragraph and requested that the sentence read, “Mr. Diamond asked about retaining during excavation, and Mr. Vela replied that they are laying the soil back at a one to one slope.”
Motion for Minutes of May 16
Kent Nelson moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 2002. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless and Ms. Noda abstained since they did not attend the May 16 meeting. Ms. Funk and Mr. Jonas abstained from voting on the last two items in the minutes as they were not in attendance when those items were discussed. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Andrea Barrows expressed concern about correcting minutes versus rewriting the minutes. Although the Planning Commission may misspeak, unless it obscures the meaning, she did not think the language should be changed. Ms. Funk remarked that the minutes are arduous to read, and she would like to see them less detailed, particularly in terms of reiterating the presentations included in the staff report.
Mr. Muir reported on a conversation he had with Doug Dansie following the May 16 meeting regarding the Zions Securities parking lot issue. Mr. Dansie had mentioned that, because the parcel was optioned and the applicants were proceeding with consummating that option, the intent was that the property would be immediately developed. Mr. Dansie further explained that the petition before the Planning Commission was a default position that they wanted to clarify, so that in the process of demolishing the block and the Key Bank building, if the option were not exercised, Zion’s Securities could follow through with the proposed landscaping improvements and parking lot. Mr. Muir believed he had misunderstood the issue and pursued the opportunity and process for rehearing this petition. Mr. Dansie consulted with the Legal Department and learned that a Planning Commissioner who participated in the majority decision and would like to reconsider can request a re-hearing. The re-hearing must be voted on by the Planning Commission and re-noticed. Mr. Muir stated that the two issues he did not fully understand were the intent and the process under which the petitioner was presenting the application. Mr. Wilde clarified that the only procedure this evening would be to vote on whether to re-consider the petition. If the Planning Commission decides to rehear it, it would be noticed and scheduled on the next available agenda. Ms. Barrows asked about the precedent for doing this. Mr. Wilde replied that it has been done before, but he could not recall the specific issue. Mr. Wheelwright and Ms. Funk confirmed that it has been done before. Mr. Jonas noted that a number of Commissioners were not present on May 16. If the Planning Commission votes to bring it back, he would like to have a public hearing to allow the absent Commissioners an opportunity to hear the information. Kay (berger) Arnold wanted the procedure to be very clear to avoid setting a precedent for other petitioners. Mr. Daniels read from the Planning Commission bylaws and explained that the Planning Commission is within its rights to recall this motion by vote.
Motion
Prescott Muir moved that the Planning Commission re-hear petition 410-588 by Zion’s Securities Corporation requesting a conditional use for a commercial surface parking lot along the frontage of First South between State Street and Second East in the Downtown D-1 Zoning District. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Ms. Barrows voted “Nay.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Muir felt it would be helpful to receive more history from Staff on the precedent for approving conditional surface parking lots downtown. It would also be helpful to have a synopsis of the master plan that addresses that policy.
Motion for Minutes of May 30
Mr. Wilde clarified that the Planning Commission met on May 30 to adopt the minutes from the UTA/Union Pacific petitions. The Planning Commission has the opportunity to take action to ratify the May 30, 2002 minutes this evening or at the next meeting.
Mr. Jonas moved to approve the minutes of May 30, 2002. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Funk abstained as she did not attend the May 30 meeting. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-08 and 400-01-32, requested by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to provide for the following: 1) A zoning map amendment and changes to the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map to designate areas for townhomes and live-work units, mixed uses and low density residential land uses for the area between 900 East to McClelland Street and 2100 South to Sugarmont Avenue; and 2) a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to the CSHBD zone to eliminate the residential density limit in the Sugar House business district
Planner Melissa Anderson provided a presentation of the zoning evaluation study for the subject area in Sugar House. The area is near the Sugar House Business District and is related to the original petition amended in January to expand the Business District. At that time the Planning Commission initiated a petition to study the area, which is the subject of this presentation. Ms. Anderson reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report. She identified a home that is a significant site with potential for nomination to the listing on the National and City Historic Registers. The residents supported preserving the single family homes and duplexes and land uses that transition into lower density residential uses. The recommendation for Area 1 is to rezone from CB to CN. The CN zone is for small businesses and smaller lot sizes which would be consistent for small businesses adjacent to residential low density uses. It is recommended that Area 2 be rezoned from multi-family RMF-35 to R-1-5000 to be consistent with the existing single family homes and duplexes. The future land use map for Area 2 will be a amended from medium density residential to low density residential. It is proposed that Area 3 be rezoned to Residential Business (RB). The future land use map for Area 3 would be amended to low intensity mixed use which would provide appropriate transition to housing. Ms. Anderson noted that the RB zone does have demolition criteria. It is recommended that Area 4 be a transition area. Future land use maps will indicate it as part of the Sugar House business district with town house units or live-work units. The Staff recommended supporting the existing residential area rather than continuing to undermine it with zoning that would threaten it, and it is still possible to achieve the objectives of transit oriented development and higher density mixed use in the business district area. Ms. Anderson noted that there may have been some confusion in the public notice regarding the text amendment in the Sugar House Business District Zone for town houses and live-work units. Another notice has been sent for a June 20 public hearing, and Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue that section of the recommendation. The Planning Commission has the option of continuing all the recommendations to June 20.
Mr. Wilde explained that Area 4 requires a residential component for any new development and, as written, there is not a conditional use escape. Staff realized that was not articulated in the public notice and therefore scheduled the item for the June 20th meeting to ensure adequate notice is provided to the property owners.
Ms. Barrows asked about the height in the RB zone and was told that the maximum height is 30 feet. Ms. Barrows clarified that the RB zone does not protect single story structures. She discussed the RB zone and previous requirements and asked if anything would change. Mr. Wilde replied that they are not changing the text of the RB zone, and the same provisions would apply.
Mr. Jonas asked about the difference between what is allowed in the CB zone and CN zone and stated that he was unsure what would be accomplished by making the change. Ms. Anderson stated that she was looking at the scale of the buildings, and rather than having an accumulation of properties and building one large structure, the CN zone requires a limit on lot size which dictates the size of the building. The change would encourage smaller lots and buildings.
Ms. Funk asked about restrictions on uses. Mr. Wilde explained that both zones allow for retail and offices. The difference is that there would be more conditional uses. In the CB zone, anything in excess of 20,000 square feet is a conditional use. In the CN zone, the control is maximum lot size.
Mr. Muir felt it could be argued that the CN zone is more conducive to walkable neighborhoods. He felt that the residential rezone precipitated the CN rezone. The residential zone was to make the actual zone more compatible with the underlying use, whereas the underlying use on the commercial frontage is more CB. The change to CN was precipitated by the proposed down zone of the residential so the buffer between the two is more conducive to single family. Ms. Anderson stated that the impacts to the residential area would be significant regardless of whether it is medium density residential or low density. The Staff and Commissioners discussed zoning and uses. Mr. Muir asked how long the RMF-35 zone had been in place. Mr. Wilde replied that it was introduced in 1995, but an equivalent zone, which allowed for existing fourplexes before 1995.
Mr. Chambless commented that Sugar House is a stable and growing part of the City and asked how far east a Sugar House transit station could go. Ms. Anderson anticipated that a station would be located around Highland Drive, no further east than 1300 East, and south of 2100 South. A thorough technical analysis would be required before making a decision regarding the future transit stop location.
Mr. Jonas stated that he was unclear on the rationale for zoning for town houses and live-work units. Ms. Anderson stated that she would like to see more residential in the area, and if it is left as mixed use, the market typically ignores the residential component. The zoning would guarantee that units will be used as residential units. Live-work units would also provide an appropriate transition to the residential units to the west. Mr. Wilde recalled that the ordinance for walkable communities has a mixed use provision, and if the Planning Commission wished, they could introduce the conditional use mechanism to escape the residential component. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not understand why they would create five zones instead of four.
Mr. Muir agreed and asked if a performance zone might be more appropriate as an overlay. Performance zoning would not allow the neighborhood to be demolished by development, but it would not close the opportunity to create future density in the neighborhood. He believed single family and multi-family zoning would be hard to change once it is in place.
Ms. Funk did not agree that it would be difficult to change the zoning, because times change, and that changes zoning. She did not think they needed to plan for 50 years from now, but they should plan for 20 years from now.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Scott Kisling, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that he was also chairman of the master plan committee. He believed the master plan re-write was a positive thing for Sugar House, and they received good public input. The Community Council heard a presentation by Ms. Anderson on May 1 which was attended by 17 Trustees and numerous citizens, at which time the Community Council voted to accept this amendment by a vote of 14 to 2, with one abstention. He believed that vote was a powerful statement from the Sugar House Community Council. They see this and other work that is being done as a refinement of the master plan. He stated that Sugar House is pedestrian oriented, and the goal is to be more pedestrian oriented and transit oriented. In their zeal for transit orientation in the master plan, he believed they may have mistaken the necessary foot traffic to get to the business district. They have since realized that this amendment provides foot traffic, particularly with the town houses and work-live units, while providing for transit oriented development with the density of the townhouses. Mr. Kisling noted that discussions also included property rights issues and the Davis House. The Community Council believed RMF-35 was appropriatefor the historic structure, because they would hate to see low-rent multi-family. They were unsure how best to protect the house and provide an economic stimulus, but this plan comes closer than anything else proposed. The Community Council agreed with the findings of the historic survey. They like the restriction on the aggregation of lots in the CN zone. Mr. Kisling commented that Area 3 could possibly be residential, which was the only change suggested.
Stephen C. Richards stated that he was born and raised in Sugar House. His family owns Granite Furniture Company, and at one time Sugar House was destined to become the furniture center of the West. He felt that Sugar House had always been a step child to Salt Lake City and has been passed over in the past. He stated that Sugar House could be one of the nicest places in the State, but the City has always opposed it. Sugar House was built on a railroad track, and eventually service was discontinued through Sugar House. The tracks still exist, and he hoped the City would use them for a transit system. He noted that the City wants to close McClelland Street, but they could not hem in the streets and expect Sugar House to grow. Mr. Richards urged the Planning Commission to take a good look at Sugar House. He felt it had a wonderful future and could be an asset to Salt Lake City if they are careful about opening or closing streets and planning for the future.
Christy Johnson, a resident at 2187 Lincoln Street, which is in the area being discussed, endorsed the recommendation of the Community Council and the work Staff has done. She felt strongly about Sugar House and has lived in the area for 15 years. She noted that many houses were destroyed when Shopko was built, and she was disappointed when it turned out to be an unwalkable development. Although mistakes have been made in the community, Staff’s recommendations would be positive. She felt they should look to the future, and those who own homes in Sugar House feel strongly about that future. She did not want the City to make a determination that would devalue homes and force residents to sell to developments that would not be residential in nature. She noted that the area is currently very walkable, but they are concerned about the amount of traffic on the streets. More development means more traffic, and small streets will not be able to handle the traffic. She believed the thoughtful development recommended by Staff would be conducive to maintaining the neighborhood which is stable and strong. She noted that the problems in their neighborhoods come from areas where there are no houses, such as parking lots and the rear of buildings that are vacant in the evening. She urged the Planning Commission to take the recommendation of the Staff and Community Council.
Mr. Chambless stated that he attended a recent Sugar House Community Council meeting, and nearly every question related to transportation. He asked Ms. Johnson for her opinion and her neighbors’ opinions on public transportation. Ms. Johnson replied that there is great concern about the Trax line, particularly from people with small children and elderly people who live on the line. There is concern and fear about a Trax line devaluing their property and creating too much traffic in the neighborhood. She stated that she did not necessarily share that concern, but many of her neighbors feel that way. Her concern was the mix of residential traffic and delivery traffic with deliveries coming off of very small, narrow streets.
Mr. Nelson asked Ms. Johnson if any ideas had been discussed to minimize traffic. Ms. Johnson commented on the traffic around Shopko and trying to visualize that traffic in her neighborhood. Two reasons for traffic are high density living and commercial activity. She believed the proposed zoning would allow for development but maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Mr. Jonas noted that the City supports a future Trax line in the Sugar House area, and his concern with changing zoning from RF-35 would be compatibility of the rail traffic. Down zoning this area to single family did not seem compatible with bringing transit to the area. Ms. Johnson stated that she owns property in the area, and she did not want to be forced into a situation where her property would be worth little because someone wanted to develop a multi-family use. She commented that this has been a strong neighborhood for 50 to 70 years, and it will continue to be strong if they do not allow things that will bring in more crime and more traffic.
Mr. Muir felt that, if the area were down zoned to single family residences and mass transit came in, the property values would be less on a single family lot than on a multi-family. He believes multi-family would be a more compatible adjacent use to the intensity of light rail.
Lavan Smith, a resident at 2198 Lincoln Street, opposed Trax coming to Sugar House because the line would be two doors from her house. She stated that Sugar House does not need Trax because buses stop on 2100 South for anybody going east, west, north, or south. She wished the City would leave them alone. If they allow Trax, the residents will be hemmed off from the park, and children going to the Boys and Girls Club would not be able to cross the street. She urged the Planning Commission to leave them alone and not allow the area to turn commercial.
John Clayton, representing the owners of the Davis Home, stated that the owners are bankers and lawyers and purchased the home a year ago at foreclosure for the purpose of relocating to Sugar House and operating out of the home. They have invested $125,000 in the last year restoring the integrity of the building. He stated that he gets upset when someone talks about protecting the house, because they have no idea what bad condition it was in before they fixed it up. He has been waiting a year for the City to allow him to have an office there, even though he is surrounded by a dental office, pre-school, and apartment building. He commented on vandalism and drug activity he has witnessed in the area and expressed anger at references to this being a cozy little neighborhood. He did not believe there was any reason to tear the house down, and he believed a nice office would help control some of the crime. In looking at the plan, he felt like he was being protected from himself, but he did not need someone to protect him. He stated that he would not have invested the money to purchase the home if the intent was to destroy it. He appreciated the history of the home, and while there are nice homes in the neighborhood, other homes are trashy and bring in a bad element. He stated that he would rather see a commercial element than trash.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Clayton if the RB zone would meet his needs. Mr. Clayton replied that no one has explained the changes to him. Ms. Barrows clarified that the current RMF-35 zoning does not allow an office use. She suggested that Mr. Clayton meet with Staff to discuss the RB zone which would allow his office use and maintain the house. Mr. Clayton expressed concern about the condition of apartments and businesses around him and stated that he did not understand why the City wanted to protect them. He would rather see parking lots than the existing run-down buildings.
Val Murdock, a resident on 1000 East, stated that she shares a backyard with the property that is proposed to be rezoned. She felt that crime and drug activity usually occur around commercial districts, and the zoning proposed by Ms. Anderson would improve the situation. She stated that she supported the rezoning. She stated that she has had a long time relationship with Sugar House and is happy to see that it has rebounded. She did not look forward to having Trax run by her home, but she would support it if it was best for the community.
Ms. Smith stated that she did not oppose Mr. Clayton using the Davis Home as a law office and wondered why they could not rezone just that land to allow that use.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barrows asked where the Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Council planned to build a transit station in Sugar House. Ms. Anderson replied that the location will be left up a future planning process and will be determined once the traffic impact study is complete and sitting in conjunction with UTA. It may be many years before UTA invests in Trax, and until then they may use bus rapid transit or other forms of transit.
Mr. Nelson asked which parcels are owned by RDA. Ms. Anderson replied that much of the area is in the RDA District and identified those areas. Mr. Nelson asked about height limitations on the CSHBD-1. Ms. Anderson replied that the height is 50 feet with a bonus of up to 75 feet if the project includes 30% residential. There is currently a 10-story height limit. Mr. Nelson asked if heights in the Sugar House Business District Zone are also 75 feet. Ms. Anderson replied that, prior to this, there was one zone with reference to the land use map in the master plan. The permits department has recommended that height limits in the basic specifications be integrated into the ordinance for clarification. If the area is down zoned to R-1-5000, and additional dwelling units are needed for a walkable community, Mr. Nelson asked where the high density housing would be located. Ms. Anderson explained that there is a possibility for mixed use with incentives for housing along the Granite Furniture block, south of the Granite Furniture block, and around the Shopko development. The proposal is to adopt language for two-story non-residential and up to four stories with 50% residential. When she does a traffic impact study, she will analyze the density impacts.
Ms. Funk stated that she favored the down zoning as proposed. She believed the element of the neighborhood was large enough to be preserved and maintained as a neighborhood. The CN District fits well because it makes the area walkable. The business that would be allowed would be supportive of this small neighborhood. She noted that Trax is many years down the road, and the neighbors should not have immediate concerns. Ms Funk supported the motion as recommended by Staff.
Ms. Noda agreed with Ms. Funk. The area has been mostly residential, and she agreed with down zoning to CN to create a walkable community. Existing single family homes should be left because people have a vested interest in where they live. She commented that she has lived in the Sugar House area for three years and has found that people are protective of their neighborhood. There are some areas along 1100 East where people have turned their homes into businesses, and down zoning would allow that to happen.
Ms. Funk asked about the difference between the R-1 and R-2 zones. Mr. Wilde explained that the R-2 zone requires an 8,000-square-foot lot for a two-family dwelling. The SR-1 zone allows for two family dwellings and requires 8,000 square feet. Ms. Anderson stated that she had considered both of those, but due to the small lot sizes, she excluded R-2. Ms. Funk did not believe there should be an R-1, because two-family dwellings should always be allowed, particularly to accommodate the transition of life and growing older. She thought the R-1-5000 is appropriate.
Mr. Muir favored the CN and RB zones because they create mixed use. He was concerned about the CN zone limiting the scale of retail development, and that may not be supported by the market. He felt it would be worth testing to see how this new zone would play out in the market place. He commented that, if the State is going to embrace growth, the Planning Commission has an ethical responsibility to accommodate that growth. Salt Lake deals with existing neighborhoods and neighborhood transitions, unlike the suburbs that are master planned on agricultural land, and this is a difficult and painful responsibility. The City must accommodate growth where the jobs are created, where retail and malls exist, and where there are transit systems. This is especially important in areas close to transit system corridors and adjacent to open space. Sugar House has all the ingredients that should accommodate this growth some day, and he was nervous about closing the door to that opportunity. He did not feel that the current zoning, which has been in place for a considerable amount of time, had jeopardized this neighborhood, so they are not talking about imposing something that does not already exist. Having served on committees for Envision Utah, Mr. Muir found that there is a prevailing attitude that density destroys neighborhoods. Seeing that memorialized in print and in the staff recommendation concerned him. He was concerned about implying that denser neighborhoods are inferior, because that is not true. He respected the decision to rezone the Smith’s store because it maintains the intent of the overall area. The consequence is that the City has a responsibility to support the walkable density and configuration of that retail. He felt that they needed to have the courage to follow through and support the conditions they imposed on this retail chain and carry it through to individual property owners.
Mr. Wilde agreed that the RMF-35 zone has not damaged this neighborhood through the years. However, if there was a way to plan for the long range and guide for a transition in this neighborhood, it would be easier to manage the risk of having older homes demolished and five-plexes and six-plexes built in their place. RMF-35 zoning would be fine if they could find a tool to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood until there is a legitimate infill project on the edge. Mr. Muir did not disagree with the objective, but he believed that once the area is down zoned, you take everything off the development table.
Ms. Barrows disagreed. She noted that, years ago, they implemented a foothill preservation zone, and before long houses were built on it. When she questioned that, she was informed that it was a holding zone. She did not think of R-1-5000 as a holding zone, but they are waiting to determine where transit will go while protecting developers and people who want to consolidate these properties. She stated that she supported the R-1-5000 zone. She believed higher density neighborhoods had a different character and are special in themselves, but the existing character of this neighborhood would be significantly changed if they increase the density.
Ms. Funk agreed that a high density neighborhood is not inferior and suggested that the language written by Staff be changed to reflect that high density neighborhoods are different. People have different needs. Some have the need for a small home community, and others like high density areas with no yards.
Motion for Petition 400-01-32
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 400-01-32 text and map amendments to the Sugar House Business District based on the finding of fact and the four recommendations presented in the staff report and with deletion of the language in the Staff report that “high density neighborhoods are inferior.” Tim Chambless seconded the motion with the comment that people vote with their feet. This is a desirable State, and nearly half the population lives in the Salt Lake Valley. People want to live in Sugar House, and they all have different needs. The Planning Commission should anticipate those needs and the certainty of future growth. He believed they should find a method to alleviate the movement of people to this neighborhood.
Ms. Funk stated that she had not completed her motion. Taking into consideration that not all of the petition was properly noticed, she moved to put Petition 400-01-32 on hold until the next Planning Commission meeting without additional public hearing.
Mr. Wilde clarified that the Sugar House Business District Area 5 has been noticed for public hearing at the next meeting. Ms. Barrows suggested that they vote on all portions of the petition except Area 5.
Mr. Jonas agreed with Mr. Chambless that Sugar House will get more people and that there is a need to move people around. This is a congested area, and as much as the residents do not want Trax, Sugar House will further develop into a commercial community, and people need to get in and out without cars. His concern with going from RMF-35 to R-1-5000 was that Trax will come in the future, and people will resist because the R-1-5000 zone is in place. He could live with the CN zone, but it was difficult for him to buy the idea of 900 East being a walkable area. He was concerned about dealing with arbitrary zoning lines based on lot lines. He stated that he would prefer to see everything north of Elm Street be the Sugar House rezone. It is a mixed use zone that allows commercial use and enables people to develop an attractive mixed-use area. If that is not done, he would prefer to see the area east of 1000 East and north of Elm Street zoned RB. The Commissioners discussed Mr. Jonas’s comments.
Mr. Nelson stated that he opposed RMF-35 primarily because multi-family home ownership cannot work in a four-plex or eight-plex. A higher density development is necessary to control management and maintain the units of high density residential, and he could not see that happening on small lots. He was concerned about the high density development surrounding the R-1-5000 area, because eventually someone would sell out, another would move in, and the neighborhood would lose control. Mr. Nelson stated that he favored the RB zone. Ms. Anderson explained that the RB zone would also allow for live-work units as opposed to only home occupations and would support smaller businesses because the lots are small.
Ms. Funk reiterated her request to re-vote the entire petition at the next meeting to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to think about these new ideas. Mr. Wilde referred to his earlier statement about the re-notice of Area 5 and noted that Ms. Anderson informed him that the notice was global and included the entire petition. He suggested that the Planning Commission defer action until the next meeting and direct Staff to make changes or provide additional information. Ms. Funk clarified that her motion is to wait to vote on this petition at the next meeting.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Muir voted “Nay.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
After the vote, it was noted that Ms. Funk made the motion on Petition 400-01-32, and the presentation this evening was on Petition 400-02-08. Many of the Commissioners were confused as to the motion and asked for further clarification. Chair Daniels suggested that Ms. Funk move to re-hear the petition which means they can re-vote the motion at the next meeting.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to re-hear the petition at the next meeting. Andrea Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Muir voted “Nay.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 400-02-08
Based on petitions 400-02-08 and 400-01-32, Andrea Barrows moved to continue the public hearing with public testimony in reference to all areas. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond was not present for the vote. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Kunga Subdivision Amendment, located at 1500 South Richards Street. The Community Development Corporation of Utah is requesting an amendment to portions of lots 1, 18, 19, and 20, Block 4 of Gabbott’s Addition Subdivision, and 1/2 of the adjacent vacated alley abutting on the West, which will create two single family Residential Lots. Proposed is one 7,320 square foot parcel with frontage along Andrew Avenue and one 5,080 square foot parcel reconfigured for an existing single family dwelling addressed as 1500 South Richards Street. The properties to be amended are located in a RMF-35 zoning district.
Planner Greg Mikolash explained that this petition was approved at an administrative hearing on May 21. Since the people who opposed the administrative process were not present this evening, he requested that the Planning Commission grant this administrative position.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Mark Lundgren, representing the Community Development Corporation, stated that application for this subdivision was made in January, and there have been various delays. They accept the Staff recommendations and can meet the conditions. He explained that the opposition raised at the administrative hearing related to procedural issues, not the project itself.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Kunga Subdivision Amendment
Based upon the findings of fact and lack of opposition, Jeff Jonas moved to grant final approval to the Kunga Subdivision to allow for the amendments to portions of Lots 1, 18, 19, & 20, Block 4 of Gabbott’s Addition Subdivision, and l/2 of the adjacent vacated alley abutting on the West according to Conditions 1 and 2 as stated in the staff report. Tim Chambless seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed amendment will be in the best interest of the City.
B. All newly created lots will meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the zone.
C. No changes will be made to the plat that would require a dedication to the City. Utility easements of record will be preserved.
D. The provisions for any construction in the public way will be included.
E. This proposed amendment will comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
F. This minor subdivision amendment will not materially injure the public or any person and there is a good cause for the amendment.
Conditions of Approval
1. That a building permit only be issued once an amended plat for the Subdivision is recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorders Office.
2. That the applicant complies with all City Departmental comments and recommendations.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-584, by Ken Holman of Block 38 Associates, for a Planned Development (to reduce the rear yard requirement for the first phase building of what will eventually be a multi-building residential complex Planned Development) generally located at 325 South 500 East, in a Residential Mixed-Use R-MU zoning district.
Due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Nelson recused themselves from this item and left the room.
Planner Doug Dansie reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff report. He noted that this is the first phase of a planned development that will eventually have frontage on 500 and 600 East and 300 South. In writing the staff report, he noticed that the RMU District ties specifically to a map in the master plan, and although the property on the west side of the street is allowed 125 feet, this one is limited to 75 feet. The petitioner removed a foot from each level to lower the building, resulting in the building shown in the staff report. This brought the building within range to request a 4-foot variance from the Board of Adjustment. Upon reconsideration, the petitioner has decided it would be difficult to market units with 8-foot ceilings and has requested the 9-foot ceilings. Because the first phase has been financed, between 190 and 200 units are needed to meet bond requirements. The only way to remain within the height limit and have 9-foot ceilings would be to remove the top level and add the units to the back of the existing building. As part of the planned development, the petitioner wishes to reduce the rear yard toward the property line. Mr. Dansie noted that the property line exists primarily for financing purposes, and within the planned development it will coordinate with at least two other buildings. The City will receive a public mid-block walkway through the planned development process. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the first phase of the planned development with the modification of the rear setback to allow zero rear yard and allow for underground parking to cross property lines. The Staff also recommended that the final landscape plan be approved by the Planning Director. Due to the rear yard issue, the Staff recommended that the developer enter into a development agreement with the City which should include a requirement that the entire planned development be completed within two years. If it has not been completed by then, the developer should either commit to move the rear property line back 30 feet and adjust the zoning appropriately or provide a 30-foot no build easement on the adjacent property.
Ms. Barrows noted that the Staff report refers to a previous approval on a petition for the same development, but she recalled this as being very different. Mr. Dansie replied that the original planned development contained the 300 South and 600 East parcel but it not Vernier Place. A rezone was approved for the site to RMF-75, and the planned development was approved for multiple buildings. After that, the property owner acquired Vernier place, and the property has been under contract several times. Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Dansie for his perception on the spacing if all the phases are completed. If Phase 2 is RMF-35, she asked what setback would be required and whether it could encroach on a 30-foot-wide no build easement. Mr. Dansie explained that there is a petition from the developer for the second phase to rezone the RMF-35 to R-MU, but there is an outstanding issue on the east parcel with the Juel Apartments. Even though the previous Planning Commission agreed to rezone to RMF-75, they placed a caveat that the frontage along 600 East would be limited to 35 feet in height. It is assumed that the same limitation will be in place along 600 East in the second phase. Ms. Barrows asked if Staff had any concerns about solar access and getting light into the 30-foot space between the buildings. Mr. Muir shared Ms. Barrows’ concern, noting that 50% of the units would never get direct light, and this project could be the prototype for future developments. Mr. Dansie replied that the issue has not been addressed. The petition has been through the design process with the Historic Landmark Commission, and in that process the design was altered and the balconies became semi-freestanding.
Mr. Chambless asked who would be a typical occupant in these units. Mr. Dansie replied that the first phase will be rental, and the petitioner is deciding about ownership units in subsequent phases.
Ms. Funk referred to the reference in the staff report to 20-foot side yards where none are required and to a combination of pedestrian corridors, parking, and fire lanes through the site. She asked if that would all be hard surface and whether there will be a demarcation between pedestrian and vehicle access. Mr. Dansie replied that most will be hard surface, but that is not abnormal. He discussed the access and noted that the fire department requires complete access along the side and through the block.
Tim Chambless asked about landscaping. Mr. Dansie replied that landscaping in the side yard will mostly be trees. Front landscaping will depend on the users. Mr. Chambless asked if children would occupy the building. Mr. Dansie replied that the units are one or two bedrooms, and this project has a mix of market housing and subsidized housing. He did not think the units would be conducive to children and, based on the location, he assumed the tenants would be students and single people working downtown.
Ken Holman, representing the developer, was available to answer questions. Ms. Funk asked about plans if the Juel Apartments are not torn down since a caveat for allowing this is the corridor from 500 East to 600 East. Mr. Holman stated that there is no specific requirement to provide a mid-block pedestrian corridor, but they intend to provide one. If the apartments stay, the mid-block corridor will be on the north side of the apartments. Ms. Funk expressed concern about approving a project in phases when the second phase is so uncertain. Mr. Holman explained that, if the apartments stay, there is a question about the economic feasibility of Phase 2, because the 24-unit Juel complex sits in the middle of what could be 100 units. He believed that the Juel might receive demolition approval through proof of economic hardship. If not, the developer would have to reevaluate Phase 2. Ms. Funk referred to the recommendation received by the Planning Commission today and asked Mr. Holman if he agreed with those conditions if Phase 2 does not go through. Mr. Holman replied that he did agree with those conditions.
Ms. Barrows asked why the petitioner was building 100% more parking than what is required when they are within a half block of the light rail system. Mr. Holman commented on parking ratios for other buildings he has developed, and in all instances they found the parking to be too tight. He noted that the parking ratio is only 1.3 to 1, and the 100% figure mentioned by Ms. Barrows is incorrect. Mr. Dansie clarified that parking was increased to l.5 per unit, so the requirement would be 80 stalls for the residential plus the commercial. Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Holman to address solar access and asked whether he had done shadow models. Mr. Holman explained the heights and stated that they have not done any shadow models. Although the width of the courtyard is 40 feet, running east to west he believed a fair amount of light would come in. He understood that units on the north would not get direct sunlight, but that is not unusual for apartment projects in Salt Lake.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Holman if he would consider changing the design if he had more flexibility with height and provided ideas on how this could be done. Mr. Holman felt Mr. Muir had an excellent suggestion. Mr. Muir stated that he was unsure if the Planning Commission had the purview to grant that flexibility, but he was putting it on the table as a hypothetical. Mr. Dansie replied the height could be adjusted through the conditional use process, but the RMU zone language ties this to a map for the East Downtown Master Plan. The developer would have to prove a hardship in order to vary the height.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Holman who would live in these units. Mr. Holman replied that 60% of the units will be affordable and will be rented to people who earn less than 60% of the median income. Mr. Chambless asked if Mr. Holman believed this project met the needs of the downtown housing requirement. Mr. Holman replied that it does meet the needs, but downtown needs more of this type of project.
Mr. Daniels applauded the developer for this project and agreed that downtown Salt Lake City needed more projects like this one. The idea of a mix of people was especially attractive to him, and he liked the fact that the developer was open to suggestions for the second and third phases.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Thomas Mudder, a resident at the Juel Apartments, expressed concern with the height on 500 East. He did not think there was anything higher than 3-1/2 stories in view from the end of Vernier Place. He asked why this proposed height was allowed. He asked why the elevations were rubbed off the sketches and wondered if the number of stories would change if the developer keeps the 9-foot ceilings. Mr. Dansie explained that the elevation numbers were removed because they related to the original design for a taller building and changed when the ceiling heights were changed. He explained that, if a floor is removed from the building, it will be one story shorter, but it will come out of the middle, not the top. Mr. Mudder asked about side yards and asked if the north and south borders are hardscaped into the adjacent property. Mr. Holman explained that a 12' wide driveway is planned for the north and south and the remaining eight feet will be landscaped. Mr. Mudder asked where the vehicles would enter for the complex. Mr. Holman explained that they would enter on the first level at the front of the project and on the second level 12 feet up at the back of the project and exit out the other side. Mr. Mudder commented on how difficult it was to live with the Trax construction and his concern that they will continue to see the same problems of dust, noise, and heavy equipment with all phases of this project. He noted that if parking exits onto 600 East, the cars can only turn right, and he wondered if that was looked at through a traffic study.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir commented that this is a significant neighborhood, and he wished they had better tools to model where this heads in terms of light and easement rather than responding strictly to height and density restrictions. He preferred to give some directive of license to the Staff as to what degree they can bend the rules in a planned development to address those issues. They could give an incentive to the developer from the beginning so the developer would have an opportunity to investigate the issues and create informal work sessions before this body to explore the sentiments of the Commission. Mr. Wilde replied that in many zones the City has the conditional use mechanism for additional height, but not in this zone. If the Staff knows of particular concerns, they can pay more attention to that in their initial plan review. Mr. Wilde accepted Mr. Muir’s directive.
Mr. Diamond commented on the design elements of the building. Mr. Muir agreed with Mr. Diamond and felt it was within the Planning Commission’s purview to attach design conditions to the approval.
Ms. Arnold stated that it does not speak well for anyone to have to spend two years putting together a project. She felt the City should do something to improve and speed up the process, because smaller development groups cannot afford to do this.
Ms. Barrows disagreed and felt it was better to take the time to work through a project. She noted that this is a large development, and the developer has come up against many issues.
Ms. Funk felt that, if they wanted a change, the process should have been in place before it came to the Planning Commission. The developer has spent the time to bring it to the Planning Commission, and she believed it met most of the criteria. The fact that the developer is willing to accept one of three options in the event Phase 2 does not come through makes the project acceptable. She was troubled by the fact that the Planning Commission could not see the entire project in all phases.
Motion for Petition 410-584
Arla Funk moved that Petition 410-584 be approved on the basis of the findings of fact in the staff report with the recommendations, including the agreement with the developer to one of three options for finalization of the second phase. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Prescott Muir suggested an amendment to the motion giving the Planning Director authority to work with the applicant to explore ways to create better connectivity to the street within grid 2 to the west. He believed it was important for the building cores to have direct connection to the higher plaza.
Ms. Funk accepted the amendment to her motion. Ms. Arnold accepted the amendment in her second.
Findings of Fact
A. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve planned developments with multiple buildings.
B. The project meets all of the zoning requirements for the RMU zoning district except the rear yard setback and the height. Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the rear yard setback requirement to 20 feet through the planned development process in accordance with Section 21A.54.150.C. The proposal is consistent with the East Downtown Master Plan, which calls for medium to high-density housing.
C. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has determined that access is adequate.
D. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has determined that internal circulation is adequate. The first phase will exceed the number of required off-street parking stalls.
E. Public Utilities are adequate.
F. Adjacent land uses do not require buffering from the proposed apartment complex. Buffering of the apartments from adjacent land uses is adequate.
G. The architecture is different, but compatible with historic high-density housing in the neighborhood. The Historic Landmark Commission has approved the design of the structure.
H. Landscaping may be adequate but may need further review upon final development of the site plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission delegate final approval of the landscaping plan to the Planning Director.
I. The Historic Landmark Commission found an economic hardship would occur if the applicant were required to renovate most of the structures on the block and therefore will allow for the demolitions. The fate of the Juel apartments has not been determined.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed planned development furthers the goals of the master plan and will impact the neighborhood consistent with the master plan and historic district design policies.
L. A Board of Adjustment variance is required to rectify outstanding height issues or the building must be lowered by several feet. The Staff recommends the Planning Commission reduce the rear yard requirement from 30 feet to 20 feet and that the underground parking be allowed to cross property lines, consistent with the planned development process. All other code requirements will be met.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Nelson were not present for the vote. Robert”Bip” Daniels as chair, did not vote.
Mr. Wilde clarified that the three provisions of the development agreement will be specified in the order of priority. They will expect the developer to accomplish a property line shift and a rezoning with a 30-foot restrictive covenant as a fall back if they do not accomplish the first.
OTHER BUSINESS
Continued discussion of Petition No. 410-586, by Total Property Asset Management, requesting a planned development subdivision approval to create a pad lot at 464 South 600 East as part of the Family Center (Fred Meyer Planned Development. This is a request to modify the previous planned development (Petition No. 410-135) to incorporate the McHenry home site and develop an 11, 730 square foot pad site as part of the original planned development for the Family Center. This planned development requests modification of zoning ordinance standards consistent with the approval of the original Fred Meyer development. Ordinance modifications are reduction of the front yard landscaping and setback requirements, front yard parking, and a change of grade in excess of two feet at the property line. This property is in a Commercial “CS” Zoning District and in the Central Community Historic Overlay District.
Ms. McDonough returned to the meeting.
Planner Everett Joyce reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this petition May 2 and directed the petitioner to look at relocating the pad site to the corner. The petitioner has responded, and his response is included in the staff report. After further review, the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission keep the original approval and leave the site where it is. The layout of the original lot shows a developable lot, and the petitioner is squaring it out. Due to traffic impacts that would be created by the loading dock if the pad were moved to the corner, the Staff recommended that the pad be kept open and more accessible in its existing location.
Mr. Muir noted that the findings of fact all came from the Transportation Department, and he did not see evidence of any voice from the Planning Staff regarding appropriate land use. Mr. Joyce replied that the crime prevention comments are from Staff. Mr. Muir felt that crime prevention was a police matter. Mr. Joyce commented that a 10-acre site was developed as a grocery store and shopping center for the community, and certain standards were applied to the entire site with design connections built in to finish it off at a future time. The original staff report recognizes that the land uses as presented and developed need to be addressed and maintained. The Staff believed the building pad was appropriate in its current location. Mr. Muir stated that he was surprised that the Staff did not have some ambivalence, because that was not where they wanted to take this neighborhood. Mr. Wilde agreed that it would be better to have the anchor off the corner, but the staff report and supplemental information reflect the fact that the petitioner has an agreement with Fred Meyer which makes moving the pad difficult to accomplish at this point. Mr. Muir remarked that, if a developer of another piece of property looked at this, they would see that the findings of fact were justified by conditions of precedent and not conditions of master plan.
Ms. Funk referred to page 9 of the staff report and noted that many of the recommendations from the last hearing were from the Planning Commission. She believed those recommendations should be included in a motion to approve or deny. Mr. Muir felt it was important for other developers to see that there was great reservation on the part of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Barrows stated that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to deny the petition based on their concerns, recognizing that the developer can still build it because the lot is already legal.
Ms. McDonough stated that she shared Mr. Muir’s point of view, although she felt the Planning Commission was powerless because of the technicalities of prior agreements. All of those facts have nothing to do with good land use or what the Planning Commission envisions. She felt that the Planning Commission should have a mechanism to keep this from being grandfathered as a precedent. She was disappointed that more creative solutions were not examined. Mr. Wilde clarified that the principal building on the lot is still subject to the conditional use process, and the Planning Commission will have the choice to approve or deny. The petitioner would still have the ability to do something on the lot, but because they want to add a piece, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to shift it. Ms. McDonough asked if they could add motivation for the petitioner to move or expand the parcel. Mr. Joyce noted that the developer stated at the last meeting that he would prefer a corner lot but had to work with the long-term lease set from the original 10-acre development. Mr. Wilde suggested that the Planning Commission keep in mind that agreements with Fred Meyer may be an obstacle they cannot move.
After further discussion, Mr Wilde stated that the City has come a long way in moving toward walkable communities. There is considerable latitude through the conditional use process to make findings of compatibility with the surrounding area. He felt they could move in that direction, but at this point, their most reliable tool is the conditions outlined in the Staff report to approve this planned development.
Ms. Barrows felt the community vision had changed since the development was designed, but that does not change the fact that their hands are tied because of prior agreements.
Mr. Wilde explained that they are on the verge of having a walkable communities ordinance. He noted that the CS zone is not part of the walkable community ordinance.
Motion for Petition 410-586
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 410-586 based on the staff report and the findings of fact from today’s staff report and the findings of fact from the May 2nd staff report. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
1. The existing development design and commitments were made to the shopping center based on previous City approvals.
2. The property owner has limitations to his ability to extensively modify the pad site location because of agreements with Fred Meyer.
3. The proposed pad site incorporates an existing lot that is non-complying to lot area, but however, is a buildable lot.
4. Moving the pad site would negatively impact the Fred Meyer loading dock maneuvering.
5. Moving the pad site may increase undesirable activities by negatively impacting accessibility and visibility of the loading dock area.
Ms. Funk and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Nay.” Mr. Chambless and Mr. Diamond abstained. Mr. Jonas and Mr. Nelson were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Mr. Muir amended Ms Funk’s motion to decrease the pavement on the corner to only what is required to accommodate maneuvering of a truck and to convert the remainder to landscaping and to impose a restriction that the building needs to be moved within a reasonable setback of the street to respond to the street pedestrian edge as determined at the discretion of the Planning Director and still accommodate the required additional parking behind the building. Mr Chambless recommended that the landscaping be drought resistant. Mr. Muir agreed that drought-resistant landscaping was appropriate and included it in his motion. Ms. Funk seconded the motion with the amendment as stated by Mr. Muir.
Ms. Barrows questioned the setback. Mr. Joyce explained that if the motion is to pull the building up, there needs to be a finding that the building can be in the 15-foot setback. Mr. Muir verified that the amendment is for a 15-foot landscaped setback, and the pad would no longer be a drive-through pad. Mr. Wilde asked if Mr. Muir was suggesting that the connective driveway be eliminated. Mr. Muir replied that he would like to eliminate the driveway between the lower grade and the higher grade.
Based on the clarification, Ms. Funk withdrew her second.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir asked if any part of the motion would be impossible to accomplish due to legal agreements. Doug Holmberg, representing the petitioner, explained that the lease with Fred Meyer will carry for 60 more years if Fred Meyer exercises its options. He can do nothing on any piece of ground owned by Fred Meyer subject to the lease. The cross easement agreement is already in place as currently located, and Fred Meyer will not change it and does not have to. He noted that all these agreements were entered into with City approval, which makes this frustrating.
Mr. Wilde asked Mr. Holmberg to address the legal obligation with Fred Meyer to continue the circular drive north from the dock. Mr. Holmberg stated that the drive was spelled out as part of the agreement with Fred Meyer when the parcel was developed, and he did not believe it was negotiable.
Ms. Barrows stated that she felt strongly about following what she believed was an appropriate land use for the community at this time. She liked the idea of trying to work out something that would meet the community needs. Mr. Muir agreed, but knowing the mind set of Fred Meyer, if they impose something that forces the adjustment of the deed restrictions, the parcel would never be developed. Ms Barrows felt they had the option of going back to the original premise of developing the pad on its own and coming to the Planning Commission for a conditional use.
Ms. Arnold suggested that they make verification of the recorded deeds a part of the motion. Mr. Wilde noted that Lynn Pace was unable to attend the meeting, and to be certain that the Staff is providing reliable information, a review of the documents by the City Attorney would be required to determine what the Planning Commission can and cannot do. He offered to pursue that course if the Planning Commission directed.
Ms. Noda agreed with that suggestion. She believed Mr. Muir had made a good point if the lease agreement does not preclude them, but she was not willing to go that far without a review by the City Attorney.
Ms. Barrows noted that a motion has been made and seconded, and action on the motion is required. She clarified that the motion is to move the building forward, narrow the driveway, and require more landscaping.
Ms. Barrows, Ms. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda voted “Nay.” Mr. Jonas and Mr. Nelson were not present for the vote. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Wilde clarified that this motion cannot go forward unless the City Attorney advises otherwise.
Mr. Muir stated that he did not want this vote to be misconstrued as a vote against development. With the findings from the Legal Department, either the motion moves forward or the Planning Commission will entertain revisiting this petition with subsequent new information from the Legal Department.
Ms. Funk commented on how the Planning Commission sometimes handles situations and makes people angry at this body. She felt they had angered Mr. Holmberg by voting on a motion when they were not sure if it was possible. She suggested that the Planning Commission be more careful in how they treat people, because the perception of the Planning Commission is affected by their attitudes.
Ms. Noda agreed. She noted that Mr. Holmberg made an effort to inform the Planning Commission about the restrictions at the last meeting, and they should have had an analysis by the City Attorney before moving forward. That was why she voted against the motion. She believed the Planning Commission needed to provide the applicant with clarification of their reasoning. She recommended that the Planning Commission make adequate findings of fact when they do not support the petition and lay out why they do not agree with the Staff’s findings.
Ms. Barrows felt the Staff should help the Planning Commission with findings for not supporting a petition. After further discussion, Chair Daniels requested that the Staff provide recommendations in the staff report for alternate motions to approve or deny.
Performance zoning, staff briefing
Melissa Anderson reported that the purpose this evening is to brief the Planning Commission on a project started last year. She introduced Hoyt Cousins from Cousins Architectural and Planning and explained that they are consultants assisting the City in collaborating on a performance zoning project. Research has started on phase 1 of a preliminary draft ordinance, to be completed in July. At that time, a more thorough update will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council. An advisory committee will then work for approximately 3 months to resolve some of the issues. This will also be the topic of discussion at a conference in October. A public open house will be held in November before presenting a final draft ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Cousins presented an outline of the key points. He characterized the mission as looking at a very small scale neighborhood commercial zone and considering incentives as part of the zoning strategy for small scale commercial areas. The creation of a smaller scale commercial zone other than CN continues the work started several years ago by a member of the Planning Staff. Mr. Cousins explained that SNB means Small Neighborhood Business. He noted that the CN zone is not finely scaled for small scale commercial centers, and SNB has been identified as existing in various elements between CN and RB. He presented a zoning map and noted that the intent of the SNB zone is to fit right in the Code as a new set of standards. The second part is fine tuning zoning strategies and providing incentives and bonuses. The four small-scale commercial zones, RB, SNB, CN, and CB, would each have a performance overlay, a performance mechanism which would exist in the Code as a separate chapter. Mr. Cousins commented that “performance” is a useful word because, depending on the neighborhood situation, property owner, and volatility of the surrounding community, the incentives could be very different.
Ms. Barrows suggested that this be presented to the public as a positive aspect that can enhance the neighborhood and residential community by allowing something such as a corner market.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to direct the Staff to move forward with this performance zoning. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas and Mr. Nelson were not present for the vote. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.