SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Tim Chambless, Chairperson, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Prescott Muir, and Kathy Scott. Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Vice Chairperson, and Jennifer Seelig were excused.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Programs Supervisor, Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner, Lex Traughber, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary. Brent Wilde, Deputy Director of the Department of Community Development, was also in attendance.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:45 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 FOR WEDNESDAY, May 25, 2005
(This item was heard at 5:51 P.M.)
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the meeting. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Scott unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Seelig were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:52 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless said that he nothing to report at this time. He also noted that Vice Chairperson Noda was not able to be in attendance at this meeting.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:53 P.M.)
Mr. Wilde announced that Mr. Zunguze was delayed by a City Council matter. He said that Mr. Zunguze asked that the Planning Commission consider initiating three petitions. Mr. Wilde indicated that Ms. Coffey would explain the circumstances surrounding the petitions.
Ms. Coffey stated that that the Planning Division is in the process of streamlining procedures within the Division. She said that a Planning Staff Subcommittee was formed and the members came up with improvements that could make the processing experience more efficient. Ms. Coffey requested the Planning Commission initiate the following petitions to allow staff to start work on them:
1. The Planning Commission to consider initiating a petition to expand the types of conditional uses that could be approved administratively.
(This item was heard at 5:53 P.M.)
Ms. Coffey said that the first petition that she was asking the Planning Commission to consider initiating was to allow staff to study the possibility of allowing more conditional uses to be administratively approved. She said that from a cursory review, it seemed like non-residential related cases were less controversial and could be administratively approved. Ms. Coffey said that staff is trying to expand conditional uses to be approved administratively by an Administrative Hearing Officer. Ms. Coffey stated that currently only conditional uses for telecommunication facilities and expansion of existing conditional uses could be approved administratively.
Chairperson Chambless inquired if an official vote by the Planning Commission was needed for the record. Ms. Coffey stated that only one Commissioner is needed to request the action.
Motion:
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition charging staff with looking at expanding the types of conditional uses that could be heard and approved administratively.
2. The Planning Commission to consider initiating a petition to allow design related issues to go through a new process called, “The Conditional Building and Site Design Review”, rather than a conditional use process.
(This item was heard at 5:54 P.M.)
Ms. Coffey stated that the second petition relates to the fact that the zoning ordinance has several types of design issues that currently have to go through the conditional use process. She added that because staff has a new process called “The Conditional Building and Site Design Review”, some things like height increases that are design related and not use related would be shifted out of the conditional use process to the new process.
Motion:
Commissioner Diamond moved for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to allow design related issues to go through a new process called, “The Conditional Building and Site Design Review”, rather than a conditional use process.
3. The Planning Commission to consider initiating a petition to amend the zoning ordinance relating to notification requests.
(This item was heard at 5:55 P.M.)
Ms. Coffey stated that the third petition relates to noticing requirements. She said that conditional uses, zoning amendments, etc. have to go to the community council for input. Ms. Coffey pointed out that there is language in the zoning ordinance that requires that the input from the community council has to be in writing and that is problematic. Ms. Coffey stated that at times if an issue is citywide, Planning Staff would hold an open house, rather than making a presentation at each community council. When that happens, she added, there is no statement in writing, so technically that issue could be invalid. She said that staff wants to remove that language from the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Coffey said that the staff is required to send a notice to all owners of condominiums when a condominium building is within 450 feet of a subject property. Ms. Coffey stated that research was done on how many people attended public hearings compared to the amount of notices sent out for that public hearing, and it is less than one percent. She indicated that staff is trying to reduce the cost of noticing. Ms. Coffey said that a suggestion was made to only send one notice to the condominium association for posting in an office or another place where the owners of the condominiums would see the notice. She pointed out that due to the amount of property owners in a large condominium complex that would save a lot of postage.
Ms. Coffey stated that the Planning Office requires the petitioner to submit a mailing list of property owners that has been acquired at the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. She said that the City has a system where staff could more easily generate a mailing list so the public would not be forced to travel to another area of the City. Ms. Coffey referred to the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS). She said that the language in the zoning ordinance would have to be changed in order for the City’s GIS records to be used for notification. Ms. Coffey also stated that the State law has been changed to allow more flexibility in noticing and staff would like to review several options for public noticing.
Chairperson Chambless said that he assumed that condominium buildings would have an area for public posting. Commissioner De Lay said that was not necessarily true because she lives in a condominium building and there is no office where notices could be posted. She said that she would personally prefer to continue receiving individual mailings. However, Commissioner De Lay pointed out that staff was asking the Planning Commission to initiate a petition that would allow staff to formulate a proposal, which she said she supported.
Motion:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to study various modifications to the noticing requirements of the zoning ordinance.
It was a unanimous decision by the Planning Commission to support the initiation of these petitions. Mr. Wilde stated that when the Planning Commission moves to initiate petitions, a second is not needed.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Petition No. 410-732 – at 249 East 400 South, a request by Greg Arata, for conditional use approval to utilize 1,300 square feet of space on the lower level of the existing Stoneground building for a private club at this location. The Stoneground building is located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) Zoning District. The parking lot at the rear of the building is zoned Residential Mixed-Use (RMU) and Commercial Corridor (CC) Zoning Districts.
(This item was heard at 6:36 P.M.)
Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation. A copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Lewis described the project in the following manner:
The applicant wishes to utilize the eastern half of the lower level of the existing Stoneground building, for a private club. The Stoneground Building (249 East 400 South) is an existing two-story structure that was built in 1932. Prior to 1995, a private club previously existed in the immediate neighborhood, from approximately 1978 throughout the mid 1990’s, at 255 E. 400 South.
The access to parking, located in the rear, is from Moffat Court. There is a light rail station on 400 South within close proximity to the Stoneground Building. The parking requirement for the Stoneground building is six stalls per 1,000 square feet, which means 32 stalls are needed for the entire building. There are 33 stalls designated for the Stoneground Building. The associated parking lot parcels have split zoning, CC (Commercial Corridor) along 400 South Street with R-MU (Residential Mixed Use) to the rear.
The proposed private club would be located 178 feet from the Central Christian Church (370 So. 300 East) and 551 feet from Saints Peter and Paul Orthodox Christian Church (355 So. 300 East).
While the zoning ordinance allows private clubs in the CC zoning district, through the conditional use process, Salt Lake City Code Section 6.08.120 B states that Class B or C private clubs cannot be licensed closer than 600 feet to a place of worship unless a Liquor License Hearing is held after the Hearing Officer receives recommendations from the Planning Division and the Police Department, and that the Hearing Officer finds that such a location would not interfere with church worship or church-related activities. The Utah State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control also submitted a statement that the main branch of the library was further away than the required distances, pedestrian route being 682 feet, and a straight-line distance of 205 feet.
As always the Planning Commission must make a determination on whether or not the conditional use project meets the criteria listed in the zoning ordinance. In this case the Planning Commission’s decision will also be used as the Planning Division’s recommendation to the Hearing Officer on liquor licensing.
Ms. Lewis stated that staff recommended approval with certain conditions.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for staff.
Commissioner De Lay noted that Junior’s would be moving across the street so that would not be a big change. She asked staff why the request had to go through a conditional use process. Ms. Lewis said that a private club requires a conditional use within the CC corridor.
Since there were no additional questions for staff, Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner to address the Commission.
Mr. Greg Arata, the petitioner, said that he was the owner of Junior’s and his lease was soon to expire. He said that since his business had been in the same location for thirty years, he wanted to stay in the neighborhood. Mr. Arata said that he wanted to expand his business from a neighborhood tavern to a private club. He pointed out that in all the years he has been operating, there have been very few problems. Mr. Arata mentioned that he could verify that with the Police Department.
Chairperson Chambless asked if the Commission had any questions for the petitioner.
Commissioner Scott asked how many parking places his establishment currently had. Mr. Arata said that he had six parking places. Commissioner Scott commented that the patrons who live in the neighborhood could walk to the tavern, so fewer parking spaces were required. Mr. Arata pointed out that there is a lot of street parking in the evenings so parking has not been a problem. Commissioner Scott asked why Mr. Arata was changing from a bar to a private club. Mr. Arata said that his expenses would be increasing significantly and he believed that he needed to broaden his clientele base. He added that it has become difficult to make a living selling only beer.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the petitioner, Chairperson Chambless Chairperson Chambless asked if there was a representative from the community council. Commissioner De Lay pointed out the letter of support that was submitted at this meeting by Mr. Thomas Mutter, Chair of the Central City Community Council, to be included in the record. A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Chairperson Chambless opened the hearing to the public and invited anyone from the public who wished to address the Commission to come forward.
Mr. Michael Scott Parkin, a resident of Central City, spoke in favor of the petition. He stated that Junior’s is a place where he can enjoy himself and not be concerned about taking people there because it was always a nice, well-run place of business.
Ms. Nancy Tessman, Director of the Salt Lake City Library, spoke in favor of the petition. She said, “There are very few institutions in this part of town. The Library is one of them, City Hall is one, and Junior’s is another one.” Ms. Tessman talked about how the new Library has helped generate increased businesses in the area, more commerce, and more living downtown. She said that Junior’s is an added benefit to in this area of town. Ms. Tessman noted that those who work or live downtown want to see more businesses that would serve the multi-dimensional needs to the people. She believed that Junior’s is an asset to the neighborhood. Ms. Tessman stated that the growth around the Library is evident.
Mr. Joe Cannella, the owner of Canella’s Restaurant, spoke in favor of the petition. He indicated that Mr. Arata had been his neighbor for the 27 years he has been in business in the current location. He also verified that Junior’s has been a clean, well-run place. Mr. Cannella said that he was going to use the space to expand his business and was glad that Mr. Arata was able to find another location in the neighborhood.
Mr. Phil Miller, neighborhood resident, spoke in favor of the petition. He pointed out that some people might have a problem with a business like Junior’s, and those people would do well to consider the proprietor and his history. Mr. Miller talked about Mr. Arata’s family, who he knew. He said that Junior’s has a well-established track record that should be taken into consideration. Mr. Miller stated that Salt Lake City gained a reputation for being an open and friendly place during the Olympics and Junior’s is known as a friendly place in the neighborhood where people can gather and enjoy themselves.
Dr. Jeff Harris, who has an office in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the petition. He stated that he has been a patron of Junior’s for a number of years and a friend to the owner. Dr. Harris said that he was sorry that Salt Lake City was losing many of the taverns to private clubs but he understood the economic pressure that was forcing owners to make that change. He expressed concern that good public transportation was not accessible in the areas zoned for bars and private clubs, which added to the problem of drinking and driving. Dr. Harris stated that he would be happy to continue to support Junior’s in its new location.
Ms. Marsha Merrill, who is the general manager of Stoneground, spoke in favor of the petition. She said that it was a privilege that Mr. Arata had even thought about going into the space at Stoneground. Ms. Merrill said, “Like Junior’s, Stoneground has built a restaurant that has provided a place where the majority of the local clientele attend.” She noted that Junior’s represent the same things that Stoneground is trying to establish and hopefully in 30 years, people would support Stoneground the same way as Junior’s and its owner has been supported in this meeting.
Chairperson Chambless inquired if Ms. Lewis wanted to say anything in conclusion. Ms. Lewis said that she had nothing to add. Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-732:
In regards to Petition No. 410-732, based on staff’s findings of fact and public testimony heard at this meeting, Commissioner De Lay moved to approve the conditional use request with a positive recommendation for action by the Hearing Officer of Business Licensing with the three conditions listed on Page 10 of the staff report:
1. The applicant is required to obtain the appropriate liquor license for a private club based on Salt Lake City Code Section 6.08.120 B;
2. The eight (8) parking stalls required for the proposed private club use be designated by signage within the CC (Commercial Corridor) Zoning District, to avoid issues of incompatibility within the R-MU Zoning District for off-site parking; and
3. All parking stalls must be fully marked and designated in order to maintain a minimum twenty-foot unobstructed circulation easement as required for all abutting properties.
Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Scott unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Seelig were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
b. Petition No. 490-05-19, at approximately 747 South 200 West, by the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation, requesting minor residential subdivision approval of a three-lot subdivision which would reconfigure several existing parcels in Block 14 into three new parcels at the above location. This case is an appeal of an Administrative approval, which was made at the Administrative Hearing held on Thursday, April 28, 2005.
(This item was heard at 6:20 P.M.)
It was announced that Planner Jackie Gasparik was ill, so Mr. Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Programs Supervisor, was filling in for her. Mr. LoPiccolo presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation. A copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. LoPiccolo described the project in the following manner:
The Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation requested a minor subdivision approval to redefine several parcels into three new lots, for the redevelopment Lots 1 and 2 into a new mixed-use commercial/housing project. The property is located in the D-2 “The Downtown Support District” Zoning District. The applicant proposes to construct twenty-six (26), two- and three-bedroom condominiums and five (5), two-bedroom live/work town homes. The proposed development is a permitted use within the D-2 district.
The Planning Commission is reviewing this request because a near-by property owner appealed the minor subdivision that was approved by the City’s Hearing Officer on April 28, 2005. The appellant’s letter is attached to the staff report.
This minor subdivision has been reviewed by the pertinent City agencies and there have been no outstanding issues generated by this petition.
The Planning Staff requested that the Commission grant preliminary approval for the requested minor subdivision for this petition subject to conditions of approval as found in the staff report.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioners to come forward and address the Commission.
Ms. Claudia O’Grady, Executive Director of the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation, Mr. Justin Belliveau with the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation, and Mr. Soren Simonsen, with Cooper Roberts and Simonson, Architecture, were in attendance.
Ms. O'Grady stated that the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation purchased land along that 200 West corridor on 700 South. She said that the Corporation owns the parcel indicated as Number One and the majority of the parcel that is indicated as Number Two. Ms. O'Grady added that the Corporation had executed the sales contract to purchase the interior land that connects those two parcels, pending the approval of the minor subdivision.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the memorandum from Public Utilities, which accompanied the staff report, indicated that it appeared that the development would be on a seven-acre parcel. He said that parcel Number Three is not part of the Angelina’s Corner development. Mr. Simonsen noted that the petitioner was well aware of the conditions of approval and is intending to fully comply with them.
Mr. Belliveau said that he had nothing to add because the project had been adequately described.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for the petitioners.
Commissioner De Lay asked the petitioner to explain the letter of appeal. Ms. O'Grady said that the minor subdivision was approved administratively and during the protest period a business owner along the 200 West block of 700 South sent a letter of appeal to the Planning Division. She said that she approached the appellant and explained what kind of project the Corporation was trying to accomplish. Ms. O'Grady said that the appellant believed that since his business in the past had been unduly burdened by having concentrations of people around. Commissioner De Lay said that according to the letter his thoughts were more that low and subsidized housing would make the neighborhood undesirable. She asked if the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation was subsidized housing or low-end housing that would attract the kind of transient people as described in his letter. Ms. O'Grady responded by saying that the appellant’s accusations were inaccurate because the proposed development would not include subsidized or low-end housing. She explained that six units would be set-aside for families with moderate income, but the rest of the units would be sold as condominiums at market prices.
Ms. O'Grady indicated that the development had the support of the Peoples’ Freeway Community Council agreeing that housing density would be welcomed in the neighborhood, especially with the addition of the new Trax Platform along 200 West. She said that the increased density of housing and the additional retail opportunities would be a benefit and an enhancement to the neighborhood.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the petitioners, Chairperson Chambless opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone was attending who represented the community council. Seeing no one, he invited anyone from the public who wished to address the Commission to come forward.
Commissioner De Lay said that she would be curious to see if anyone was present who represented the appellant, Leadville Limited. Since no one, Chairperson Chambless stated that we would entertain a motion or further discussion.
First motion for Petition No. 490-05-19:
In the matter of Petition No. 490-05-19, Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval for the requested minor subdivision to redefine several parcels into three new lots, for the redevelopment of lots 1 and 2 into a new mixed use commercial/housing project, based on the following conditions of approval. Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
After a brief discussion, Commissioner De Lay amended her motion.
Final amended motion for Petition No. 490-05-19:
In the matter of Petition No. 490-05-19, Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval for the requested minor subdivision to redefine several parcels into three new lots, for the redevelopment of lots 1 and 2 into a new mixed use commercial/housing project, based on the following conditions of approval listed on Page 6 of the staff report:
1. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with City departmental comments, as outlined in the staff report; and
2. Any future redevelopment activity associated with the properties will require that all inadequate or absent public improvements be installed in accordance with the City department comments noted in this staff report. Additionally, any future redevelopment will be subject to the requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance.
Commissioner Galli’s second still stood. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Scott unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Seelig were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
ISSUES ONLY HEARING
Petition Numbers 400-01-32 and 400-02-08, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the text of the Sugar House Business District (C-SHBD) Zoning District and the corresponding Sugar House Community Zoning Map, as well as the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001), and corresponding Sugar House Future Land Use Map. In addition, several rezones are proposed for specific properties located adjacent to the area currently zoned Sugar House Business District (C-SHBD). The area affected by these amendments is roughly along 2100 South from 900 to 1300 East, and along 1100 East/Highland Drive from Hollywood Avenue to I-80, including the Granite Furniture block, the Sugar House Commons, and the Sugar House Center.
(This item was heard at 6:31 P.M.)
Planner Lex Traughber presented the staff report pointing out the concerns expressed by the City Council, the Planning Staff responses, the proposed amendments to the master plan and the zoning ordinance, and the criteria by which the Planning Staff reviews projects of this nature. A copy of which was filed with the minutes. He used a briefing board to further describe the project.
The following is a synopsis of the staff report:
Petition No. 400-01-32 was initiated to implement policies of the Sugar House Community Master Plan, which was updated in 2001. This was accomplished by amendments to the zoning map and text. The purpose of the petition was to create a consistency between the adopted master plan and the zoning ordinance specifically in terms of building heights in the business district.
Petition No. 400-02-08 was generated in order to address several rezones of properties located adjacent to the area zoned Sugar House Business District. These two petitions are being entertained simultaneously because the business district is impacting those properties.
In June 20, 2002, the Planning Commission passed a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding these two petitions. At that time, the proposal was significantly different than what the Planning Commission is reviewing at this meeting. The City Council heard these petitions in a briefing in February of 2003 and raised six particular issues that they asked staff to review, return, and report, which are:
1. The proposed changes were too complex and overwhelming. Previously, five new zoning districts had been proposed by Planning Staff to specify height limits in the Sugar House Business District, in addition to several rezones of parcels adjacent to this District. Staff proposes that the CSHBD zone be split into two different zones instead of five: C-SHBD1 and C-SHBD2.
2. The City Council also expressed concerns regarding the policy of the potential elimination of the potential regional shopping center component in the Sugar House business area, specifically, the Sugar House Center (Shopko) area. The City Council also had concerns about the implication to tax revenue. Staff proposes language to be inserted into the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001), which allows for the redevelopment of this area as a regional shopping center.
3. The City Council had concerns for the proposed height limit for the Irving School House property. The Sugar House Community Council and the City Council supported a 50-foot height limit. Planning Staff recommended a 75-foot height limit. Having just been developed, the possibility of this property redeveloping again in the near future is unlikely. Planning Staff has included this property in the proposed C-SHBD1 zone, which has a 50-foot height limit by right, to account for the actual height of the existing building which is 44.5 feet. At the same, this particular zone would allow the building to remain complying.
4. The next concern was whether the northeast corner of 1000 East and Elm Avenue, which includes three low-density residential structures, should be zoned residential or mixed use. The Planning Commission recommended mixed use while the Community Council and the City Council recommended residential. It appears that the Community Council and the City Council have a desire to see this area remain residentially zoned. Planning Staff concurs with this desire and proposed to leave this corner zoned and master planned as residential. Planning Staff contends that these properties are zoned and master planned appropriately given the low-density residential development on the south side of Elm Avenue. Further, Planning Staff contends that these properties provide a transition zone between those properties zoned C-SHBD and the adjacent low density, residentially zoned and used properties. It should be noted that if this property is proposed for redevelopment in the future to a zone other than residential, a rezone and master plan amendment would be required.
5. The City Council had concerns that the possibility of additional incentives to stimulate new residential development in the Sugar House Business District. Staff responded with that the RDA assistance could stimulate new residential development in the Sugar House Business District. In addition, a building height incentive is proposed to encourage residential development in the Sugar House Business District.
6. The City Council expressed concern that proposed zones would render certain structures non-complying. Planning Staff notes that the two office buildings directly to the east of the Sugar House Commons and Hidden Hollow would be made non-complying due to the proposed rezone. Both of these buildings are approximately 90 feet in height and used exclusively for non-residential purposes. The Lincoln Tower property is also proposed to be rezoned to RMF-45 which would continue the non-complying status of this particular building. It is important to note that under the regulations of the newly adopted “Non-Complying” ordinance, these buildings would be allowed to be rebuilt in the event that they are damaged in a natural disaster.
Mr. Traughber stated that there has been much communication with the community hearing many differing opinions. He talked about the numerous presentations before organizations in Sugar House, as well as the Community Council. He noted letters, which accompanied, the staff report from some of those organizations stating their positions and opinions regarding staff’s proposal. Mr. Traughber said that Planning Staff is considering amendments to the master plan and the zoning ordinance, which are currently conflicting. He said that the intention is to bring those two documents into harmony so that they work together.
Mr. Traughber explained in detail the several recommended amendments for the master plan and the zoning ordinance, which were outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Traughber noted that the current zoning ordinance for the Sugar House Business District is no longer sustainable for several reasons. He said that the current building height limits outlined in the zoning ordinance allow buildings to potentially compete with buildings located in downtown Salt Lake City. He added that it is not the goal to create a separate district that would compete with downtown.
Mr. Traughber also stated that the height limit of ten stories or a building 150 feet high is currently in the zoning ordinance and is allowed for the Granite Furniture block. He indicated that a building that high would be out-of-scale and character with the Sugar House Business District.
Mr. Traughber said that the zoning ordinance does not include development standards in the business district that promote a mix of uses or encourage appropriate design. He pointed out that the design standard language in the master plan is more restrictive than the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Traughber stated that the Utah Code Annotated identifies the procedures for adopting and amending general plans. He added that the Code identifies an adoption process that mandates a fourteen-day notification requirement including a notice in a newspaper of general circulation.
Mr. Traughber said that he knew his presentation was long, but believed it was important that the Planning Commission, as well as the people in the audience, understood what the Planning Staff was proposing.
Mr. Traughber concluded by saying that the Planning Staff was seeking the Planning Commission’s input on the proposed amendments so that suggestions could be considered and revised, if necessary, before the item was scheduled again with the Planning Commission for a formal decision/recommendation to the City Council.
Chairperson Chambless pointed out that the petition number on the agenda did not match the petition number on the staff report. Mr. Traughber verified that the petition number on the staff report (400-01-32) was correct. Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff.
It was noted that Mr. Zunguze had arrived at the meeting.
Commissioner Muir had several comments to make and referred to the strike and bold section of the proposed zoning amendments numbered (E)(2). He said that if someone wanted to build a new building that was less than 20,000 square feet and/or under 30 feet in height, assuming that the original building would be demolished, why would anyone care if the new building was compatible to the original building; the original building would be gone. Mr. Traughber said that he believed the purpose of that statement related to maintaining the historic character. Commissioner Muir said that the language should specifically say what the intent was. Commissioner Muir also referred to the section where the language says “compatible to the original building”, he thought it would make more sense if it would say “character compatible to the original building”.
Commissioner Muir also referred to another section that seemed to be a little problematic and invited staff to revisit those items. He said that he was uncomfortable with the language in Item b) “In the case of an addition, the addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance.” He said that he was uncomfortable with that language and believed that staff should find another way of wording the statement. He said that it implies devious behavior on the part of the public and should not be in a zoning ordinance. Mr. Traughber stated that he believed that language was adopted as part of the Walkable Community Ordinance. Commissioner Muir stated that staff should revisit those sections.
Commissioner Muir expressed concerns about the sections referring to maximum height and the transfer development discussion and wondered why the criteria were exclusive to a planned development process and not in the general zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Muir mentioned that the word “off-site” could apply to someplace else within the city limits. He suggested changing the language to say, “within the same zone”. Commissioner Muir said that he knew what the intention was but pointed out that the language should be specific to the intent.
Commissioner Muir questioned the intent of the step back of buildings referred to as the “wedding cake” effect. He inquired if all sides of the building have to be stepped back or just the street frontage side. Commissioner Muir said that would be very costly to construct.
There were other sections that Commissioner Muir questioned. Mr. Wilde said that the flow of information seemed fairly logical at the time the amendments were written. However, he said that staff would go back and look at the sections in question. Mr. Wilde added that there might be a different way to format those sections.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for staff at this time, Chairperson Chambless opened the issues only hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. He invited the representative from the Sugar House Community Council to speak first.
Ms. Helen Peters stated that she was the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Chair. She referred to the letter that accompanied the staff report, which stated the Community Council’s position on the recommendations from the Planning Staff. However, she said, there has been an additional issue that relates to the parcel of property on Wilmington Avenue slated for Ballet West. Ms. Peters expressed concern that if Ballet West does not build on that property, under the proposed zoning, a ten-story building could be constructed so close to critical land being the Hidden Hollow Nature Park. Ms. Peters recommended that the parcel be treated differently than the surrounding Sugar House Business District and be limited to a building 30 feet in height.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about the potential building height on the property under discussion. She inquired about the future of Ballet West’s project. Ms. Peters said that she did not know but had heard that Ballet West was also negotiating on another parcel of land downtown. After Commissioner De Lay asked what Ms. Peters thought about the proposed amendments, Ms. Peters said that overall the Sugar House Community Council was in agreement, although there were still some differences of opinions. Ms. Peters said that she believed the potential for the Granite block was great and she would rather see that block become more human scale, have a gathering place, and smaller buildings oriented onto the plaza or interior streets. She added that there should be an adequate buffer at the sidewalk level for pedestrians. The discussion turned to other organizations and associations representing the Sugar House area such as the Merchant’s Association and the Stakeholders Committee. Some members of the Commission had questions regarding the other groups. Mr. Zunguze mentioned that members of the Stakeholders Committee were in attendance and suggested that Chairperson Chambless recognize that group and engage them into the discussion before the rest of the public speaks.
Chairperson Chambless honored that request from Mr. Zunguze by asking who wished to speak in behalf of the Stakeholders group. Ms. Nancy Stark volunteered to be the spokesperson for the Stakeholders group, and explained that she needed to set up her power point presentation.
At the request of the Commission, Chairperson Chambless called for a three-minute break at 7:30 P.M. He reconvened the meeting at 7:33 P.M.
Chairperson Chambless asked Ms. Stark to give a short description of the Stakeholders Committtee and the relationship the Stakeholders have with the Community Council.
Ms. Nancy Stark stated that the Sugar House Stakeholders Committee is an organization of individuals who 1) own many of the businesses that community leaders and special interest groups wish to preserve in the Sugar House Business District; 2) own much of the land in the Sugar House Business District that is the subject of the proposed master plan and zoning amendments; and 3) own buildings that house other locally owned and operated businesses that community leaders and special interest groups wish to preserve. She said as a collective group they possess many years experience in real estate development, real estate analysis, site planning, and entitlement issues.
Ms. Stark had prepared a power point presentation, which she offered at this time. A copy of the written material was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She indicated that the Stakeholders are present at this meeting to comment on Planning Staff’s report to the Planning Commission and recommended amendments to the Sugar House Business District Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Stark said that there were important issues that remain to be addressed. She presented the major areas of amendments warranting modification or improved definition, such as the following: 1) density and height incentives; 2) utilization of the actual amount of land remaining for redevelopment. Division of zones at McClelland Street, and the single-family parcel at 1000 East and Elm Avenue; 3) aspects of the recommended amendments dealing with the introduction of residential use in the historic business district; 4) design detail; and 5) the role of the Granite Furniture block.
Ms. Stark stated that the Granite Furniture block could act as a catalyst for the area and should be allowed to do so. She mentioned that sufficient area exists to generate the density and mix of uses to create critical mass. Ms. Stark indicated that the higher density configuration should be able to economically support underground parking, urban pathways, a more favorable rent structure for local tenants, and other master plan goals. She noted that successful development will spur activity on surrounding parcels and that the block is strategically linked to Trax rail line.
Ms. Stark said that among the Stakeholders Committee requests is the opportunity to work with the Planning Staff, Planning Commission representatives, and other parties of interest on specifically defined elements of the master plan and zoning ordinance so that plan goals my be translated into an acceptable form of development.
Commissioner De Lay commented that the Granite Furniture block is one of the largest pieces of potential development in Sugar House, and people are terrified that the block could turn into a massive big box store.
Ms. Stark talked about the amendments having more flexibility to allow proposals to be submitted and evaluated, individually. She did not believe that the criteria the Planning Staff has outlined would meet the needs for every building every time. Commissioner De Lay encouraged suggestions and recommendations for the proposed amendments.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the Stakeholders Committee had concerns about the residential spot zoning. Ms. Stark said that the residential buffer on Elm Avenue would be an odd place for a buffer.
Commissioner Muir complimented Ms. Stark for mobilizing the group and stated that the business community often seems to be left out of the loop. He inquired if the proposed reduced scale of the buildings was a concern to the Stakeholders. Ms. Stark said that the Stakeholders’ concern was not the reduced scale but the contingencies and the provisions that are linked and tied to getting the scale of the buildings. There was discussion about the residential equation that would not be imposed but considered an incentive to gain more height.
Mr. Craig Mecham spoke in opposition of the proposed amendments. He stated that he owned half of the Granite Furniture block and the two of the office buildings on 1300 East. He said that he is being hurt the most by these amendments because a proposed building would be going from a ten-story building to a three-story building and that would be reducing the value for that ground. Mr. Mecham indicated that the residential component was very confusing. He said that it was difficult to mix residential and office together. Mr. Mecham let it be known that he believed that a ten-story building on the Granite block would probably be too high but it should be allowed in the zoning ordinance to be competitive in today’s market.
Mr. David Johnson spoke in opposition of the proposed amendments. He said that the Planning Staff had not listened to the Stakeholders throughout this process and the Stakeholders are the people who own the property in Sugar House. Mr. Johnson said that the proposals discussed by the Stakeholders in the meetings with staff are not reflected in the proposed amendments so they feel like they have not had a voice in the process. He said that the proposed amendments were so complex that he did not believe that staff was responding to the requests of City Council. He pointed out that he owned one of the residences on Elm Avenue and had asked staff to rezone that commercial, rather than residential spot zoning. Mr. Johnson stated that the City Council asked Planning Staff to narrow the zoning down and with Staff’s proposal; they would be creating a special zone in the middle of a commercial block so they are not living the City Council mandate. Mr. Johnson said, “What the Planning Commission was presented at this meeting did not represent a working relationship between staff and the Stakeholders.”
Mr. Zunguze stated that he took exception to the fact that the Planning Staff was conceived to be a staff that did not listen to the concerns of the Stakeholders. He pointed out that there is a difference between not listening and agreeing and there is a clear disagreement as to how to proceed. Mr. Zunguze said that the staff has had numerous discussions with the Stakeholders. He thought Mr. Johnson’s comment was an unfair statement given all that had been done by staff. Mr. Zunguze said that the staff welcomes disagreements but encouraged discussing these disagreements in a manner that would not destroy the goodwill that has been created during this process.
Mr. Mark Peterson spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning amendments. He stated that he was a small property owner on 2100 South and when he bought the property in which his Art Center is located, he intended to build a second story on the building, the only direction in which his business could expand. His business is located at about 1000 East and 2100 South, which is in the business district but for some reason was recommended not to be part of the town center scale. Mr. Peterson said that with the proposed zoning amendments he would not be allowed to build a second story. He also thought that it was not logical to drop the building height at McClelland Street, especially when there is a high-rise apartment complex less than a block down the street. Mr. Peterson said that the proposed zoning regulations would create an undue hardship on the business owners.
Mr. Soren Simonsen, who was representing himself, spoke both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed amendments. He said that he had been involved with this process as a professional consultant, as well as a resident of the area for many years. Mr. Simonsen said that one of the frustrations of this process is that the master plan seems to be changing to meet the zoning ordinance. He said that years of work went into creating the master plan and the master plan was to put into place those policy documents that would support what the vision for the Sugar House area is which is a mixed use, residential oriented, business district to support thousands of residents who live in this area. He recognized the work and the balancing that the Planning Staff has had to go through to try to represent both residents and the business interests or the area. He made the following recommendations: 1) The master plan limit of 80 foot in building height should be maintained through this process. 2) There should also be some minimum height limitations, perhaps two stories or some other designation because what should be created is a vibrant mixed-use district. 3) There should be some minimum lot coverage requirements to prevent large parking areas and especially trying to designate areas for public gathering space, where intensive developments are being proposed. That could be in the form of rooftop gardens and terraces, as well. Additional consideration should be given to Hidden Hollow and the Sugar House monument area for the consideration of light and air and visual access into those very significant public spaces. 4) Maintain the incentive to create a mixed-use business district. 5) The language should be kept in the master plan to phase out single use low-density retail developments over time, including the Shopko Shopping Center area. The lifecycle of those kinds of developments are generally 20 to 30 years. When Commissioner De Lay asked about the height limit, Mr. Simonsen responded by saying that an 80-foot height limit with incentives for residential. He said that he has spent years of studying and working as a professional in urban design and architecture and have traveled throughout the United States and other countries. He said that buildings over three or four stories in height are very seldom seen in residentially oriented business districts. Mr. Simonsen added that six stories would be a stretch but could live with that as a community.
Commissioner Galli said that he respected Mr. Simonsen’s credentials, but the Redman Building is more than four stories. Mr. Simonsen said that is a project that was already in the works and would not be affected by the proposed amendments. He said that there are creative ways one could address the building height issue. Mr. Simonsen referred to Gateway. A discussion took place between Commissioner Galli and Mr. Simonsen regarding several aspects of the proposed the zoning amendments, mostly focusing on building heights and the residential incentives.
Commissioner Galli expressed the fact that he was confused because the discussion has been conceptually oriented. He asked what the major concern was with a height limit of 105 feet on the Granite block. Mr. Simonsen said that part of the major concern would be the access to light and air on the street level that is created by these canyons of development. He added that all the activities occur at the street level.
Commissioner Scott inquired about how many stories a building would have to be built to justify underground parking. Mr. Simonsen said that he was not a financial expert but having worked on many projects over the years, usually three or four stories is about the lowest limit to begin to justifying the cost of structured parking.
Mr. Russ Callister spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments. He said that he was employed by one of the Stakeholders and also serves on the Sugar House Community Council. Mr. Callister asked if there would be additional space allowed for mechanical equipment for heating and cooling systems above the 100-foot height limit. Mr. Wilde said that there is a limited opportunity for mechanical above. He said that a five-foot parapet would be allowed which applies to all zoning districts and there is a 16-foot exception for elevator bulkheads. Mr. Callister believed that there should be specific wording in the proposed amendments so that the Stakeholders are clear about the 100-foot building height. Mr. Wilde said that those height exceptions apply to all zoning districts uniformly and they are already in another section of the ordinance. Mr. Callister believed that there would be a tremendous penalty for off-site residential components transfer rights, which is a huge issue with the Stakeholders.
Commissioner Muir pointed out that the transfer rights could be accumulated from multiple projects to a specific developer that could build higher density residential as a product from those transfer rights. Mr. Wilde said that is correct, but the development projects would have to be coordinated. The discussion continued regarding transfer rights and how they would affect the property owner.
Mr. Dennis Glass spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments. He said that a building would have to be six to eight stories in height before an underground parking structure could be justified. Mr. Glass said that he was a partner in the Library Square Condominiums, which involved mixed use in the downtown area. He said that a feasibility study regarding retail/condominium mixed-use projects for Sugar House found there was too much constraint. Mr. Glass said that his solution was to refurbish his existing single-story building, which he owns in Sugar House, and keep surface parking. He believed that higher density projects should be allowed to have a community that would attract the Trax rail line. Mr. Glass said that the Granite block would be the perfect candidate to have this core of higher density; it is the heart of old Sugar House. He said that the block is large enough to have a well-planned mixed-use project with amenities that could be the heart of a new Sugar House. Mr. Glass added that it could be incorporated on a Trax line and not have an impact on existing residential areas.
Mr. Rawlins Young spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning amendments. He stated that he has been a trustee on the Sugar House Community Council since 1979 and have lived in Sugar House since 1938. Mr. Young said that he was on the committees of both the original master plan and the updated master plan. Mr. Young expressed his concern with the proposed development of two Sugar House Business District zones because they would not meet the intent of the master plan. He believed that what was being proposed was identical to the East Downtown Master Plan. Mr. Young pointed out that there is an existing public transportation system on the two arterial streets, 2100 South and Highland Drive. He said that the density of development would not merit a Trax line into Sugar House.
Mr. Mark McDonald spoke in opposition of the proposed amendments. He stated that he was a property owner in the Granite Furniture block, that he owns Leisure Living. He said that his grandfather created Southeast Furniture, which was the largest furniture store west of the Mississippi River, at one time. Mr. McDonald pointed out that Southeast Furniture, as well as Granite Furniture helped establish the Sugar House community. He said he believed that the City Council does not want to limit the availability for someone to develop the Granite block properly. Mr. McDonald indicated that when he hears about walkable communities in the master plan he gets confused because he sees nothing walkable about the Shopko Shopping Center block. He said that the current zoning would have allowed a 150-foot building on that site, and a 30-foot building was constructed with lots of black top. Mr. McDonald noted that the Granite block is historical and it would be a disaster not to give a developer an opportunity to do something special on that site.
Mr. Mack McDonald said that he represented the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), as the RDA Project Manager. Mr. McDonald said that RDA is the current owners of the property on Wilmington Avenue (Ballet West property) and the RDA has received a request from Ballet West to extend their exclusive right to negotiate on that property. He said that it is RDA’s opinion that Ballet West will develop on that site “unless we hear otherwise”. Mr. McDonald pointed out that RDA is a major investor in Hidden Hollow, which is directly behind the property and RDA would want a mixed-use development that would complement Hidden Hollow. He added that RDA would follow what is outlined in the master plan and focus on residential use, either condominiums or apartments, if Ballet West decides not to develop the site.
Commissioner De Lay inquired if the Ballet West proposal was mixed use. She added that it probably is logical that Ballet West is still trying to raise money for this project. Mr. McDonald said that RDA has not entered into a development agreement with Ballet West, which means that Ballet West could change the design of their proposed building.
Ms. Susanne Fleming submitted a card but did not wish to speak. Her card stated that her concern would be the increased traffic and parking issues if the density is increased. She is looking at public transit solutions.
Mr. Jerry Thomas, who resides on Hollywood Avenue, pointed out the businesses that affect Hollywood Avenue. He said that Hollywood Avenue has become a major thoroughfare between 900 East and 1100 East. Mr. Thomas said that he has seen numbers of cars pull into his driveway to turn around. He also said that parking is an issue. Mr. Thomas commented on the possible underground parking and said he was not certain that would really work because people do not seem to like underground parking when above ground parking on the street is available. He did not think that would solve the problem on Hollywood Avenue. Mr. Thomas said that a traffic management plan is missing from the amendments that would create livability in the neighborhoods and reserve the neighborhoods to the people who live there. He could not answer whether he was in support of the proposed amendments or opposed to them because the subject matter was too complicated. Mr. Thomas noted that Mr. Simonsen best represented his personal view.
Commissioner De Lay asked if Mr. Thomas had thought about permit parking. Mr. Thomas said that he did not want to do that at this point because permit parking is also inconvenient for the people who live in the neighborhood. He spoke of the traffic calming procedures that have taken place in the neighborhood, such as the roundabout in the intersection and the island off 900 East, but neither of those measures has slowed the traffic on Hollywood Avenue. Commissioner De Lay said that street closures on Sunnyside Avenue have worked out well and perhaps a subcommittee of the Community Council should make a study of those streets close to 2100 South. Mr. Thomas said that he was a member of the Sugar House Council and he planned to propose that, as well as having traffic management folded into the proposal.
Mr. Kirk Huffaker stated that he is a resident of the neighborhood but representing the Utah Heritage Foundation at this meeting. He said that the business district contains many historic buildings. Mr. Huffaker indicated that several historic buildings in the district are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as landmark sites. He said that there are many more that are eligible. Mr. Huffaker suggested that these buildings should not be overlooked and incorporated into the new developments. He talked about the incentives to rehabilitate historic buildings for any type of use, including residential, and easements that compensate for development rights that might be lost by doing historic preservation. Mr. Huffaker noted that these buildings created the historic business district, and would continue to be vital economic providers, as well as recognizable landmarks.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the Granite Furniture building was eligible for historic status. Mr. Huffaker said that he understood that there is historic fabric underneath the facade of the building, but as it currently stands, it is ineligible for the National Register. He said that Sugar House is not a City historic district, but there are several buildings that are eligible that are not yet listed on the National Register.
Ms. Susie Petheram spoke in favor and in opposition of the proposed amendments. She stated that she is one of the vice chairs of the Sugar House Community Council and have worked with Mr. Simonsen on the Small Area Master Plan. Ms. Petheram indicated that she wanted the residential buffer on Elm Avenue because it helps to protect the neighborhood to the west. She felt that it was important to keep the single-family residential neighborhood on both sides on Elm Avenue to maintain that character. Ms. Petheram talked about the encroachment of businesses on residential districts, which has been happening over 50 years to the Sugar House area and the loss of single-family homes. She pointed out that the residents do not want to lose the historic character of the neighborhood. Ms. Petheram said that she agreed with Mr. Simonsen’s recommendation of 80 feet as a height limit with the residential incentive. She also said that she believed the Shopko Shopping Center should be included in the Sugar House Business District.
Mr. Mark Holland stated that he was chair of the Sugar House Community Council, however he was speaking as an individual resident of Sugar House. He said that although he had lived in Salt Lake City since 1979, he was a relative newcomer to City Government and the process of how these things work. Mr. Holland talked about when Crossroads Mall and the Z.C.M.I. Center were allowed to be built across from each other; it was the demise of 300 South (Broadway). He said that probably the City planners at that time believed those developments would benefit the downtown area. Mr. Holland said that the proposed amendments are dealing with the unknown. He recognized that the Planning Commission has a tough situation because people have strong opinions on both sides. Mr. Holland said that he would not want to see a repeat of downtown in Sugar House. He expressed concern that everyone is focusing too much on the Granite block site.
Mr. Al Dieffenbach spoke in opposition to the recommended zoning amendments. He stated that he owns Salt Lake Pizza and Pasta and Fiddler’s Elbow and a member of the Stakeholders Committee. Mr. Diefenbach believed that 105 feet should be the maximum height limit. He added that to get a group of property owners who are willing to move forward on a project does not happen very often. Mr. Diefenbach talked about the unique opportunity for the Granite block. He said that underground parking is a must. Mr. Diefenbach pointed out that UTA already owns the 2100 South corridor for light rail. He believed that if the City has the mixed use quality, higher density, and cooperate with UTA that perhaps a light rail hub would be created in Sugar House.
Chairperson Chambless stated that about three years ago he attended a meeting at Dillworth School, which was hosted by the City Council Member of District No. 4. He said that nearly everyone there who spoke complained about traffic. Chairperson Chambless added that the Assistant Police Chief and other law enforcement officers that were there were somewhat relieved to be hearing complaints about traffic and not about other concerns.
Chairperson Chambless expressed appreciation to every one at the meeting who expressed concerns about land use. He asked if Mr. Traughber wanted to say something before the public meeting was adjourned. Chairperson Chambless reminded the Commission and the public that this was an issues only hearing and no decision would be rendered at this meeting.
Mr. Traughber said that the purpose of this meeting was to move this process forward by collecting comments. He stated that staff would welcome any recommendations, comments, or suggestions in written form to be considered as the process progresses.
Commissioner De Lay stated that everyone who attended this meeting seems to be “passionate” about Sugar House. She said that Mr. Traughber and the Planning Staff have worked very hard trying to accomplish the resolution of the issues. Commissioner De Lay believed that more dialogue and perhaps a game plan with people working towards a common goal the zoning changes might be completed.
Commissioner Muir said that the proposed zoning amendments created some very “thorny” issues that have not been reconciled for a long time. He said that the Planning Commission heard conflicting opinions on down zoning, density issues, property value motivation, preserving character, and the status quo. Commissioner Muir indicated that there are those who do not want residential imposed on the commercial sector, and those who do not want businesses encroaching on the residential sector. He said what was needed was some sort of balance between those agendas. Commissioner Muir stated that somewhere in the mandate of the City Council remanding these petitions back to the Planning Commission there is a message that the 90-foot and 100-foot heights will not prevail, that a common or middle ground will have to be found. He said that the Planning Commission would have to send something back to the City Council that will prevail.
Commissioner Muir engaged into a discussion regarding the transfer incentive that is written into the proposed zoning amendments. He said he understood that if one would be entitled to a 50-foot height, and the development could reach the height of 100 feet if 50 feet of residential is considered in the proposed Sugar House Business District zones. However, he continued that one could transfer that 50 feet of residential to another site on the block, but that would not entitle one to 100 feet of commercial. He asked what the incentives would be. Ms. Coffey said that the incentive would be two additional stories. Mr. Wilde explained that one would start with a 50-foot base and then go up to 75 feet of commercial if one provides another 25 feet of residential. Commissioner Muir stated that if those 25 feet of residential could be transferred to another site, the incentive would be that cheaper housing could be constructed on another site. He talked about the penalty issue and asked if the residential incentive was posed on the developers in the Gateway area. The discussion continued.
Commissioner Diamond mentioned that Commissioner De Lay lives in a high-rise condominium downtown and asked how the Gateway Condominiums were selling. Commissioner De Lay said that about 95 percent have been sold. Commissioner Diamond suggested looking at successful developments and incorporating the pattern into the Sugar House area. He believed Gateway was the best Salt Lake City example for potential Sugar House developments. The discussion continued.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he wanted to express gratitude to the Planning Staff and the way they had worked and handled the proposed amendment. He added that it has been very difficult to balance out all the interests that are out there. Mr. Zunguze noted that the Planning Commission could appreciate what the staff has been grappling with after hearing both sides of the issues. He pointed out that they had heard some good comments at this meeting and staff will be considering those, such as providing additional incentive for parking. Mr. Zunguze stated that they needed to keep this process within the purview of the Planning Commission. He noted that it was important that staff comes back fairly quickly to this forum to keep the momentum heading towards the City Council. Mr. Zunguze said that at some point soon, they need to bring closure to the project. He realized that even if some of the suggestions were reflected in the proposed amendments, the text would not be perfect in one shot. Mr. Zunguze mentioned that the subject area is constantly in demand, as far as development is concerned, to that end, the master plan for the area needs to be concluded soon.
Commissioner Scott asked about the time frame. Mr. Zunguze noted that they would touch base with both the Community Council and the Stakeholders Committee, but his concern was not to continue with the debate because the issues were on the table for everyone’s review. He said that staff would have to analyze all the comments and examine the degree of difficulty of making further changes. Mr. Zunguze added that the Planning Commission has to adopt something soon that could be refined as it moves through the process.
Commissioner Scott mentioned that Mr. Traughber took the time the previous evening to call the Planning Commissioners before he left his office to see if the Commissioners had any specific concerns. She added that it was a very complex package and she thanked him for his good work.
Chairperson Chambless also thanked Mr. Traughber and the Planning Staff, as well as the people in the community who made their presence known at this meeting and their commitment to make Sugar House a better place. He said this was an example of democracy in the trenches.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 9:13 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless invited Mr. Zunguze to give his Planning Director’s report.
Mr. Zunguze asked that the Planning Commissioners let the other Commissioners, who were not in attendance, know that the petitions remain open and they will have an opportunity to review and comment on the changes.
There being no further business, Chairperson Chambless adjourned the meeting at
9:15 P.M.