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 Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda and Jennifer Seelig. Peggy McDonough and Tim Chambless were not present at this meeting.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Jackie Gasparik, Greg Mikolash, and Melissa Anderson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas 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 the Minutes from Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Ms. Noda referred to the following pages for correction:
Page 13, seventh paragraph, the first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Ms. McDonough agreed with Mr. Jonas and said”, etc.
Page 26, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Ms. McDonough said that would actually support the point”, etc.
Page 25, fifth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “There need to be general guidelines. The findings of fact, however, that relate to the master plan”, ect.
Mr. Diamond referred to the following pages for correction:
Page 4, fourth paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Most of the traffic runs from the main 1300 East Street accesses.”
Page 5, last paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Pace was reluctant to render an opinion because he was not part of the original Planning Commission meeting or have part in the original”, etc.
Page 6, seventh paragraph, the first sentence reads, “Mr. Jonas believes that parking is a problem, as well as the access on 1300 East.” That sentence shall be struck from the record because it is too vague and not material to the minutes.
Page 9, sixth paragraph, last sentence shall be correct to read, “He felt that bringing the building up to the front of the property with parking in back was doable and promoted a walkable community, and suggested creating a relief to the south adjoining residencies.”
Mr. Jonas referred to the following corrections on behalf of Ms. McDonough:
Page 26, fourth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “The future of the City is transportation oriented, not vehicle oriented.”
Page 27, under item “G”, last sentence, Ms. McDonough asked that it be augmented to read, “These issues have been addressed by the Applicant and are now acceptable, with the exception of the amount of glass-to-wall ratio in articulation of the Elm Street façade.”
Mr. Muir then asked if this sentence could be added to when the public does not have the benefit of hearing it. Mr. Jonas doubted it could be added because it was a finding of fact. Mr. Pace then clarified that if the minutes do not accurately reflect what was said, they need to be amended. But if what was said was not clear, that is the way the minutes should read. The minutes cannot be amended to say what should have been said. Therefore, the Commission asked that the change to item “G” in page 27 be disregarded.
Page 29, above “Unfinished Business”, the minutes shall be corrected to acknowledge that Ms. McDonough excused herself from the meeting at that point.
Page 32, second to the last paragraph, shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels and Ms. Seelig voted ‘Aye’. Mr. Muir, Mr. Diamond and Ms. McDonough” were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.”
Mr. Jonas referred to the following pages for correction:
Page 2, sixth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “He would like to study portions of Downtown Salt Lake City and with the help of the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Alliance and developers, and others, put together a package”, etc.
Page 4, second paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Baird claimed his clients are not as portrayed.”
Page 10, first paragraph, ninth sentence shall be corrected to read, “A big concern in this M-1 site is that there are a lot of conflicting uses”, etc.
Page 13, under item 1 of the motion, the first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Standard B, the proposed development is not in harmony with the general purposes”, etc. Under item 2 of the motion the sentence shall be corrected to read, “Standard G, architectural and building materials are not consistent with the development, nor compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.”
Page 14, under item 3, the sentence shall be corrected to read, “Standard K, the proposed conditional use is not compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development, and would have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood.”
Page 14, sixth paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Jonas believed the Mayor’s intent was good in trying to move forward a situation that appeared to be stalemated, but it was not handled property and sent a poor message to the public.”
Page 16, seventh paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “The biggest change to the new site plan has been the inclusion”, etc.
Page 19, third paragraph, fourth sentence shall be corrected to read, “Implementation of those guidelines”, etc.
Page 19, fourth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “He presented a slide show that showed pictures of what he believed were acceptable business development patterns.”
Page 21, third paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Jonas read a statement by Mr. St. Andre, 2260 Lake Street.”
Page 21, fifth paragraph, seventh sentence shall be corrected to read, “Portions of the building are over 35 years old and need to be replaced.”
Page 22, sixth paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Ms. Noda asked if the current proposal eliminated some of the current number of parking stalls.”
Page 22, last paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Jonas questioned how many people would actually use the connection, and whether it was absolutely necessary.”
Page 24, second paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “She would like to see the rebuild, but would like”, etc.
Page 26, fifth paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Lynn Pace said that unless this is a Plan Development, the City”, etc.
Page 29, sixth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “The Commission has sent a message that zoning does not matter, that master plans are the only thing that do, and that our Community Councils have an inordinate”, etc.
Ms. Seelig asked that page 23, first paragraph and sentence be corrected to read, “Ms. Seelig asked who controlled the area of 2100 South Street and 900 East.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. McDonough and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Louis Zunguze reported that the Land Use Appeals Board met March 10, 2003 to review two cases. First, Spectra Site Communications appealed the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of their cell tower. The Land Use Appeals Board upheld the Commission’s decision. The second case involved Sarah Cowson and her neighbors appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of two conditional use permits, 410-621 and 410-622. These permits were permits for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department to construct two utility buildings for water fluoridation equipment. The Land Use Appeals Board upheld the Commission’s decision.
Mr. Zunguze commended Deputy Director Doug Wheelwright and Planners Jackie Gasparik and Janice Lew with the help of the Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace, for doing a fantastic job of articulating the pertinent issues regarding the Commission’s approval in the above-mentioned cases to the Land Use Appeals Board.
Mr. Zunguze asked for some direction from the Commission regarding a previously made motion to approve a zoning text amendment petition for landscaping requirements at the Salt Lake International Airport. The motion called for light colored paving materials to be used in the parking lots to reduce heat effects. The airport director has concerns about that requirement, specifically the costs related to acquiring and installing that material, and long term maintenance costs. Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission if there was any flexibility in that requirement that he could bring to his next meeting with the airport director. A transmittal was ready to go to the City Council for final approval.
Mr. Diamond added that the Commission had also asked that given the scale and size of the parking pads at the airport there be some further discussion about breaking up the pads with trees and/or other creative landscaping. Regarding the light colored materials, the Commission had suggested putting a light colored gravel on as a topcoat to the asphalt to help reduce heat. There was also some discussion about the square footage area per cars as it related to landscape. Mr. Diamond reiterated that these issues were important and he stood behind the Commission’s decisions.
Ms. Funk said the City and the airport authority could be leaders in reducing the heat islands, and felt strongly that the Commission should stand by their original decision.
Mr. Daniels said the Commission was not asking for light material, but a light covering on the parking lots, which should not cost a lot of money. He wanted the airport to pay attention to protecting the parking lot from looking like every other parking lot and keep the heat down.
Mr. Muir said he was seeing this policy for light colored material showing up in many of their cases. He wanted to see a more comprehensive analysis, including cost implications for light colored materials, because he believed the Commission may be imposing a considerable cost burden on development. Decisions need to be made by weighing all of the facts for creating “cool” communities and the barriers that may be created for economic development. He also said what was imposed on the private sector should be imposed on the City as well. He felt it would be a good idea to step back and re-examine the airport parking lot issue.
Mr. Jonas said light colored parking lots were one of several issues that have come up recently. At one point the Commission was asking that permeable surfacing be imposed on people, only to discover that material was not available. He felt it would be fair for the City to try and lead on the issue of light colored material, but that they needed to understand the costs. If costs made a project prohibitive, it may not be something the Commission would want to impose.
Ms. Funk said she wasn’t opposed to looking at costs, but that more than one option or method for producing a light colored parking surface needed to be included in the cost study.
Mr. Diamond maintained that the Commission should stand by their decision to improve the surroundings for everyone.
Mr. Jonas suggested that if the airport was not willing to do a cost analysis, perhaps the Planning Department needed to do it so that the Commission would know the impact of what they were imposing.
Mr. Diamond asked if Mr. Zunguze would be discussing with airport director the issue of how the roadways and the airport’s master plan would affect their parking, or if he would be focusing on parking only.
Mr. Zunguze said it was the first meeting and that he wanted to discuss the entire master plan for the complex. The meeting, however, was specifically called to discuss the landscaping issue, because of the transmittal that needs to go before the City Council.
Mr. Zunguze reiterated that the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the airport needed to explore different options. He planned to convey that message to the airport director. The City Council will make the call as far as the financing of the project. He suggested two options for the City Council to consider – the normal asphalt, and an attempt by the airport to meet the Commission’s condition for light colored material.
Mr. Diamond recommended that Mr. Zunguze discuss thoroughly the master plan aspects, because as the new roads come in, it will change the whole concept of parking at the airport.
Petition Initiated by the Planning Commission
Mr. Brent Wilde requested Planning Commission to initiate a petition for evaluation of permitting A-frame signs in the central business district of the downtown area.
The Commission initiated the petition.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt City Property Conveyance Matters:
a. Timar Holdings L.L.C. and Salt Lake City Corp. (Public Utilities) – Requesting to vacate a public utility easement necessary to record the Montgomery Villa Subdivision located at approximately 1660 W. 300 S. in Salt Lake City in a Residential R-1/5000 zoning district.
b. Herman and Virginia Aragon and Salt Lake City Public Utilities--Salt Lake City Property Management Division, in behalf of Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, is attempting to purchase a water line easement across a small corner of the residential property identified as sidwell property parcel # 15-14-129-002, owned by the Aragons, located at 1095 West California Ave., containing 20 square feet, for an existing water line. The owners of the property have agreed to sell the easement to the City.
c. Mountain Enterprises LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities--Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department will receive a new easement for an open channel drainage ditch to be constructed across Mountain's property, located at approximately 750 North and 5400 West, in the area north of the Salt Lake International Center Industrial Park, to facilitate new industrial development in the Industrial M-1 zoning district. The new drainage channel will connect to the existing Little Goggin Drain.
d. Touch America, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities--Salt Lake Public Utilities is requesting approval of a change to an existing Utility Permit issued to Broadwing, Inc. in 2000, which allowed 6 telecommunications buried conduits installed under a drainage ditch owned by SLC Public Utilities and located at 3670 West 500 South in the Industrial M-1 zoning district. Broadwing has sold four of the six existing conduits to Touch America.
e. Comcast of California/Massachusetts/Michigan/Utah, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities--Salt Lake City Public Utilities is requesting approval to grant Comcast a Utility Permit to cross a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal right of way to install four telecommunications conduits (buried) at approximately 10000 South State Street, in Sandy City. (Staff – Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178)
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve the property conveyance matters a.- e. as outlined in the agenda and the staff report. Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. McDonough was not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A continuation from the Planning Commission meeting held on February 26, 2003, of The Highland Dental Plaza Subdivision and condominium amendment. The property is located at 1955 & 1977 South 1300 East, in a Residential/Office "R-O" zoning district.
Planner Jackie Gasparik asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions for this case.
Mr. Diamond asked if neighbors had petitioned the Planning Department or City to close part of the alley towards the east, and if there had been a study done about the potential impact if the alley was closed towards the west, or 1300 East.
Ms. Gasparik replied that the Planning Department had not done any research on the potential impact, but that she had been in contact with a neighbor who was interested in potentially applying for an alley closure on View Street. The neighbor was waiting for the Commission’s decision. He has picked up the application and will most likely apply for the closure if the Commission decides to leave the alley open.
Ms. Funk asked why the neighbors had not applied for closure before. Ms. Gasparik referred to Planner Everett Joyce who had worked on this project previously. He had been telling the neighbors to apply for closure for quite a while, but as yet it had not been done.
Mr. Diamond asked if the neighbors were to petition to close the alley, would they have to be those neighbors who directly abutted the alley. Mr. Wheelwright said the City Council had adopted a new policy on alley closures. He believed closure would require the consent of the abutters to the portion being closed, but that public hearings were held in front of the Planning Commission as well as the City Council to give neighbors farther away a chance to speak.
Mr. Daniels asked about the financial ramifications to the actual people living in the community. Ms. Gasparik said the fee to apply for the alley closure is $100.00. Mr. Wheelwright said the Council policy is that if the decision to close an alley in residentially zoned property is approved, it is deeded at no cost to the abutters. If it is commercially zoned or multi-family, the fair market value for the land is charged.
Mr. Daniels asked if that included responsibility for any upkeep. Mr. Wheelwright said if the alley was closed it became private property, so it was up to the private property owners.
Mr. Jonas said there appeared to be some confusion on the Applicant’s part about how to deal with the alley access. There were legal issues in terms of denying access and concepts of material injury that made Mr. Jonas think differently about the Commission’s original decision.
Mr. Diamond asked if the Commission needed to discuss further the issue of material injury.
Mr. Lynn Pace, City Attorney, read Utah Code Annotated Section 10-9-810 “Grounds for Vacating or Changing a Subdivision Plat.” The operative language stated “If the responsible body or officer is satisfied that neither the public nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed amendment and that there is good cause” then the Commission could approve it. The two standards were material injury and good cause.
Mr. Muir asked if there was any was any precedent or previous case that rose to the point of material injury. Mr. Pace said he was confident there was case law, but what constituted material injury at another location with a completely different set of facts would not be helpful as a precedent for this case. The Commission needs to determine if the evidence demonstrates material injury, then articulate what that is and why.
Mr. Jonas did not feel the Commission could say there was material injury by allowing access to the alley.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved that the Planning Commission approve the View City Plat A Amendment by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association for modification of property lines lots 8, 9, 10 of block 2 of the View City Plat B located 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East, based upon the findings of facts 1-7 that were previously offered by Staff and the conditions 1-4.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion.
Mr. Diamond asked if the staff report referred to by Mr. Muir mentioned anything about improving access to the alleyway. Mr. Muir replied that it referenced public utility requirements, and improvements were included.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification about what document Mr. Muir was referencing. Mr. Muir was reading from the previous minutes from the Planning Commission’s November 7, 2002 meeting – the first hearing for the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Amendment.
Mr. Jonas asked to include the fifth condition of approval regarding the Transportations recommendations for the driveway.
Mr. Wheelwright asked if the motion did not include the prohibition on alley connection. Mr. Jonas clarified that it did not. Mr. Wilde asked if it was based on the conditions 1-5 listed in the November 7, 2002 staff report. Mr. Jonas said yes, it was based on those conditions.
Ms. Funk stated again that the issue was very difficult. Previous minutes have stated two different times that the Applicant from the dental plaza has agreed to close the alley. She was troubled by the Applicant’s new attitude of wanting the alley open, and the fact that from the very beginning the neighbors have asked that the alley not be opened. The master plan clearly states that commercial traffic should not be allowed onto a residential alley. Also, a finding was made that there is no material injury to the public or any person and that traffic generated created minimal impact to the alley and to View Street. Ms. Funk believed the above-mentioned conflicts of the case needed to be resolved before a motion was made.
Mr. Muir agreed with Ms. Funk’s perspective and expressed dismay that the Applicant had been historically disingenuous by agreeing to alley closures and not following through. In light of subsequent discussions, however, Mr. Muir understood that the benchmark for impact upon the neighbors was higher than required by the conditional use and that the issue of alley closure did not rise to material injury to the adjacent property owners. The Commission, therefore, was in a difficult position to bar the rights to the property owner to the alley access. He believed the Applicant was willing to put up barriers and meet the needs of the neighbors, but that would have to be agreed upon between property owners.
Ms. Funk suggested an amendment to Mr. Muir’s motion, that because the Applicant’s have not followed through with the Commission’s recommendations in the past, the permit to improve access to the alley not be granted until all of the other requirements that have been imposed on the Applicant have been met. Mr. Muir asked if the Commission really wanted the alley to be improved.
Mr. Jonas said he felt the only problem with the alley access was a safety issue. The Transportation Department has asked for 10’ x 10’ clear sight zone clearances, which should be imposed by the Commission. He clarified to Ms. Funk that one of the alley closures agreed to by the Applicant was for the alley going east, which would not prohibit access to another part of the alley.
Mr. Wheelwright said the Applicant would still have to file amended subdivision and condo plats, so that there would be an opportunity for Staff to insure the other requirements had been met before the plats would be recorded.
Mr. Muir stated that the Commissioners would all agree the appropriate remedy would be for the property owners to petition to close the alley.
Amended Motion
Mr. Muir moved that the Planning Commission approve the View City Plat A Amendment by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association for modification of property lines for lots 8, 9, 10 of block 2 of the View City Plat B located 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East, based upon the findings of facts 1-7 that were previously offered by Staff and the conditions 1-6.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion.
Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. Seelig voted “Nay”. Ms. Funk abstained from voting. Ms. McDonough and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact
1. The amendment will create lots, which will best reflect the usage of the property as currently developed.
2. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Sugarhouse Community Master Plan.
3. The proposed lots are well over the required minimum square footage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot #1 is proposed to be 43,800 square feet. The ordinance requires 20,000 square feet and 100’ of frontage. Lot #2 is proposed to be 9,286 square feet and the ordinance requires 8,000 square feet and 50’ of frontage.
4. The proposed lots of this subdivision will meet all Site Development & Zoning Ordinance Requirements.
5. All public way improvements have been installed and are adequate, except for the alley connection from the parking lot that is address in conditions of approval #4.
6. All City Departments / Divisions have reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in this staff report and attached letters and memos.
7. There is no material injury to the public or any person in that the parking generated traffic is appropriately being directed to 1300 East Street with only minimal impact to the alley and View Street.
Conditions of Approval
1. Subject to any fines as required by SLC Engineering for doing work in the public way without getting a permit.
2. The Applicant must apply for final plat process, and prepare an amended plat for recording.
3. Public Utility requirements see attached letter.
4. Transportation recommends that the driveway from the parking lot to the alley be revised to better accommodate the grade changes and turning parameters through a public way permit approval process and that the 10’ x 10’ clear sight zone clearances be met from a safety access issue.
5. Subject to all other conditions of Division / Departments and relevant Codes and ordinances (see attached letters/memos).
6. A requirement that the Planning Staff insures all conditions of approval are met prior to the recording of the amended condominium/subdivision plats.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-627, by Nexus Architectural Inc., requesting conditional use approval for additional building height for the proposed University of Utah Orthopedic Institute structure, located at 590 South Wakara Way in the “RP” zoning district at the University of Utah Research Park.
Planner Greg Mikolash the explained petition as written in the staff report. He presented a site aerial plan to the Commission showing the two elevations of the proposed project that would be most predominantly seen from Foothill Drive and the facility to the East. It is proposed that a four story outpatient medical facility be built on this site. It would not be a hospital at this point. The Applicant is requesting a height of just over 60 feet, which is 15 feet above the maximum height allowed in an RP zone. Anything between 45 and 75 feet requires conditional use approval. The basement would be under grade; however, the elevation of the structure is measured from the average finished grade from each face of the building.
Mr. Mikolash directed the Commissions attention to an aerial of the proposed 8-acre site. The project meets all the required setbacks and there will be a two tiered parking structure, with the possible addition of a hospital in the future.
The site has some open space issues. The master plan recommends development of a trail along Red Butte Creek Corridor. Staff asked the development review team to have Nexus Architecture provide for a trailhead and to continue a trail up to the east boundary of the development. A crosswalk is included as part of the master plan along Foothill, but is already installed.
Traffic should not be a problem on Wakara according to the Salt Lake City Transportation Division comments. Mr. Mikolash reminded the Commission that Watson Laboratories requested conditional use approval for 69-feet in height and Myriad requested 59 feet. Mr. Mikolash added that there needs to be an amendment made to Standard K of the staff report, showing the height at 63 feet 6 inches, but it should be corrected to 60 feet 6 inches.
Mr. Diamond clarified that the conditional use for additional height for Watson Laboratories was for a portion of the building, and asked if the Applicant’s building was 60.5 feet for the entire building. Mr. Mikolash said the entire building would not be at 60.5 feet, and he would have the architect elaborate directly.
Mr. Mikolash reviewed the Staff recommendations. Based on the findings A – L, the Planning Staff recommended approval of the special exception for the request for additional height of 15.5 feet, subject to the following:
1. Compliance with all the codes and requirements as governed by the Research Park Architectural Committee and Salt Lake City Ordinances.
2. Compliance with all City departmental comments and recommendations.
3. That any new lighting being placed within the development (particularly the parking structure) be shielded to prevent uplighting/light pollution.
4. That a survey be completed by a licensed surveyor determining the elevation of the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain along the Red Butte Creek corridor.
5. Formulate a pedestrian easement over the private property areas to serve as trail corridors along Red Butte Creek.
6. Installment of trail head signage at the intersecting point of the new trail and the north sidewalk of Foothill Drive.
Ms. Funk asked if was a given that the Applicant could not build within the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain. Mr. Mikolash said he did not know, but that this was a way to play it safe. Ms. Funk asked if they should add that the building should be appropriately built or away from the floodplain. Mr. Mikolash said at present they had to be 50 feet away from the floodplain line. Mr. Wheelwright confirmed that it is a given that no structure will be built within the 100 Year Floodplain. The flood channel on this site is quite narrow and not likely to be significantly wider at any point. He felt the building location had been planned appropriately in relation to the 100 Year Floodplain.
Ms. Funk then asked why the trail would not be developed all the way through the property. Mr. Mikolash said the intent was to not only have the trailhead signage, but to develop the trail as well. This is depicted on the site plan. Mr. Wheelwright said Mr. Mikolash had been referring to the area east of the property.
Mr. Muir asked why statutes, Salt Lake City ordinances and FEMA needed to be referenced. He also asked why the Commission would subordinate their approval to the Research Park Architectural Committee. If it is bound as a CC and R and encumbers the property and they get that approval, it is none of the Commission’s business. Otherwise, he wondered why they would be given special status that wouldn’t be given to a Community Council. Mr. Mikolash explained it was included strictly for the Commission’s information. Mr. Muir recommended that it be stricken.
Mr. Jonas asked about an area on the project that was to be the site of a future hospital. He also asked about Standard H in the findings, which says that the site plan provides 59 percent of open space. There was nothing in the staff report that indicated the project was phase development and this was Phase 1. Mr. Mikolash deferred to the Nexus architect for answering that question. He explained that the Applicant could max out the building space at 70 percent, leaving 30 percent of open space. Therefore, once this project was completed there would be 20 percent of buildable space.
Mr. Diamond asked where the percentage was taken from. Mr. Mikolash replied it would be taken from the lease line. The University of Utah has no property lines, so the lease lines shown were to indicate buildable areas. We have been lenient regarding lease lines in the past because the University of Utah has worked well with the City in the past regarding open space.
Mr. Jonas noted that this site was one of the most sensitive sites in Research Park, with a creek next door, scrub oak, and front access. Mr. Mikolash agreed, but said it was only the first phase before the Commission that night. The future hospital may not even be constructed.
Mr. Jonas felt it was difficult to determine what was included in the site plan because of the scale of the project.
Mr. Muir asked why light colored pavement was not imposed on this project. Mr. Mikolash said that could be imposed if the Commission required it; however, it is not listed as a specific standard. Mr. Muir suggested that the Staff have a consistent policy on that issue.
Mr. Zunguze said a different department does the permitting process, and it was important that FEMA be referenced as part of the document when it went through the review process.
Mr. Jonas invited the Applicant to speak next.
Mr. Kenner Kingston, 2585 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah spoke next. He is with Architectural Nexus and is the project architect for the proposed project. He reviewed the site plans with the Commission. He discussed the issue of phase development, saying at the DRT meeting in December of 2002, they previewed what the University of Utah hoped to do with the entire property over the course of the next ten years. At the time it was the recommendation of the DRT and Planner Greg Mikolash that they address only the current phases issues with the Planning Commission. Should the Planning Commission desire to see phased development, they would be happy to present it.
The lease boundary is a complicated matter and point of confusion at Research Park. It has slowed up their Alta surveying process. The University of Utah has suggested the best route is to work with the lease boundaries. He clarified some boundary lines for the Commission on the site plan.
He also stated that a hospital has an ER, and ICU and is a full fledged medical facility. The proposed facility will never be a full fledged medical facility. It is to be an ambulatory surgical center, with the potential in the future to become an ambulatory surgical center that has 72 hour patient stay.
With respect to the FEMA Floodplain, he explained that the shaded area on the site plan indicated an interpellation by means of scanning a FEMA document given to them by a licensed surveyor and placing it under their CAD drawing to create an estimated location for the FEMA flood zone. It would be Architectural Nexus’ intention to have that surveyed and put in place. They came to their determination for a reasonable location for the annual high water line and its comparison to the FEMA Floodplain through careful collaboration with Brad Stewart of Public Utilities. They will not build within the FEMA Floodplain or within 25 feet of the annual high water line of the creek. All permanent structures are located 50 feet beyond the annual high water line or the FEMA Floodplain, whichever is more restrictive.
Mr. Kingston showed the Commission site plan elevations to clarify which part of the building would achieve the maximum of 60.5 feet. He explained the various elevations of the rest of the building and which part of it would be seen from the street. He explained that the part of the building reaching 60.5 feet was only a small section. The bulk of the building reaches 44 feet. He showed a computer image of a view of the building from the Foothill Drive and Wakara Way intersection. The highest part of the building does not show from that vantage point. It shows from on the site and on the parking structure.
At the request of Research Park, Architectural Nexus has done some things to mitigate the impact of the dominance of the structure on the site. The setback is a full 70 feet from Wakara, and 230 feet from the curb of Foothill Drive. They have paid attention to maximizing the site for the University and mitigating the impact of the building on the community. The Research Park approval process was an important step in getting the petition to the Commission.
Mr. Jonas asked for further clarification on the various building heights and their visibility from Foothill Drive.
Mr. Jonas asked how the Commission could approve the site plan without seeing the second phase plans. Mr. Kingston said the conditional use for height would stand alone and any discussion for future development would not be relevant, in his opinion, to this proposed building’s height. Mr. Kingston said there was no definitive timeline for the future building, but showed the Commission the building site. He said the building would be three stories with approximately 25,000 feet per floor plate. The parking structure would be extended and connected and would fit within the boundaries. It would hopefully have an improved relationship with the creek.
Mr. Diamond asked if it was important for the proposed building and phase two building to be next to each other, or if the buildings could be situated in a way that would eliminate the imposing feeling of the building on Foothill. Mr. Kingston said the only relationship the two buildings will have is that they will both be ambulatory centers. No use has been defined as of yet for the second building. The project at hand has the priority. Architectural Nexus has recommended that the parking structures be connected, not to build the buildings side-by-side and give the orthopedic institute a level of prominence that is equivalent to what they desire while trying to mitigate community concerns about an imposing structure over Foothill Drive.
Mr. Diamond asked why it was so important to have the building right on Foothill Drive. Mr. Kingston said he felt the building was important to the University and they wanted the building to be seen to some degree. Mr. Diamond said he was looking at the project from a planning standpoint and how it affected the surrounding environment. He wanted more information as to why other options had not been explored. Mr. Kingston explained that he would have to defer to Don Finlayson, the master planning architect, should that question be crucial to the Commission’s decision on conditional use for building height.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing up to the public. There being no response, he then closed the hearing to the public.
Mr. Jonas commented that having been on the Commission that addressed additional height in Research Park previously, the sites that were in question were not as prominent as the proposed site. Yet it is a developable piece and something could be built there. Whether the additional height is appropriate is what the Commission had to decide. The fact that another building will be added does come into play when the height issue is addressed. Mr. Jonas then said he was not vehemently opposed to the additional height because the amount of it was limited. It appears that some buffering had been done and a fair amount of scrub oak will remain in front.
Ms. Funk felt that the building across the street is a high prominent building and in some aspects it made sense to have the new building match it in scale. She believed it was a political issue with the University as to why they want the building prominently displayed, and she was unsure about whether there were enough grounds to deny the petition.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved that the Commission approve Petition No. 410-627 for the conditional use approval for additional height for the University of Utah Orthopedic Institute structure located on Wakara Way and Foothill Drive in the “RP” zoning district based on the recommendations and the findings of fact as listed in the staff report, and following the recommendations 1-6 as outlined in the staff report, with an additional recommendation as follows:
7. Some kind of reflective or light colored pavement for the parking area shall be included in the plans.
Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir asked if Ms. Funk would entertain a change to the language on staff recommendation item 6 to include installment of trail and trail head signage. Ms. Noda agreed.
Mr. Jonas asked the staff if a second building on the site would come back to the Commission. Mr. Wheelwright said it would only if the building height would exceed the zone allowance. If not, it would be a building permit across the counter. The proposed building would also have been just a building permit had it not exceeded the height allowance.
Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Mr. Diamond and Ms. Seelig voted “Nay”. Ms. McDonough and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Kingston asked for a clarification on the amendment requiring light colored paving. Ms. Funk said it was intended for the surface parking, as well as service access roads, dock roads, etc. The Applicant will be given the opportunity to come back and appeal if the light colored paving is too cost prohibitive.
Mr. Kingston talked about LEED (Leadership for Environmental and Energy Design) certification. One of the credits related to that is about heat islands. Light colored paving is only one way to address that issue. Providing shade could be another option. This project will offer the Commission some feedback as to the costs of light colored paving.
Mr. Jonas asked that the minutes reflect that the intent of the motion and the approval was that the added condition about light colored pavement be delegated to the Planning Director.
Mr. Daniels asked for more information from Mr. Kingston about other options for dealing with heat islands. Mr. Kingston did not know how much more light colored pavement would cost and would talk with the general contractor about available materials. He suspected there would be a high potential for cost increase.
Ms. Funk asked if the motion needed to be amended to say that the heat issue be addressed either through light colored pavement or shading, at the discretion of the Planning Director.
Mr. Zunguze appreciated the flexibility given by the Commission to work with Applicants on using either the material or the plantings.
Mr. Jonas said the language should read something about landscaping should be delegated to the Planning Director in an effort to minimize heat islands.
Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved that the Commission approve Petition No. 410-627 for the conditional use approval for additional height for the University of Utah Orthopedic Institute structure located on Wakara Way and Foothill Drive in the “RP” zoning district based on the recommendations and the findings of fact as listed in the staff report, and following the recommendations 1-6 as outlined in the staff report, with item six being amended as follows:
6. Installment of trail and trailhead signage at the intersecting point of the new trail and the north sidewalk of Foothill Drive.
And an additional recommendation shall be included as follows:
7. At the discretion of the Planning Director, reflective or light colored pavement or use of shading for the parking area shall be used to address heat island issues.
Finding of Facts
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title. Additional building height of up to 75-feet is allowed as a Conditional Use in the “RP” Research Park zoning district.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable master plans.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets. The surrounding streets are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic and will not degrade the service level on adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed. The internal circulation system will be adequate for the proposed development.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources. Before this proposed development is permitted for construction, all utilities must comply with the standards and requirements of the Public Utilities Department, in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts. Appropriate buffering will be provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Architecture and building materials are consistent with existing development and compatible with adjacent properties.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development. Landscape buffering must be installed where/if applicable subject to Section 21A.48 – Landscaping & Buffering, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping as proposed will be appropriate for the scale of this development.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property. To the City’s knowledge, there are no historically significant features on the property.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses. Operating and delivery hours will be compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. The proposed addition will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances. The proposed development must comply with all other applicable codes and ordinances; initiation of the development review process and application for a building permit will ensure compliance with all codes.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Compliance with all the codes and requirements of the Salt Lake City Ordinances.
2. Compliance with all City departmental comments and recommendations.
3. That any new lighting being placed within the development (particularly the parking structure) be shielded to prevent uplighting/light pollution.
4. That a survey be completed by a licensed surveyor determining the elevation of the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain along the Red Butte Creek corridor.
5. Formulate a pedestrian easement over the private property areas to serve as trial corridors along Red Butte Creek.
6. Installment of trail and trail head signage at the intersecting point of the new trail and the north sidewalk of Foothill Drive.
7. At the discretion of the Planning Director, reflective or light colored pavement or use of shading for the parking area shall be used to address heat island issues.
Petition No. 410-625, by Press Realty Advisors, in behalf of Signature Doors Inc., requesting conditional use approval for a light manufacturing use (Custom wood door manufacturing, warehousing and sales) in a portion of the existing building located at 1490 North 2200 West, which is in a Business Park BP zoning district.
Planner Jackie Gasparik reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. Staff has determined that this conditional use is consistent with the ordinance requirements and is recommending approval. The unique corrective nature of this conditional use is to allow Signature Doors to manufacture exterior and interior wooden doors in an existing building, in which they have already installed the necessary improvements. Staff believes the small manufacturing facility is a little over 3,000 square feet and has been designed to be effective, quiet and compatible with the surrounding land uses, and has mitigated any negative impacts of the conditional use.
Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Gasparik to point out the dust collection system on the site plan.
Mr. Muir expressed discomfort with the light colored pavement requirement. Imposition of light colored pavements should be a city ordinance.
Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission for time to look at how best to address the issue before initiating a petition to research it and create an ordinance.
Mr. Jonas asked the Applicant to come forward and speak. Mr. Dave Murdock, President of Press Realty Advisors, spoke next. He owns the building in question and had read the staff report. He had no comments for the Commission to consider.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public. There being no response, he closed the hearing to the public and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and a motion.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition No. 410-625 for conditional use of a light manufacturing located at 1490 North 2200 West, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and including the staff recommendations 1,2 and 3 with the additional words in item 2 as follows:
2. Submittal of a parking lot landscaping plan and approval to the Building Division.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir asked that the last condition be consistent with the policy of avoidance of heat generating parking lots.
Ms. Funk said because it was an existing building there was no choice in that.
Mr. Jonas noted that there was some mention in one of the reviews that there was no record of signed permits. He asked that application for the appropriate sign permits be added as a condition as well. Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels agreed.
Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition No. 410-625 for conditional use of a light manufacturing located at 1490 North 2200 West, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and including the staff recommendations 1,2 and 3 with the additional words in item 2 as follows:
2. Submittal of a parking lot landscaping plan and approval to the Building Division.
And an additional condition shall be added as follows:
4. Application for the appropriate signed permits must be completed.
Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Seelig and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. McDonough and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
A. All City departments and divisions have reviewed the proposal and recommended approval, subject to conditions.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Compliance with Police CPTED review conditions, as stated in review letter.
2. Submittal of a parking lot landscaping plan and approval to the Building Division.
3. The Applicant needs to get a certified address from the Engineering Division to be issued a building permit from the Building Division.
4. Application for the appropriate sign permits must be completed.
Petition No. 400-02-22, is a request by the City Council to reevaluate the zoning ordinance relating to restaurant use definition and options for shared and off-site parking for the CN, CB and CS zones. Staff is recommending changes that will 1) amend the definition for restaurants and 2) allow greater flexibility for shared and off-site parking.
Ms. Seelig left the meeting at this point.
Planner Melissa Anderson reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. The amendment addressed the definition of how restaurants are defined. The current definition has a caveat that if over 60 percent of sales are for take-out purposes, the parking ratio is based on retail service, or half of what would otherwise be required. Instead of 6 stalls/1,000 square feet, they would only have to provide for 3 stalls/1,000 square feet.
This definition has been problematic and difficult to enforce. Staff has worked to amend the definition and create a definition for both small and large restaurants, as well as creating more opportunities for shared and off-site parking. The proposed changes amend a variety of sections of the ordinance and which are summarized in the staff report. In general, large restaurants would be required to have 6 stalls/1,000 square feet, and small restaurants (defined as 25 seats or less and no more than 40 seats total, including indoor and outdoor seating) would be required to have 3 stalls/1,000 square feet. There is an acknowledgement that this intends to support small businesses.
The amendment is also intended to facilitate the reuse of buildings so that a retail service establishment, such as a salon, and another tenant wanted to buy or lease the space they would have the same number of parking stalls required. At present, with the difference between the retail service and retail sales, there is difficulty in terms of reusing the buildings.
The amendment also includes greater flexibility for shared and off-site parking, and Staff has included a new provision in the CN zone for a conditional use for off-site parking. In the CB and CS zones, off-site parking is newly provided to support streamlining. Staff is also proposing to amend the off-site parking in the CSHBD zone from a conditional use to a permitted use. There is also a new provision for off-site parking to support uses in low impact commercial zones (RMU, CN, CB, & RB) in residential zones. This is provided as a conditional use option and may only be applied to properties with and existing non-residential use. This is not allowed to be applied for residentially used properties in the residential zone. There have been instances where the City wanted to look creatively at mitigating any overflow parking and the ordinance did not allow it. The amendment would allow the City to implement more creatively opportunities for addressing overflow parking.
Two new land use categories have also been provided in the shared parking table for community centers and schools.
Ms. Anderson noted for the record that a letter had been received from Vest Pocket Business, which had been distributed to the Commission.
Council Staff had brought up issues as well. Mr. Daniels asked if Ms. Anderson was referring to the Salt Lake City Council Staff. She said yes, that this amendment was initiated by the City Council, who have been tracking the petition and are interested in the result. One of the issues concerning the Council Staff was a provision in the ordinance to allow for parking lots in a residential zone. There is a concern that this would encourage people to use or demolish residentially used land for the parking lots. Ms. Anderson said Staff is proposing the off-site parking in residentially zoned land, however it can only be applied to properties in non-residential use. Property in residential use is not permitted to be turned over for a parking lot.
Another issue from the Council Staff was why there are two parking ratio standards – one for small restaurants at 3 stalls/1,000 square feet and one for large restaurants at 6 stalls/1,000 square feet. The proposed ordinance is acknowledging and giving support to small businesses because those that could fit into the small restaurant category are very limited. The intent is to recognize existing conditions and provide opportunities in a limited capacity so that tenants can reuse the buildings for a variety of uses. Large restaurants have a large impact, so the 6 stalls/1,000 square feet would apply.
Mr. Jonas clarified that in the previous ordinance there was only one definition for a restaurant. He asked if it did not meet the 60 percent of gross volume was it considered a retail service establishment. Ms. Anderson said it was essentially a restaurant, but if the restaurant could prove 60 percent sales was for take out, they would be considered as a retail sales establishment and would only have to provide 3 stalls/1,000 square feet.
Mr. Jonas asked what a retail service establishment would be if it only required 2 stalls/1,000 square feet. Ms. Anderson gave a beauty salon or dry cleaning business as examples.
Ms. Arnold questioned some of the examples listed in the staff report used to distinguish between a large and small restaurant. She felt the numbers listed under Mazzas and Starbucks restaurants were inflated. Ms. Anderson felt these restaurants were good examples of what constituted small restaurants, and the ordinance changes are intended to support them.
Ms. Anderson clarified another point brought up by the Council Staff. It was asked if the small restaurants definition was to apply to taverns and private clubs. The intent by Staff was not to have it be applied to taverns and private clubs.
Mr. Jonas asked if the square footage requirements in the ordinance applied to both indoor and outdoor seating. Ms. Anderson said it applied to the indoor square footage of the entire building. Another approach could be a combination of square footage and seating or parking stalls required based on the number of seats.
Ms. Arnold wondered why Staff was increasing the needed spaces for the 1,000 square feet when their intent was to support small businesses. Ms. Anderson said the intent is to help small businesses facilitate reuse of the buildings. According to the current ordinance if a salon has only 2 stalls/1,000 ratio, and if a retail sales wanted to lease the same space, they would be unable to do so unless they had more parking. In many cases, there is no more room for parking, so the retail sales use would not be allowed to move in and use the same space the salon once used.
Mr. Wilde said that prior to 1995 there was a 3 stalls/1,000 ratio across the board and the success of enlivening the small business areas is to allow for transitions from use to use. Reducing the parking requirement to 2 stalls/1,000 in 1995 for the services uses resulted in two problems. Not all services uses can get by with lesser parking. Also, many of the businesses were listed as non-conforming to parking requirements. Once the parking requirement was reduced it could not be converted back to a use requiring greater amounts of parking, thus stifling the ability to move from business to business.
Mr. Diamond asked how more parking could be created in areas such as 900 East and 900 South with very little parking available. Mr. Wilde said the intent was not to create more parking. Most of those buildings are non-conforming as to parking anyway, so the increase to 3 stalls/1,000 would allow a service use business to convert to a retail sales use without having to provide more parking.
Mr. Diamond asked if one of the businesses on 900 East and 900 South were to change and require more parking, where would they get it. He wondered if the new business would be considered non-conforming. Ms. Anderson said a lot of them are already existing non-conforming, but the old ordinance would not allow a business to move into an existing non-conforming space if their parking would require even more stalls. A consistent ratio for parking would facilitate reuse of these existing buildings.
Mr. Wilde gave the example of a Laundromat at 900 East and 900 South. At present their parking requirements are 2 stalls/1,000. The Laundromat is leaving, and a retail sales service use is coming in. The ordinance would not allow them to convert from a laundromat to a retail sales use because the parking requirement would be increased. If the parking requirement for the Laundromat is changed to 3 stalls/1,000 even though they may already be non-conforming, it does not retroactively require they provide the parking. The Laundromat at 3 stalls/1,000 can convert to any other 3 stalls/1,000 use.
Ms. Arnold said the biggest impact in a neighborhood is a salon because there are several employees and several customers at all times. They need a lot of stalls, but are not treated any differently in the ordinance.
Mr. Wilde said offices were a challenge as well. An attorney’s office has different parking demands than an insurance office with much more employee support.
Mr. Jonas expressed concern about the threshold of large and small restaurants, citing Mazzas and Frescos as very small restaurants who are being categorized as large based on the number of seating. They could never meet the 6 stalls/1,000 requirement.
Ms. Arnold asked how the cut off was determined for restaurant size. Ms. Anderson said it was 25 seats inside or 40 total including outside seats.
Mr. Wilde said Mazzas and Frescos would become non-conforming but would continue to operate and could change hands. These neighborhoods are reaching the saturation point. Any new restaurant coming in would have to address the parking need on-site, or make arrangements for off-site parking. Making off-site arrangements seems to be a reasonable solution with perhaps valet parking.
Ms. Arnold thought off-site parking had always been allowed. Ms. Anderson said it was allowed in commercial zones, but the current ordinance would not allow it in residential zones where churches or schools could be used.
Ms. Arnold asked why 25 was chosen as the cut off for determining restaurant size. Ms. Anderson said it was determined in part by looking at the average seat number in small cafes and delis, and an attempt to trying to find a medium point. It is not a fixed number, but is the Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Diamond asked if any other formulas could be used, such as using the square footage ratios of the seating areas. He gave the example of Ruby’s Restaurant as one that does almost entirely catered foods and has about 8 seats inside the restaurant. It would not be fair to count the entire square footage of their building as a calculation for their parking requirements.
Ms. Anderson clarified then that what Mr. Diamond was suggesting are the seats and square footage areas factored into the equation for the parking ratio. Mr. Muir suggested then that it could be done with sales areas as well, separating sales from back of the building.
Mr. Jonas said there were people working in the back of sales buildings and restaurants that would also need parking all day. Mr. Diamond said something different may have to be done with employees, and felt that a blanket approach was not the best idea.
Ms. Funk said that approach would then make conversions a problem. Ms. Anderson said it could potentially work against some of the small businesses. Staff tried to work primarily with a definition and left the parking ratio calculation intact. If the Commission would prefer Staff to reevaluate the parking ratio calculation, this could be done.
Mr. Diamond said some flexibility was needed for the smaller restaurants.
Mr. Jonas then opened the hearing to the public.
Mary Corporon, 808 East South Temple, spoke next. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Vest Pocket Business Coalition and was present as a representative of the Board and organization. Vest Pocket Business Coalition has a membership of over 200 small and locally owned businesses. They are well aware of the current definitions for parking stalls for retail service and retail sales. They agree that there is difficulty in reusing buildings because of the two definitions. They are deeply concerned about increasing the requirement from 2 to 3 parking stalls/1,000. It could create a burden for an Applicant for a business license in attempting to present a case about why their business would have a lower parking impact. It could create a large number of non-conforming businesses in the area. Non-conforming use category creates fears about the ability to sell a business, finance it, or fund a mortgage. They wondered why it would not be more appropriate to decrease everyone to 2 stalls/1,000 across the board.
Mr. Muir asked Ms. Corporon if her organization had a sense of how many new non-conforming use businesses would be created by the new ordinance. She was unsure.
Ms. Funk asked if Staff had any idea of the number of non-conforming use businesses, relating to parking requirements, were in the City. Mr. Wilde said there were a lot of properties in the City that are non-conforming. Prior to 1995 there was not a 2 stall/1,000 requirement. New services uses have undoubtedly come in since then, but the number would be small. Some more research could be done about a uniform standard for retail service and sales.
Ms. Arnold supported the idea of 2 stalls/1,000 across the board. Mr. Zunguze said the issue of creating non-conforming use is clearly a problem. It should be balanced with the notion that the proposal is trying to open up areas within residential zones. He suggested Staff should go back to the drawing board and address how the City would deal with the businesses that would be moved from conformance to non-conformance status.
Mr. Jonas asked for more information on where the zoning districts are in the City that would be affected by the amended ordinance. There is an inherent conflict with people wanting walkable communities, but not wanting any parking for the businesses that want to come in.
Ms. Funk wondered if the parking ratio could be determined by a building or an area, for example the area of 900 East and 900 South would need a certain amount of parking because there is so many square feet. Perhaps it should not be based on the type of business out by the overall parking need for the area. Mr. Diamond agreed it was a good idea, but may cause some battle for “turf”.
Mr. Jonas then closed the meeting to the public and brought it back to the Commission for further discussion.
Ms. Anderson addressed Ms. Funk’s comment by saying some of the amendments were intended to help provide opportunities for shared parking. Shared parking between businesses would be based on their own voluntary initiative to pursue options for off-site and/or shared parking with their neighboring businesses.
Ms. Arnold said she was shocked no one from the community was present to address this issue. She agreed with Mr. Diamond about looking at useable sitting space to determine parking ratios. She did not like the number 25 as the cutoff for determining large and small restaurants and was all for making a 2 stalls/1,000 change across the board rather than 3 stalls/1,000.
Ms. Anderson asked if Ms. Arnold had another number or suggestion for the 25 seat that was suggested in the staff report for the cutoff. Ms. Arnold said that number would come into play with Mr. Diamond’s square footage and useable sitting space suggestion.
Mr. Muir asked about the rewrite of the off-street parking on page 3 of the proposed amendments. It refers to “residential uses may not be used as off-site parking lots.” He wondered if that should not be “residential zones”. The Commissioners agreed. Ms. Coffey said that would be covered in the housing mitigation policy. If someone is trying to get a conditional use for parking, in a residential zone, residentially used land would not qualify for this purpose. Otherwise, the property would have to apply for a rezone and the housing mitigation ordinance would apply.
Mr. Muir said Island Park Plaza has been gradually turning from residences into parking lots and he wanted to make sure there were good barriers to discourage that kind of thing.
Mr. Wilde said to satisfy the parking requirement in a residential zone, a new parking lot cannot be created. The intent is to not allow the creation of new lots.
Ms. Arnold asked if a school or church would allow much off-site parking because of liability issues, and wondered if it would actually happen. Ms. Coffey said West High School was rented often for Jazz games, so it does happen. Mr. Zunguze said the same idea has been used throughout the country. The issue of parking can be resolved without adding more asphalt.
Ms. Funk commented on the ordinance itself. The definition of shared parking should be changed from “shared by multiple uses” to “shared by multiple users”. She wrote an alternative definition as, “Shared parking means off-street parking facilities shared by multiple users where the time of day demands for parking spaces differs with each business.”
Ms. Funk was troubled with the general off-street parking requirements on page 3 of the proposed amendments. Number 1 says the maximum distance should be 500 feet and then it goes on to say it need not be 500 feet. She asked why there was the 500 feet requirement to begin with. Number 1 should be deleted and paragraph “a” should be used.
The last sentence of paragraph “a” should say “The Planning Commission has the authority to make exeption to the shared parking table when actual data is presented which supports a change in the parking requirement.”
Mr. Jonas said off-site parking relates to more than one zoning area, and needs to be left in as it relates to different districts.
Mr. Zunguze addressed the definition of shared parking. “Multiple uses” was referring to a church parking lot that a restaurant also uses. The Staff meant that two separate uses were using the same parking lot. “Multiple users” does not confer the same meaning. Ms. Funk stood by her point the “users” was more appropriate, but agreed that it was something for the Staff to look at.
Mr. Diamond felt the new amendments were confusing, especially for a new user and wondered if it could be made simpler. Ms. Anderson said what was before the Commission was only the sections of the zoning ordinance that were being changed, and that the changes cover several different sections of the ordinance.
Mr. Wilde said they would bring the amendments back as they related to the entire parking ordinance. It would be lengthier, but may make it easier to understand.
Ms. Funk suggested the possibility of implementing angle parking. It may facilitate needs even better than shared parking. Kevin Young, of the Transportation Department, said they were agreeable to angle parking.
Ms. Coffey asked if the City allowed on-street parking to meet the requirement in commercial zones. Mr. Wilde said in many of the zones it was allowed, but not all.
Mr. Muir asked if an open house was conducted. Ms. Anderson said yes, there were only five attendees. Mr. Muir asked if there was any way to create a better outreach to the businesses. Ms. Anderson said the mailing went to the Community Council Chairs, property owners within a 300’ radius of 900 East and 900 South as well as the 1500 East and 1500 South area. The Vest Pocket Business Coalition and Business Advisory Board were also notified.
Ms. Arnold asked if the tenants were given notice. Ms. Anderson said just the property owners. Ms. Arnold said the actual tenants needed to be given notice as well.
Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Corporon to try to drum up some more interest from the Vest Pocket Business Coalition members.
Mr. Daniels requested that the address of Clucci’s Bakery and Tony Caputto’s listed in the staff report be changed to “300 S and 300 W.”
Motion
Ms. Funk moved that Petition No. 400-02-22 be continued for further study by the Planning Staff, and brought back as a public hearing to the Commission with additional recommendations.
Mr. Diamond seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold asked the staff to contact actual tenants.
Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. McDonough, Mr. Chambless, and Ms. Seelig were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Jonas asked on behalf of Peggy McDonough for some discussion about changing the Planning Commission meetings to another night. The Commissioners concurred that Wednesday was the only viable night for the meetings.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Petition No. 400-02-39, Briefing on the Westminster Small Area Master Plan, presented by the consultant team of Landmark Design and Interplan.
Mr. Jonas explained that this was only a briefing and that the petition would be on the next agenda as a public hearing. Ms. Noda left the meeting at this point.
Planner Melissa Anderson introduced Mr. Vlasic, a member of the consultant team that has prepared a draft of the Westminster Small Area Plan, to conduct the presentation.
Mr. Vlasic introduced Jan Strifle with Landmark Design and Andrea Olsen with Interplan. He explained that the plan he was about to present had taken over a year of planning and working with the community through public meetings, workshops and committees. He then presented a slide show for the Draft Westminster Neighborhood Small Area Master Plan and covered the following points:
1. Purpose of the Plan
2. Traffic, Circulation, and Parking
3. Street Classification, Public Transit, and Existing Crosswalks Plan
4. Traffic, Circulation, and Parking Plan
5. Traffic, Circulation, and Parking General Recommendations
6. Traffic, Circulation, and Parking Specific Recommendations – Comprehensive Local Street Traffic Calming
7. Traffic, Circulation, and Parking Specific Recommendations: 1700 South, 2100 South, 900 East, 1100 East and 1300 East
8. Urban Design and Physical Enhancements
9. Urban Design and Physical Enhancements Plan
10. General Recommendations: Streetscape
11. Urban Design Specific Recommendations 2100 South Streetscape
12. Urban Design Specific Recommendations 1100 East
13. Urban Design Specific Recommendations 700 East
14. A diagram of 700 East as Converted to a Boulevard
15. Specific Urban Design Recommendations 2100 South Commercial/Residential Interface
16. Specific Urban Design Recommendations 2100 South Commercial/Residential Interface: 700 East to 900 East
17. Specific Urban Design Recommendations 2100 South Commercial/Residential Interface: 1100 East to 1300 East
18. Specific Urban Design Recommendations 2100 South Commercial/Residential Interface: 900 East to 1100 East
19. McClelland Street/Hollywood Avenue Area: Overview of Goals
20. McClelland Street/Hollywood Avenue Area
21. Conceptual Design: 2100 South Commercial/Residential Interface diagram
22. Recommended Alternative to McClelland Street Gate: Raised Plaza
23. Westminster College Campus Boundaries
24. Pedestrian Circulation and Trails
25. Pedestrial Circulation and Trails Plan
26. Pedestrian Circulation and Trails
27. Open Space and Parks
28. Street Lighting and Furnishings
29. Maintaining a Healthy and Thriving Business Climate
30. Preserving Neighborhood Character
31. Three Options – National and/or Local Historic District Designation and Neighborhood Conservation Districts
32. Recommended Neighborhood Preservation Strategy.
33. Recommended Conservation District Boundary.
34. Design Guidelines to Ensure Compatibility.
35. Other Neighborhood Improvements
36. Establishing Costs and Setting Priorities.
The three main elements addressed in the Plan are 1) Traffic, Transportation and Circulation; 2) Urban Design and Physical Enhancements; and 3) Community Character and Housing.
While discussing the Pedestrian Circulation and Trails Plan, Mr. Vlassig talked about implementing trails along streams and envisioned a day when streams would be accessible to the public. He emphasized that this would not happen overnight nor would people lose their property. Mr. Muir hoped Mr. Vlassig understood how sensitive that issue is and that there had been a lot of previous debate about it. Careful language should be introduced to address preserving and respecting personal property rights.
Mr. Muir commented that he felt it was a good plan. He was a bit concerned that it was more reflective of the single-family residential property owners than the business community or students around Westminster or apartment dwellers. There is an equal reference to two different perspectives – one being the community viewing themselves from a politically correct sense of self, with references to high density, funky, diverse, a place of contrast and urban environment. And then a completely different perspective grows out of people starting to think about their own personal property rights and the impact of a master plan upon those perspectives with references to calm, residential, assured compatibility of scale and style, non-conforming uses to be excluded, invasion of high density, incompatible land uses, tension between neighbors, added gates and closing off streets. This is a schizophrenic sense of self in a community. He hoped the planners could reconcile the apparent disparate sense of self.
Mr. Muir said the community could not go in two directions. As we are imposing housing on the commercial sector, we would want greater linkages between the two forms of housing. The type of people who live above shops should mingle with people that live in single family residences, rather than putting up barriers and gates, etc.
He felt that care should be taken on how to address the historic waterways and trails issue. The best source to bring about capital improvements would be through tax increment, which means really embracing the needs of the business community. Mr. Muir would like to hear more of their voice.
Mr. Muir was nervous about putting language in the master plan about endorsing shopping and hiring locally. He believed that was discriminatory.
Mr. Muir would also like to hear more of the voice of apartment dwellers and the school district.
In terms of the option for the conservation district overlay, the master plan should not be advocating one position or another. All options should be laid out for consideration, then let the community decide how to police themselves.
Mr. Muir was also nervous about imposing a conservation district overlay for the entire city. A small area master plan should not have language that applies to the city at large. He was also nervous about putting a message in public document that advocated a private sector vendor.
Mr. Daniels asked that the planners help plan a community that is friendly towards handicapped people and the frail elderly.
Ms. Arnold then stated that the lack of apartment dweller participation in public hearings was because the City does not give notice to anyone but owners. We constantly exclude tenants that way and it could be easily remedied.
Mr. Jonas thanked Mr. Vlassig and his colleagues for their presentation.
There being no further business to discuss, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
March 26, 2003
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 Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Tim Chambless, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda and Jennifer Seelig. Arla Funk was not present at this meeting.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Jackie Gasparik, Joel Paterson, and Melissa Anderson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas 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 the Minutes from Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Mr. Muir requested the following changes to the minutes:
Page 8, seventh paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Muir asked if there was any precedent or previous case”, etc.
Page 9, sixth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “In light of subsequent discussions, however, Mr. Muir understood that the benchmark for impact upon the neighbors was higher than required by the conditional use and that the issue”, etc.
Page 10, fourth paragraph (Amended Motion), the conditions shall be listed as 1-6.
Mr. Jonas requested the following changes to the minutes:
Page 12, number 5, the word “trial” shall be corrected to read “trail”.
Page 14, third paragraph, Mr. Kenner Kingston’s address shall be changed to “2585 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah”.
Page 14, sixth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “It would be Architectural Nexus’ intention, “ etc.
Page 14, seventh paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “It shows from on the site and on the parking structure.”
Page 16, the motion shall reflect that “compliance with requirements as governed by the Research Architectural Committee will be eliminated”.
Page 19, Conditions of Approval, number 1 shall read, “Compliance with all the codes and requirements of the Salt Lake City Ordinances.”
Page 20, paragraph 12, first and second sentences, the words “signed permits” shall be corrected to read “sign permits”.
Page 21, the first line (number 4) and the Conditions of Approval, number 4, the words “signed permits” shall be corrected to read “sign permits”.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved to approve the minutes of March 12, 2003 as corrected. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Noda, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. McDonough and Mr. Chambless abstained. Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze had no report as yet for LUAB Case No. 03-006, appealing the approval by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2003 of a one lot Foothill Residential subdivision located at 1085 North Bonneville Drive. It will be heard on March 31, 2003, after which Mr. Zunguze will report the results of that hearing at the April 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. McDonough asked for a reconsideration of the night that the Planning Commission meets, saying that Wednesday nights presented conflicts for her. Mr. Daniels also has conflicts with Wednesday nights. Mr. Jonas explained that the meeting Room 326 is only available the second and fourth Wednesday nights of each month. The majority of Planning Commissioners agreed that Wednesdays are most feasible.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
Timar Holdings L.L.C and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – Requesting a property exchange of 1.26-acres of property, to Salt Lake City Corporation, necessary to record the Montgomery Villa Subdivision located at approximately 1660 West 300 South in a Residential R-1/5000 zoning district.
Motion
Ms. Noda moved to approve the property conveyance matter as outlined in the agenda and the staff report. Mr. Diamond seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Noda, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Mr. Chambless and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Mr. Wilde had no long range planning issues to discuss at this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-613, by Luis Argueta requesting a Conditional Use/Planned Development approval for a one story office building at 179 North Redwood Road. The office building will include an accountant’s office as well as other leased office space. The property is zoned Community Shopping (CS). All uses in this zone are required to be approved as a planned development conditional use, and have a 60,000 square foot minimum lot size unless it is approved as a pad site.
Mr. Jonas disclosed that a few years ago he had toured this site with Vasilios Priskos, an adjoining land owner, with the thought of possibly becoming involved in a project there. Mr. Jonas did not do anything beyond that and therefore felt he did not have a conflict with this case.
Planner Cheri Coffey reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She presented an aerial site plan to show the position of the pad site. In 1995, much of the property was zoned “Commercial Shopping” to try to entice a large shopping center development. There are still several single family residences and some multi-family residential development. The main issue relating to the proposal is the concern that allowing for the development of pad sites along North Temple and Redwood Road will preclude the enticement of getting a large anchor in the adjoining vacant property.
The site does not meet several zoning requirements, including the lot area, lot width, front yard setback, interior side yard setback on the south and the access restriction. Staff views the proposal as a pad site which is specifically excluded from the 60,000 square foot minimum lot size that “CS” zoning requires. Staff also believes that many of the site requirements are not applicable to this pad site because they really relate to the entire shopping center, including the width of the frontage. For example, the existing lot has 74 feet, and the “CS” zone requires 150 feet. The interior side yard is only 10 feet, and is required by zoning to be 15 feet. The Transportation Division requires a 22 foot wide driveway. Since the driveway is on the north side of the property, the building size would limit the setback to 10 feet. The property abuts a fence and parking lot to the south. The front yard setback is required to be 30 feet, and the site plan shows 29 feet. Staff believes the applicant should be required to meet the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. The access restriction requirement is 150 feet between driveways. However, if they are unable to have a driveway, they cannot access their property. Staff believes this requirement should be modified by the Commission.
The master plans identify this area for a large shopping center. This site is significant because of its location between the West Salt Lake and Northwest communities, the nearby employment centers, and easy access to transportation corridors. The uncertainty of knowing when the shopping center will be developed has been a challenge. Staff does not believe it appropriate to deny the development of the applicant’s property when no one knows when the shopping center will be built. Staff also believes it has worked with the applicant in a way to design the proposed pad site so that it could be incorporated into any future shopping center.
The applicant has worked with UDOT on circulation issues. Final approval from UDOT has not been given, but it will come during the final permitting process. The Transportation Division has reviewed the circulation on this site several times and is comfortable with the final site plan. Public Utilities has reviewed the site and requested that the back house be razed. The applicant has agreed to raze all three structures on the property.
No buffering is required in this zoning district. However, there are adjacent residential uses. Staff recommends that a sight proof fence be constructed along the South and North sides of the property. Beyond that, Staff recommends repair or replacement of the existing chain link fencing, including fencing along the entire western property to decrease the potential for foot traffic through the property.
Staff has worked with the applicant on an architectural design that would be compatible with any future shopping center development. Staff recommends a door with a walkway at the East elevation. Landscaping for the proposal is appropriate. Some mature trees will come down with the construction of the parking lot, but Staff has requested that as many mature trees as possible be preserved.
Staff recommended approval of the conditional use planned development under the following conditions:
1. Modify the regulations of the minimum lot size, lot width, interior side yard setback and distance between drive approaches.
2. The applicant erect a site proof fence along the north and south property lines as well as either repair or replace the existing chain link fencing in the western portion of the property in a manner which prevents foot traffic through the property while ensuring access to the residential land uses to the northwest.
3. A door is installed on the east elevation along with a walkway leading to the public sidewalk from the door.
4. An avigation easement is granted to the Department of Airports.
5. The mature trees are preserved where possible especially on the western portion of the property.
6. Landscaping is maintained on the western portion of the property.
7. The applicant work with the Urban Forester to determine whether street trees are required.
8. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the accounting office, the house at 180 North Harold Street must be demolished and the abandoned water line must be disconnected at the water main.
9. The final approval for the landscaping plan, fencing design and lighting design be delegated to the Planning Director.
Mr. Chambless then asked Ms. Coffey how many mature trees would be removed from the property. Ms. Coffey deferred to the applicant for an answer to that question. In response to Mr. Chambless’ question regarding the applicant’s work with the Urban Forester to replace any trees, Ms. Coffey stated that the Urban Forester only had jurisdiction over street trees.
Mr. Daniels asked if the second recommendation referring to a “site proof fence” was a misspelling. Ms. Coffey said it should be “sight proof fence.”
Mr. Daniels asked if recommendation number 8 would require any housing mitigation issues. Ms. Coffey said no, because it is in a “CS” zone.
Mr. Jonas noted that the Commissioners did not have access to the specific language of the ordinance. He believed there was some exclusion for a minimum lot size for pad sites. He then asked for a definition of a pad site, saying there was not a contiguous piece of property in common ownership. He questioned how the property would be considered a pad site. Ms. Coffey said that the whole area was zoned “CS” for a potential future shopping center.
Mr. Zunguze said a definition was not available at the time. Pad sites, particularly for planned shopping center, are units within the overall planned center apart from the anchor site. Staff had difficulty with this project because it was in the way of some future designs for a particular shopping center that is yet to be defined. On the other hand, Staff was concerned with private property rights. In the absence of something definitive, there is no appropriate mechanism to deny the applicant the right to seek appropriate approvals, and that was the reason this case was before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Coffey read a definition for shopping center pad sites as follows: “A separate parcel of land designated in the shopping center plan as a building site. The pad site may not be owned by the shopping center owner.”
Ms. McDonough asked Ms. Coffey to point out the boundaries of the “CS” zone on the aerial site plan.
Mr. Diamond asked if the applicant had come to Staff with a solution to the property which met all the zoning requirements without having to modify any regulations. Ms. Coffey believed the applicant was unable to meet the “CS” zoning requirements. Mr. Diamond believed the pad site could conflict with any future shopping center development and said it would be difficult to make decisions on the conditional use without knowing what the future shopping center would look like. He would have preferred some alternative options that more closely met the zoning requirements.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to speak to the issue. Mr. Luis Argueta, Mr. Jose Argueta and Mr. Dave Montgomery of Badham Construction spoke next. Mr. Montgomery resides at 125 North 640 West, North Salt Lake, Utah. Mr. Argueta said he had been working in the Salt Lake area for 10 years in bookkeeping and accounting. His present office building is scheduled to be torn down.
Mr. Jose Argueta, 6897 South Jordan Village, West Jordan, Utah, spoke next. He is the applicant’s son and has been assisting his father with the project.
Mr. Montgomery believed that their project was an appropriate use of the pad site, because there is no permanent tenant for the future shopping center at this time. He said the project would be of benefit to the community.
Mr. Jose Argueta said they were willing to accommodate the parking lot area so that in the event of a future shopping center they could easily modify the lot to fit the needs of the shopping center. The building is out of the way of any future shopping center. He reiterated their willingness to accommodate wherever they could.
Mr. Montgomery said they would grant a cross easement across the approach for the parking lot and shopping center. He also answered the previous question of Mr. Chambless about any mature trees that would be lost. Three trees would come down and the rest (about 6 or 7) would remain. Mr. Chambless asked if the lost trees would be replaced. Mr. Montgomery said they were putting in approximately 23 trees.
Mr. Jonas asked if the applicant owned the property. Mr. Luis Argueta said that he did. Mr. Jonas asked if the 9 conditions listed in the staff report were agreeable to the applicants. The applicants said they were.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing up to the public. No one from the Community Council spoke to the issue.
Mr. Vasilios Priskos, 51 East 400 South, Suite 210, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He owns approximately 6 acres in the area of the applicant’s property. He has been purchasing the property since 1998 for the purpose of future development of the area. He does not believe the applicant’s property should be considered a pad site. He offered to display two different site plans for his properties future development and a letter from a representative of one of the tenants to the Commission. Mr. Jonas declined.
Mr. Priskos then explained how the applicant’s project would affect Mr. Priskos’ plans for his own property. The 150 foot curb cuts are an issue because retailers need left hand turn-ins. If his property stands any chance of development it needs the left hand turn-in. A median could be put on Redwood Road if traffic counts get high enough and Gertie Avenue may have to be moved to the North. He does not want cross easements with a 3,000 square foot office building. The building could cause visibility problems for one of the tenants.
Mr. Priskos said both of his shopping center site plans have space to put offices. The zoning does not allow for a possibility of a large building that looks towards the East, therefore the direction his building would have to face (south) would put the applicant’s building right in the middle of the parking required for larger retail centers.
Mr. Priskos asked the Commission to deny the applicant’s request, but said he would be willing to work with the applicant in trying to work his office into Mr. Priskos’ development. He said they could perhaps trade some land.
Mr. Daniels asked if Mr. Priskos had had any dialogue with the applicant. Mr. Priskos had not. He had tried to purchase the property before the applicant and the applicant had subsequently tried to sell the property for much higher than it was worth. Mr. Daniels asked if he had talked with Staff about the petition. Mr. Priskos said yes, he had for the last 4 or 5 years and had written his opposition to the Mayor as well.
Mr. Muir asked what the impediments were to attracting a major anchor on the site. Mr. Priskos has talked to every owner about site acquisition. The site can be put together and the final pieces acquired. Demographics are the biggest problem for site development. There is a lack of housing, and household income is low. There are two tenants looking at the site now.
Mr. Jonas clarified that Mr. Priskos does not own the Sutherland site. Mr. Priskos said he had been in constant communication with Sutherlands. Mr. Priskos said the remaining landowners around the sites do not have enough land with which to do anything – they cannot meet the 60,000 foot requirement for a shopping center.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue. There being no response, he then invited the applicant to rebut any of Mr. Priskos’ comments.
Mr. Jose Argueta said he had helped his father to maintain the property and landscaping since it was purchased. His father has not put the property up for sale since he purchased it. Mr. Priskos’ offers to buy the property were unfavorable for the applicants purposes. They are willing to remodel the property and surrounding landscaping when the shopping center is built. He hoped the petition would be approved.
Ms. Arnold asked when the applicant bought the property. Mr. Luis Argueta said it was around 1998. He said he had been trying to build the project since that time, but the City would not let him build because of the expected shopping center. The matter was becoming urgent since they had been asked to leave their present building. His clientele are mostly from the surrounding area.
Mr. Muir asked the applicant if he would be willing to reach an agreement for future conveyance of a curb cut in exchange for cross access easements to a shopping center. The applicant said he would.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Muir also believed it was a stretch to call the property a pad site. Mr. Jonas said they needed to be careful to exclude the whole issue of whether or not a shopping center would be built. Staff has presumed a shopping center would be built and used that as a premise to call the property a site pad.
Mr. Muir asked how the Commission defined how much acreage went into an appropriate “CS” zone without having a notion of how a shopping center fits on the site. Mr. Jonas said it had been defined as 60,000 square feet.
Mr. Wilde said the 60,000 square feet is the minimum lot size acceptable for a shopping center. The ordinance is structured so that the only exception for the square foot minimum requirement is a pad site. All new development in the “CS” zone is subject to planned development approval. There are no over the counter permit options in the zone.
Mr. Jonas said the petition then could only be approved if the Commission considered the property to be a pad. Mr. Muir then asked how the Commission could say it was an appropriate pad without seeing a master plan.
Mr. Lynn Pace, City Attorney, offered another perspective. Assuming the property is a legal lot, the City has an obligation to allow the applicant an economic use of the property. The lot may or may not meet the ideal version of what is or not a pad. However, that does not mean the Commission can deny the applicant’s use of the property.
Mr. Jonas then asked why there was a “CS” zoning, again saying there needed to be the 60,000 square foot minimum. Mr. Pace said that is applicable today, but that this lot was created before the zoning was adopted. Mr. Diamond said that applied throughout the city, and Mr. Pace agreed that there are many lots having less fronting than would be allowed today. They are recognized as legal, pre-existing lots, and development is allowed.
Mr. Jonas asked what else could be done in a “CS” zone in terms of use. Mr. Wilde said any retail use, restaurant, office buildings, traditional commercial uses, etc. Mr. Pace said the 60,000 square feet was required unless the Commission approved something else.
Mr. Jonas asked if the two houses on the property could be viewed as an economic use of the property. Mr. Pace could not answer that. He reiterated that the ordinance did not tie the Commission’s hands. If the Commission gave approval for property to be developed with less than the 60,000 square foot minimum, it would then meet the ordinance.
Mr. Zunguze proposed that the applicant and Mr. Priskos be given the opportunity to discuss alternatives and perhaps arrive at some accommodation to resolve the situation. He felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to also send a message to Mr. Priskos to make his future plans for his properties known to the Planning Division so that they could be shared with any future applicant in the area.
Mr. Zunguze felt the zoning ordinance should be re-examined because the 60,000 square foot minimum made it difficult for others with less property to develop their properties.
Mr. Muir said to keep in mind that the property may not be appropriate for a shopping center given the demographics of the area. If the market is fragile the Planning Commission should be very cautious of creating barriers for the implementation of reaching the goal of a shopping center.
Mr. Jonas said the master plan and the zoning both anticipated a shopping center in the area. He was in favor of Mr. Zunguze’s suggestion to table the petition until the applicant and Mr. Priskos have had a chance to perhaps work out a deal.
Mr. Diamond asked if any of the structures on the applicant’s property were appropriate to use for his business at this time. Ms. Coffey did not believe they met code. The applicant has a demolition permit to take out one building and the other would need substantial work.
Mr. Daniels asked if both parties would be agreeable to meet and discuss options should the Planning Commission table the petition at this time. Mr. Priskos said he would be agreeable. Mr. Jose Argueta said they would also be agreeable, but did express concern about time limits. His present office building is scheduled for demolition in June.
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to table Petition No. 410-613 for a minimum of 30 days to give the applicant and potential developer an opportunity to negotiate. Ms. McDonough seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir asked if the Planning Commission could set some guidelines for the negotiation. He wanted to see Mr. Priskos come forward with a master plan with an idea of where the appropriate pad location should be. If the pad location is not appropriate, he wanted to see negotiation for a trade or relocation to a more appropriate site to accommodate the needs of the applicant. If the pad site is appropriate, he wanted to see agreements to cross access rights and future abandonment of any problematic curb cuts.
Mr. Pace referred to the 30 day minimum mentioned in the motion and asked at whose option it would be put back on the agenda. Mr. Daniels intended for the Commission to put it back on the agenda in 30 days. Mr. Jonas suggested it should be at the request of the applicant because it may not need to be revisited. Mr. Daniels accepted that suggestion.
Mr. Diamond also asked Mr. Priskos to come back with a master plan showing what properties he controlled. Mr. Daniels and Ms. McDonough accepted suggestions for revising the motion from Mr. Muir, Mr. Jonas and Mr. Diamond.
Amended Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to table Petition No. 410-613 to give the applicant and potential developer an opportunity to negotiate. The petition will be re-evaluated by the Planning Commission at the April 23, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission asked that the following negotiation guidelines be met:
1. Mr. Priskos will present a master plan showing what properties he controls and an idea of where an appropriate pad location should be.
2. If the present pad site is inappropriate, the parties shall negotiate for a trade or relocation to a more appropriate site to accommodate the needs of the applicant.
3. If the present site is appropriate, the parties shall negotiate agreements for cross access rights and any problematic curb cuts.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Noda, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Mr. Chambless and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Petition No. 410-628, by Joel Van Leeuwen, for conditional use approval to allow the demolition of the residential structure located at 1037 East 900 South; and the operation of a restaurant in a proposed addition to the building located at 1043 East 900 South. The property is located in the Residential Business (RB) zoning district.
Ms. Arnold recused herself for this petition and left the meeting.
Planner Joel Paterson reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. He presented an aerial site plan to the Commission, as well as architectural designs for the proposed restaurant. The “RB” zone allows for both residential and commercial uses. The East central community small area master plan identifies the area as a commercial support district for the 900 East and 900 South commercial node, and anticipates mixed use in the area. The south side of 900 South contains “RMF-35” and “SR-1” zones. There are some non-conforming commercial uses on the south side of the 900 South. On the north side of 900 South, only 3 of the current 10 residential structures located between 900 East to 1100 East are used as residential. One of those 3 is being proposed for demolition, one is vacant, and the other is a four-plex.
The “RB” zone requires the Planning Commission to make findings on three standards to allow demolition of a residential structure for new construction, a parking lot, or an addition that would house a non-residential use:
1. The location of the residential structure is impacted by the surrounding non-residential structures to the extent that it does not function as a contributing residential element to the residential-business neighborhood (RB District); 2) a parking lot; and 3) an addition that would house a non-residential use.
Staff Finding
The location of the residential structure is impacted by surrounding nonresidential structures to the extent that it does not function as a contributing residential element to the residential-business neighborhood.
2. The property is isolated from other residential structures and does not relate to other residential structures within the residential-business neighborhood (RB District).
Staff Finding
The property is isolated from other residential structures and does not relate to other residential structures within the residential-business neighborhood (RB District).
3. The design and condition of the residential structure is such that it does not make material contribution to the residential character of the neighborhood.
Staff Finding
The design and condition of the residential structure would contribute if the residential fabric was not so fragmented along this section of 900 South. However, the majority of residential structures on this segment of the street are clearly identified as commercial uses because of signage and alterations made to the residential structures.
Mr. Paterson discussed the 6 design guidelines and staff findings as follows:
1. All roofs shall be of a hip or gable design, except additions or expansions to existing buildings may be of the same roof design as the original building.
Staff Finding: The design of the addition will be consistent with the original commercial structure and will incorporate a flat roof.
2. The remodeling of residential buildings for retail or office use shall be allowed only if the residential character of the exterior is maintained.
Staff Finding: No remodeling of the existing residential structure is proposed. This guideline does not apply.
3. The front building elevation shall contain not more that fifty percent glass.
Staff Finding: The front building elevation (fronting 900 South) contains 27% glass.
4. Special sign regulations of Park IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Staff Finding: Any signage applied to the building must comply with the RB District sign regulations.
5. Building orientation shall be to the front or corner side yard.
Staff Finding: The building is oriented to the front yard along 900 South.
6. Building additions shall consist of materials, color and exterior building design consistent with the existing structure, unless the entire structure is resurfaced.
Staff Finding: The proposed addition will be constructed of materials, color and exterior design consistent with the existing structure.
Mr. Paterson discussed the architectural design of the project. A second level will be added to the building and will be a large single family residential dwelling unit. The RB zone allows only one residential unit above the structure. The unit will be close to 3,000 square feet.
Several issues surround the redevelopment of this site. The zoning requires 13 parking stalls. Some of the parking requirement can be satisfied with on-street parking. The project provides 9 parking stalls on site and 5 on the street. Parallel parking works best to preserve the green space in front.
Another issue concerned the residential character of the neighborhood. The south side of 900 South is predominantly residential. The north side residential community is fragmented.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission grant conditional use approval for the demolition of the residential structure and for the use of the site as a restaurant, with the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report.
Mr. Paterson noted that he had passed out two emails from Phil Carroll, who owns the office building directly to the east of the project. He is generally in support of the project, but is concerned about parking impacts, and is willing to negotiate with the petitioner for the use of his parking lot after hours. He felt it was important to put a restrictive use on the reuse of the residential unit, so that it could not change to office space and further overload the parking impact. He asked for signage to direct people to park in his parking lot, and said parking should be included behind the office building to the north of the site.
The staff report includes a condition suggesting the hours of operation be restricted to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. The petitioner has asked that the hair salon be open from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Tuesday through Friday, with Saturday hours of 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. The restaurant use is proposing hours of operation from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Thursday, with Friday and Saturday hours of 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Staff recommends that circulation of the parking lot be one-way, with entrance from 900 South and exit on McClelland with a sign that restricts turning to the south.
Outdoor dining is proposed on a deck in front of the restaurant. This requires approval through the Board of Adjustment. Because the petitioner has received signatures from the abutting property owners, that approval will be an administrative approval.
Mr. Muir asked for the underlying thought process of the master plan, specifically why there was an RB zone on one side of the street and another zone on the other side. This is an issue with the Westminster master plan, as well as Highland Park. Mr. Paterson said balancing master plan recommendations with existing land uses is challenging. He mentioned that the updated Central Community master plan, which has been approved by the Planning Commission and is now before the City Council for review, recommends mixed use on 900 South as well. The earlier 1974 Central Community master plan identified the area as low density residential. The Planning Commission will have to make a value judgment about which direction the neighborhood will take. “RB” zone does allow retail uses as permitted uses.
Mr. Muir expressed concern for the future of the “RB” zoned area becoming a commercial strip. He believed the Commission should push for residential density on that side of the street to ameliorate the impact of a commercial strip.
Mr. Wilde said zoning in the proposed area was negotiated almost on a block-by-block basis. The north side residential use was so far gone that the feeling was to acknowledge and conform the nonresidential uses. However, on the south side there was still a strong enough fabric of residential use that there was a strong lobby towards maintaining the residential zoning.
Mr. Paterson said one of the comments he received from a resident in the neighborhood was that proper notice was not given for this conditional use. Property owners within 300 feet of the site are required to be notified. The Planning Staff has adopted the policy of notifying properties within 450 feet of a site. The standards for notification were met.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and speak. Mr. Max Smith, architect for the project, 357 West Pierpont Avenue, and Joel Van Leeuwen, applicant, identified themselves for the record. Mr. Smith said the salon/boutique portion of the project would be owner occupied. He also clarified that a residential unit was not required, but that the applicant has opted to do that in an attempt to keep residential in the area.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Smith was concerned about having a 3,000 square foot unit above the restaurant. Mr. Smith said two units would be more suitable, but the zoning ordinance does not permit it. The unit is designed to be changed to two units in the future if the ordinance were to change. The parking requirement would then have to change as well.
Ms. McDonough asked where the entrance was to the residential unit and if the designated parking for that unit was different from the clientele parking. Mr. Smith showed her the entrance on the site plan, and said specific parking spots had not been designated. Ms. McDonough asked if a secondary entrance could be easily built if the unit were changed to two units in the future. Mr. Smith said the same stairs would be used, with two doors at the top.
Mr. Jonas referred to Mr. Carroll’s emails and asked if anything had been discussed with him yet about mitigating parking impacts. Mr. Van Leeuwen said they had. The exact amount had not yet been negotiated. Mr. Smith said there was a certain amount of anxiety regarding this issue. If mitigation is approved, he asked the Commission to give some direction to the Planning Director as to what the mitigation plan should be, perhaps in terms of numbers of cars. Shared parking formulas do not work well in this case. He believes they already have in place a parking mitigation. Mr. Smith lives in this neighborhood and has noticed only 2 to 3 cars parked in the area most of the time. There is often additional on street parking.
Mr. Muir asked if the mature conifer tree next to the fire station would be saved. Mr. Smith said they believed they could save it and would make every attempt to do so.
Mr. Chambless asked if there was proposed outside dining. Mr. Smith said yes, there would be a dining terrace. They anticipate between 10 and 15 seats outside. Inside seating would be under 50 seats. Mr. Chambless asked for a maximum capacity count on a Saturday night. Mr. Smith said they were anticipating just below 50 seats year round.
Mr. Muir asked how the applicant felt about the hours of operation recommended by Staff. Mr. Smith asked for the 10 p.m. closing on Friday and Saturday, as opposed to 9:00 p.m. Noise and loud music should not be a problem. It is a coffee shop/café operation.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing up to the public and invited any members of the Community Council to speak. Ms. Carol Goode, Chair of the East Central Community Council, 823 South 1000 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. She said Mr. Smith had come to Council meetings on February 12, 2003 and March 12, 2003. She believes a large number of residents were concerned about the parking impact on the neighborhood. She also expressed a personal concern about the parking issue. She wanted to know what type of restaurant would be operating on the site. The East Central Community Council did not have a recommendation for or against the proposal.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, 816 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. She had attended Mr. Smith’s presentations to the East Central Community Council. She read the purpose statement for the “RB” zone as written in the residential section of the zoning ordinance. She did not think there was a need for additional commercial space in the area. The former light spot building is a “gem of historic commercial architecture.” The proposal would engulf the historic building. She felt the Department of Interior Standards regarding additions to commercial historical structures would not be met. The building will soon be on the national historical register, and she would have preferred to see the petitioner propose a project which could have qualified for federal and state tax credits. She also said parking requirements in the ordinance are entirely inadequate, saying beauty salons were very intensive users of parking space, as well as restaurants. She urged the Commission to re-evaluate the “RB” zone.
Carol Hermansen, 928 McClelland Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. She has owned her property since 1964. The neighborhood has been a quiet neighborhood, with surrounding businesses restricting their hours to daytime. She was upset about having a night time business in the area. She expressed concern about parking, saying people do not park on the south side of 900 South because it slopes into the curb. The people tend to turn the corner and park on McClelland Street. She talked about the schools in the area. She was concerned about the restaurant targeting students from these schools and encouraging truancy. She believed the small business owners on 900 South would be affected because of the additional parking impact.
Mr. Steve Schmidt, 937 South McClelland Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He lives on McClelland Street and owns a business on 900 South. He was greatly opposed to the proposed project, specifically because of the parking issue. The proposed hours of operation would coincide with the peak hours of operation of the businesses already along 900 South. He said there were already problems finding parking spots during peak hours.
Ms. Lori Noda asked to be excused and left the meeting at this point.
Ms. Melissa Weber, 934 South McClelland Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. She also expressed concern about the parking impact. Many residents in the area are already using the available on street parking for second cars. The proposed parking slots for the project appeared to be completely inadequate to her. She was concerned about the “sprawl of businesses coming down from the 9th and 9th area”. She had concerns about the viability of businesses coming into the area, saying there were already four coffee houses and five hair salons close by.
Mr. Jonas read a statement from Mr. David Weber, 934 South McClelland Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. Weber was opposed to the project and concerned about adequate parking, outdoor seating, and noise issues.
Mr. Shige Sakouju, 926 South McClelland Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He was in opposition to the project because of parking impacts, and people turning around in private driveways on McClelland Street. He felt the character of the neighborhood would be adversely impacted because the roofline of the project would stick out.
Mr. Rawlins Young, 2135 South 1900 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He is with the Coalition for Livable Streets. He was on the zoning rewrite committee that dealt with commercial strip zoning. He wondered if the plat was part of the Salt Lake Jordan Canal, which is part of a trail system. He was concerned of about the intensification of use in the “RB” zone, saying a restaurant would be highly problematic, especially if it was successful. He did not recommend intensifying the use at this location.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to rebut any comments. Mr. Smith said the Salt Lake Jordan Canal was on the fire station property. Mr. Van Leeuwen said his intent for the restaurant was for a neighborhood café. He explained that the owners of the intended salon had clientele in the City who were looking forward to the owners moving closer to them.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Diamond asked about the combination of the two properties on the site. Mr. Paterson said a condition could be added by the Commission to require that.
Mr. Daniels referred to a restaurant called “Roberts” that once operated in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Paterson how much parking for that restaurant had impacted the area. Mr. Paterson did not know the answer to that question. Mr. Daniels stated that he had had no problem parking in the area when he frequented the restaurant. Mr. Paterson acknowledged that if the restaurant was successful, there would be parking impacts on the neighborhood. That is why Staff is recommending the parking mitigation plan, with signage directing people to the leased parking lots. Mr. Daniels asked how many parking spaces were available in Phil Carroll’s parking lot. Mr. Paterson said there are 17 spaces.
Mr. Diamond asked if the one-way circulation in the parking lot would create more of the problem of people turning on to McClelland and using private driveways to turn around. Mr. Paterson explained that he felt an entrance on McClelland would encourage more traffic on the street. Once people become familiar with how the parking works, the one-way circulation would encourage them to use 900 South to get to the site.
Mr. Jonas said there was an inherent conflict with businesses in a residential neighborhood. Walkable communities have businesses that are supposed to be walkable from homes, yet people come from around the city to frequent these businesses as well. He believed the north side of 900 South was not a very livable street for residential uses, which is why it has been converting over time into commercial uses. He agreed that there would be parking impacts.
Mr. Muir commended the applicant for volunteering to include housing over the restaurant. He said the zoning ordinance should require businesses to include housing to help the integration of commercial and residential uses. More eyes would be on the neighborhoods, making it a safer place to live and work. He expressed his support for the project, but did not want to see several more restaurants moving into the neighborhood.
Ms. McDonough said the residential component of the project was the mitigation reason to approve it. Any future restaurants wanting to operate along this leg of 900 South would have to be approved by the Commission. She would not be as inclined to approve anything that did not contribute back to the residential fabric of the neighborhood as this project does. Parking arrangements can be met in the shared parking approach, and the recommendations in the staff report for parking mitigation are acceptable.
Mr. Daniels was also in favor of the project, saying the fire station would probably have more noise impact than the café. He said he often had trouble finding places to park for his favorite restaurants, but always managed to find a spot. The applicant is working to lesson the impact of parking, and is attempting to listen to, and work with, the people of the neighborhood.
Ms. Seelig is also in favor of the project. She said the staff report did not mention any signage for shared parking and wanted it included in the report.
Ms. McDonough said the flat roof architecture of the project set a good precedent for setting an image that may redefine what everyone perceives as a residential image. A residential image does not have to be achieved with a pitched roof.
Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Smith about historic recognition of the building. Mr. Smith said they had no intention of applying for historic tax credits, and that the design would not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards. He felt they had been somewhat sensitive in making the additions comport with the existing architecture. They felt the addition was compatible. Mr. Diamond commended Mr. Smith on the design.
Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Paterson about density on 900 South. He wanted to know if there was any way to expand on the residential aspect of the building by having more than one unit. Mr. Paterson said it would require a zoning text amendment, and expressed that the Planning Commission could initiate a petition to change the ordinance. Mr. Diamond asked if there was anything in conditional use that would allow the Commission to approve more than one unit. Mr. Paterson said no.
Mr. Jonas agreed the Commission would like to see more than one unit, and wondered if that requirement could be put into the motion. Mr. Zunguze asked if the Commission would incorporate that requirement into the motion for this particular project, or if it would be a separate motion. Mr. Jonas said the Commission would like to see more than one residential unit allowed in the project. Part of the motion would include a review by the Attorney’s Office to see if there was a way the ordinance could allow that to occur. Short of that, he would like to initiate a petition to modify the “RB” zone. Mr. Zunguze clarified, then, that if an attempt to add another unit to this project failed, the project would still proceed. A separate petition would then be initiated to modify the “RB” zone, looking into Mr. Muir’s suggestion of actually requiring residential use with businesses and the number of units included.
Mr. Paterson said a subsequent change to parking standards would be necessary to allow the project to put in a second residential unit.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Paterson how much the set up and clean up hours would extend the hours of operation at the restaurant. Mr. Paterson said it would be hard to quantify how the impact of a 10 p.m. closing on Fridays and Saturdays would impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Chambless then asked what would be served at the restaurant. Mr. Paterson did not have an answer to that. A lease has not been signed as yet with a restaurateur. Mr. Smith also said that could not be answered as yet, but that his clients have been talking to more than one restaurateur. There is also a possibility that there may be no restaurant at all.
Motion
Ms. McDonough moved that Petition No. 410-628 by Joel Van Leeuwen to allow the demolition of a residential structure and the operation of a restaurant at 1037 East and 1043 East 900 South in a Residential Business District be approved based on the findings of fact and the recommendations in the staff report, with the addition of one recommendation which requires signage discussed by the neighboring business, to be determined by the Planning Director. Mr. Muir seconded the motion.
Mr. Diamond asked to add the recommendation for Commission approval for the combination of the two properties. Mr. Muir asked if the Commission wished to extend the operating hours to 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Mr. Zunguze asked for direction about the parking mitigation plan. Off site parking lots in the “RB” district are conditional uses, therefore Mr. Zunguze could not approve that type of parking without review by the Planning Commission. Rather than make the parking mitigation enforceable at this point, he asked if it could be discussed further. Mr. Jonas said the applicant had already met the requirements of the ordinance with the parking they have provided in the plan. The Commission is asking the applicant to work with Mr. Zunguze and the Planning Staff to work to mitigate any parking problems.
Mr. Muir asked if this could be accomplished by requiring a management plan that could be annually reviewed by the Planning Director which would include parking mitigation. Mr. Jonas said that would allow the parking mitigation to be reviewed on a regular basis if something besides a restaurant or salon went into the project.
Mr. Diamond suggested a modification to the motion that would replace the parking mitigation plan with a management plan.
Amended Motion
Ms. McDonough moved that Petition No. 410-628 by Joel Van Leeuwen to allow the demolition of a residential structure and the operation of a restaurant at 1037 East and 1043 East 900 South in a Residential Business District be approved based on the findings of fact and the recommendations in the staff report, with the following additions:
1. A management plan shall be provided, which will include parking mitigation issues, to be reviewed annually by the Planning Director.
2. Operating hours will be extended to 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights.
3. The applicant will apply to the Planning Commission for approval of combining the two properties.
4. The City Attorney shall review the “RB” zoning ordinance to see if more than one residential unit can be built on the project, provided the applicant can meet the parking requirements.
Ms. McDonough and Mr. Muir accepted all amendments to the motion.
Ms. Seelig, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Mr. Chambless voted “Nay”. Ms. Funk, Ms. Arnold and Ms. Noda were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title.
Finding: The proposed development includes conditional uses specifically listed in this Title.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Finding: The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
Finding: Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Finding: The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Finding: Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Finding: Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Finding: Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Finding: Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
I. The proposed development preserves historical architectural and environmental features of the property.
Finding: The house at 1037 East 900 South is listed as a contributing to the historic character of the Bennion Neighborhood but is not listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and is not included in a locally-designated historic district. The redevelopment of 1037 East 900 South will cause the removal of several mature trees.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Finding: The hours of operation are not known at this time. The Planning Commission may limit the hours of operation as a condition of approval.
K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Finding: The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Finding: The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Conditional use approval is granted based on the site plan and elevation drawings reviewed by the Planning Commission. Any substantial changes to the site plan or elevations shall require additional review by the Planning Commission.
2. A management plan shall be provided, which will include parking mitigation issues, to be reviewed annually by the Planning Director.
3. Hours of operation will be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., with the exception of Friday and Saturday nights when closing time will be extended to 10 p.m.
4. Circulation in the parking lot will be one-way with the entrance from 900 South and a “right turn only” sign posted at the exit on McClelland Street.
5. The proposed outdoor dining is subject to approval from the Board of Adjustments.
6. No exterior loud speakers are permitted and any live music shall be performed inside.
7. Approval is subject to satisfaction of all City Departmental Requirements.
8. The applicant will apply to the Planning Commission for approval of combining the two properties.
9. The City Attorney shall review the “RB” zoning ordinance to see if more than one residential unit can be built on the project, provided the applicant can meet the parking requirements.
Petition Initiated by the Planning Commission
The Commission informed Mr. Wilde that they wished to initiate a petition to look at housing requirements in the “RB” zone, as well as the number of units allowed in the zone.
Petition No. 410-131 Conditional Use Permit of 1994, by Wingate Partners, L.L.C.; requesting Planning Commission approval for the final phase of a 92 unit residential planned development, located at 475 North Redwood Road, in a Residential Multifamily RMF-30 zoning district. The petitioner is requesting an amendment of a portion of Plat B’s boundary area, and is proposing construction of the final 47 units. Final landscaping and fencing plan approval is also being requested. The Planning Commission must also consider the property conveyance matter requiring the proposed long term lease of the City owned property, abutting the project on the west, as per the condition of the original conditional use approval.
Ms. Arnold returned to the meeting at this point.
Planner Jackie Gasparik focused on some of the changes to the project since it was last reviewed. The project was approved in 1995 and the complete build out is scheduled to occur this summer. The site has been redesigned several times because of the remediation of the old mosquito abatement property. The property around the old driveway was determined to be very contaminated, so no buildings could be built on that area. Parking for the existing residence has been a problem so the developer is proposing to add 40 stalls. The development has been broken up into smaller clusters to make it more home owner friendly. At great expense to the applicant, an area of contaminated mosquito abatement property has been decontaminated by removing and replacing the soil and capping it with a parking lot. Staff is recommending approval of Plat C amending Plat B, the new landscape and parking plans, and the fencing plan.
Mr. Daniels asked how the square footage of the new proposed units compared with those that already exist. Ms. Gasparik said the square footage was exactly the same.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and speak. Ms. Margaret Paul, Mr. Justin Redfern, Wingate Partners, and Mr. Mark Snow, a builder/developer identified themselves for the record. They stated that they have been waiting to break ground since January 2003 and are anxious to get started.
Mr. Jonas then opened the hearing up to the public. No one was present to speak to the issue. Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved to approve the Wingate Village Townhouse Plat C site plan, landscape plan, fencing plan and the property conveyance matter of a portion of Jordan Meadows Park, based on the findings of fact and subject to Conditions 1-6 as listed in the staff report. Mr. Chambless seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas corrected the spelling of “lean” to “lien” on Condition No. 4.
Mr. Zunguze asked how Staff would enforce Condition No. 2. Mr. Daniels said at one time the Commission pushed hard for more enforcement ordinances and codes in the City. One of the results of that push was that enforcement was under the Planning Division. Mr. Zunguze said enforcement was difficult because they would be asked to get into market issues.
Mr. Wilde said the Planning Commission placed limitations on the number of units that any one individual could purchase. The enforcement of that was left to the property owner.
Mr. Jonas and Ms. Arnold said the banks would be able to regulate that and that the economy would drive it. Mr. Muir then suggested that the Commission exclude Condition No. 2.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Chambless accepted the amendment to the motion.
Amended Motion
Mr. Muir moved to approve the Wingate Village Townhouse Plat C site plan, landscape plan, fencing plan and the property conveyance matter of a portion of Jordan Meadows Park, based on the findings of fact and subject to Conditions 1, and 3-6 as listed in the staff report. Condition No. 2 is excluded.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk and Ms. Noda were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
In approving Plat C (which is amending a portion of Plat B), the site plan, landscape plan and fencing plan for the Wingate Planned Development and the property conveyance matter (of a portion of the Jordan Meadows Park) the Planning Commission will need to determine that:
A. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Northwest Community Master Plan.
B. The proposed plat meets the intent of the original approval which includes:
1. Satisfactory mitigation of the Mosquito Abatement property and purchase by the developer.
2. Berming and fencing of Redwood Road frontage.
3. Stucco building materials.
4. Covered parking for half of the required spaces.
5. The northern 478 feet of the Jordan Meadows Park be incorporated into the development, landscaped and maintained by the homeowners association as approved by the City forever.
6. The townhome units be sold to individuals rather than in blocks, to encourage owner occupancy.
C. The proposed plans comply with zoning ordinance requirements.
D. All relevant City Departments / Divisions have reviewed and signed the proposed subdivision plat.
Conditions of Approval:
Based on the findings of fact listed above, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Wingate Village Townhomes Plat C, site plan, landscape plan, fencing plan, and the property conveyance matter (of a portion of the Jordan Meadows Park) subject to:
1. Installation of all improvements as approved by the Planning Commission, and the Building Services Division as shown on the site plan, landscaping, fencing and parking plans.
3. Subject to all other conditions of Division/ Departments and relevant Codes and ordinances.
4. Signing of the lease with the City for the Jordan Meadow Park Property with the condition that the homeowners will landscape, and replace landscaping as approved by the City and maintain the property’s landscaping in perpetuity. (According to the City’s Attorney’s Office and the City Property Manager, in the event that the homeowners association does not maintain the property a lien may be placed on each property in the development until the debt to the City is paid in full. If the lien on these properties becomes excessive the City may file a law suit to recover the lien amount plus damages, until the association fulfills it’s obligations to the City.)
5. That the City and the applicant work together to make the Jordan Meadows Park lease property safe as discussed in this report.
6. Certification by the Planning Director that all these conditions have been met consistent to the Planning Commission approval of the revised development plan.
Petition No. 400-02-39 by the City Council is a public hearing to take public comment and consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the Westminster Small Area Master Plan. The Westminster Small Area Master Plan is an action plan that presents detailed recommendation for improving the quality of life for residents and business interests. The study area for the Westminster neighborhood plan is bounded by 700 East and 1300 East between 1700 South and 2100 South.
Planner Melissa Anderson presented the petition as written in the staff report. The Planning Commission was briefed on the plan at the last meeting. The public hearing for this meeting has been advertised. A letter from the Sugarhouse Merchant’s Association and Sterling Furniture had been received today and was distributed to the Commission.
The consultant team began their research and work on the plan in February 2002. The process continued through November 2002. The draft Plan was presented to a variety of groups in January and February 2003. Scoping meetings with the public began in April 2002. A public open house and several management meetings were conducted. In November 2002 a draft plan was submitted to the City and distributed for public comment. The plan was distributed to the Management Committee, the Sugarhouse Community Council, the Sugarhouse Merchant’s Association, the Mayor’s Open Space Committee, the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, Transportation Advisory Board, and the Historic Landmarks Commission. The comments received from these groups and how they were addressed are included in the staff report. Changes as a result of comments are noted in the staff report. A large effort has been made to make this a public process.
Staff believes that deeper discussions regarding existing land uses and the impacts of possible changes, particularly around the area of Westminster College, are in order. More description and discussion of issues is warranted. Staff would like to have the time to complete that work and bring it back to the Commission. Staff would also like an opportunity to respond to any recommendations received from the Commission at this meeting.
Staff recommends that the items brought up in tonight’s public hearing be tabled so that Staff can respond to them and complete the work. Staff would then bring it back to the Planning Commission for further review.
Mr. Diamond asked why two public hearings were necessary if the document would be changed and the issues would be tabled. Ms. Anderson believed the public could bring some issues of relevance to the Commission that Staff could follow up.
Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Zunguze to speak more about the land use issues. Mr. Zunguze said it was the Commission’s prerogative to decide the direction of the document before them. Since the last meeting at which the Commission was briefed on the draft Master Plan, the Planning Division has taken a good look at the document and has concerns that there has not been enough in depth analysis or discussion of the impacts with respect to land use both from a commercial nature and of the Westminster school. Land uses in this area are critical for the future direction of the area and that the discussion of uses needs to come before the Commission. He also felt comments from the public at this meeting would be useful. He reiterated that it was the opinion of the Planning Division that the present document was not ready to go anywhere for approval.
Mr. Jonas agreed that the public should be heard. He asked how the Master Plan as proposed in the document mirrors the zoning changes done a couple of years ago. Ms. Anderson said the Plan assumes that many of the land uses would stay the same. There are no recommendations for rezoning. She would be happy to follow up on any recommendations from the Commission regarding zoning and land uses. Mr. Jonas remembered down zoning areas below 1100 East that had multi family residences. He did not see any down zoning discussed in the document, and wondered if it should be reflected there. In the master plan he sees multi family residences being encouraged to return to single family residences.
Mr. Muir said the Commission should be very clear and articulate as to what is nonconforming. The Master Plan has language about addressing nonconforming uses. The eclectic mix in the area would make it difficult to determine what is nonconforming. Ms. Anderson would like an opportunity to address this issue.
Mr. Muir asked about the request from the Sugarhouse Merchant’s Association to tie the document in with the business district master plan. Ms. Anderson responded that it would be part of the discussion, and showed a map that outlined the vicinity of the Sugarhouse business district planning area. The letter from the Merchant’s Association pointed out that information gained from the transportation and land use analysis may have relevance in terms of the recommendations for the businesses in the interface just north of 2100 South. Mr. Muir said there were considerable linkages between the residential densities and the character of the businesses that respond to the densities.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing up to the public and invited anyone from the Community Council to speak. Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Sugarhouse Community Council, spoke next. She spoke in support of the Westminster Neighborhood Small Area Master Plan. The Council was especially supportive of the concept of trails being introduced in the master plan. The Council supports the Planning Division’s recommendation to look further into the land uses element of the Plan. The Council is happy to see the Sugarhouse Merchant’s Association taking a part in this neighborhood, and is very interested in their work on transportation issues.
Mr. Jonas then invited a representative of Westminster College to speak. Mr. Stephen Morgan, Executive Vice President, Westminster College, 1840 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He participated in the management committees for the Sugarhouse Master Plan and the Westminster Neighborhood Small Area Master Plan. He supported the Westminster Master Plan in general. Westminster College is very invested in the neighborhood, and hopes the Planning Commission values the role Westminster College plays in higher education in the community and state. Westminster College has 2,400 students and 250 employees. 500 students live on campus. The college developed its own Master Plan in 1998 and it was endorsed after a two year process. The plan is progressing on campus. 10 homes on the perimeter of the campus have been purchased by the college and are occupied by students.
Westminster College’s issue with the Master Plan is that some of the language creates flexibility problems for the college. Other language requires the college to incur excessive and unnecessary costs, such as redoing their master plan. They want the Planning Commission to insist the Westminster Master Plan will require no more of Westminster College than it would of any other valuable institution in the City. The Planning Staff has addressed most of the Westminster College proposals listed in the staff report.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Morgan understood the concerns of the community about the potential expansion of the college. Mr. Morgan said he did. Mr. Jonas appreciated Westminster College as a great asset to the community. The flexibility the college wants, however, is what creates the community concern. Mr. Morgan said with any of their major developments, the processes require the college to make its case. The Westminster Plan suggests that the college needs to revise its own master plan for “any” kind of development outside of the current campus. They think it should be “significant” development outside the campus.
Mr. Chambless talked about the history of Westminster College. Thirty years ago they played football, which impacted the community. The building of a large parking facility a few years ago created community concern. They use an open field for commencement ceremonies and have extensive parking lots. Some people in the neighborhood have concerns about how the college envisions the future of the open field and parking lots.
Mr. Jonas invited the public to come forward and speak to the issue. Ms. Debra Williamson, Sterling Furniture, 2051 South 1100 East, Salt Lake City, Utah brought a letter to the Commission. The letter from Sterling Furniture has been made a part of the record. The letter suggested the plan be tabled for further discussion.
Barbara Green, 1865 Herbert Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. She is a landowner in Sugarhouse and is part of the Sugarhouse Merchant’s Association. She thanked Mr. Morgan and Westminster College for being a good neighbor. She thinks traffic is good, and critical mass is essential. The Westminster Master Plan only goes to the north side of 2100 South, and more study of all of Sugarhouse is needed. The Master Plan should be tabled for further discussion.
Mr. Muir asked Ms. Green to describe her market territory. She owns the property of Smith’s Crown Company and said her customer reach was all over Salt Lake City. He asked if her business benefited from traffic driving past her store. She said she did. He asked if traffic calming helped her business. She said absolutely, it did.
Gayen Wharton, 1024 Ramona Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. She is a trustee from the Westminster neighborhood. She clarified that they were not trying to decrease units by using the re-conversion of single family homes. They had looked at the schools closing and felt that to attract more families the older, bigger homes would be need to be reconverted back to single family units. It would be purely voluntary for people to reconvert homes. Legalizing nonconforming uses language is in the plan because the City had informed them that much of the unsafe housing was in the nonconforming units.
She and the other trustees like the neighborhood, the architectural styles, the mix of people and social economic levels. However, traffic is getting worse, parking is tight and troublesome and it is difficult to cross major streets. Housing is deteriorating. The area is CDBG eligible. The area has failed to prosper. Without the encouragement of a historical conservation district, they fear people will continue to be hesitant to invest in their property. A conservation district may lead to further designations that would provide financial incentives for fixing up homes. The health of the commercial district is intricately tied to the health of the residential district. They support the business owners’ idea to re-evaluate the master plan, but believe the language should stay. Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Wharton to give the Commission a written copy of any other concerns.
Rawlins Young, 2135 South 1900 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He attended most of the meetings dealing with the neighborhood master plan and he supports the plan. He pointed out some errors in some of the maps, most specifically in the public transportation map. He is concerned about the long range projection to the plan of 50 to 100 years. He referred to the master plan of Salt Lake City written in 1919. That plan has basically been forgotten. 50 years of long range and 25 years mid range is more applicable.
Claudia Holm, 1785 South 700 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. She is a trustee of the Westminster neighborhood. 700 East is designed for quick access and is a state highway. The plan states that there are many good reasons for improvements to the highway. Shade trees would cool down the asphalt. Residents could be protected from fast moving cars. A green, inviting entrance to the City would be nice. Mass transit will be better utilized, and demands of local highways will decrease. She agrees with the aspects of the master plan and urged the Commission to adopt it.
Andrew Schrivner, 1063 East 2100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, did not want to speak but wrote that the master plan should be tabled for further discussion with merchants and property owners.
Ruth Price, 1343 Allen Park Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. She was happy to hear people talking about language, flexibility and responsibility. She is an active Sugarhouse Community Council member. Most of the people in Sugarhouse have not heard of the Sugarhouse Community Council and do not read notices in the paper. Fliers are not distributed. Not enough people are notified. Automobiles should be balanced with pedestrians and should not be punished. She urged the Commission not to accept the plan, but to continue accepting public comment. She likes Westminster College as a responsible neighbor.
Al Dieffenbach, 1063 East 2100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He owns Fiddler’s Elbow Salt Lake Pizza and Pasta. The master plan has ideas about his property. He agrees in theory with the plan to spruce up the neighborhood, but believes it should be correlated with other studies. The plan should be tabled for future discussion. The plan should include both sides of 2100 South.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Ms. McDonough said she participated in some of the steering committee meetings. In general she supports the plan, but also supports Staff’s recommendation to table it and take more comment. She hopes Landmark Design will be involved in input for the other plans going on, but does not want to overextend the consultant’s services. Ms. Anderson said Staff was prepared to take on the work and do what was necessary to flesh out the issues and respect any contractual obligations of the City.
Ms. McDonough left the meeting at this point.
Mr. Muir thinks the plan is a good one and agrees with the design elements included therein. His primary concern was that the document needed to be absolutely precise and clear as to what directive it is giving the Planning Commission. He should be able to read the document and immediately know where the plan will take them in the next 20-30 years. The plan is confusing at this point. He wants to see and understand the community vision. The business plan should be correlated to the residential plan.
Mr. Muir directed the Commission’s attention to page 35 of the Master Plan for a
City-wide conservation district overlay ordinance.
Mr. Daniels said the Sugarhouse community attracted many people from outside the community. Most of the Westminster College students do not live in the neighborhood. He shops a lot in Sugarhouse. It has a great park. When you build a great community, people will come from all over the City and they need to plan for that.
Ms. Arnold asked for clarification on the last two suggestions listed on page 3 of the staff report. She felt they were in conflict with one another. One takes apartments back to homes and the other one takes the home to mother-in-law apartments. She agreed with Ruth Price about the lack of notification to people. Notification should go to all the people and merchants concerned, not just the owners.
Mr. Muir wanted to better understand how the conservation district overlay worked. Describing the eclectic mix of architecture in the area, he asked who decides what conforms and what does not. Ms. Anderson the Planning Division would like to look at how to approach the current recommendations in the plan. Mr. Muir said scale was not an easy issue either, since many of the houses were obsolescent in scale. Ms. Anderson said quite a bit more study and analysis would have to be done before making a firm recommendation to go one way or the other. If a conservation district overlay occurred, an ordinance would have to be created, adopted and implemented. The property owners would have to be in strong support of the ordinance before it could go forward. Mr. Muir said the goals should be clearly articulated, rather than talking about process and strategy.
Mr. Wilde said they had spent over two years in the East Central neighborhood trying to develop some conservation zoning standards. The directive from Administration at the time was to come up with an over-the-counter quantitative standard. After an exhaustive effort, the criticism received was that the size of the box could be defined quantitatively, but that would not assure the end result was a nice looking house. Staff is aware of Mr. Muir’s concern in that issue.
Ms. Arnold said she agreed with Mr. Jonas’ statement from another meeting that if they got too critical on architecture, there would not have been the new City library.
Mr. Jonas is very leery of overlay districts, having seen their impact on other areas in the City. Mr. Jonas hoped some of the national businesses in Sugarhouse could give the Commission some information about where they draw their customers from, how far, and what is important to them.
Mr. Zunguze stated that one of his biggest concerns with Master Plans is the ability for communities to implement them. It is important for every master plan to have either specific guidelines or ordinances that will drive it towards implementation. Conservation overlay districts are a novel idea, but a full understanding of the trade offs involved is necessary. A “conservation district” needs to be defined more tightly to make it operational in the specific area of application. To that end, we need to have further discussions regarding the proposal for conservation districts in the Westminster area Master Plan.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved to table the Westminster Neighborhood Small Area Master Plan Petition No. 400-02-39 for further study and public input. Ms. Arnold seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and for their input.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Noda were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Request for a 6-month extension of time beyond completion of pending litigation for Petition No. 410-571, a six unit Residential Planned Development located at 910 South Donner Way, by Van Cott Bagley Cornwell & McCarthy.
Mr. Wilde explained that the memo was self-explanatory. The neighborhood group appealed the Land Use Appeals Board’s decision to uphold the Planning Commission action on the petition. It is in litigation, and the applicant requests six months beyond the end of litigation to take permits. Staff recommends that the Commission grant the extension of time.
Mr. Daniels asked what would happen if the extension was not granted. Mr. Wilde said the approval becomes null and void. The Planning Commission decision is good for one year.
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to grant the extension as requested. Ms. Seelig seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Noda were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
There being no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m.