SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Vice Chair Matthew Wirthlin, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Robert Forbis, Susie McHugh, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Mary Woodhead.
Present from the Planning Division were George Shaw; Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Nick Britton, Principal Planner; and Cecily Zuck Planning Commission Secretary.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson McDonough was excused from the meeting and Vice Chair Wirthlin acted as Chairperson. Chairperson Wirthlin called the meeting to order at 5:47 p.m. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Tim Chambless, Susie McHugh, Kathy Scott, Matthew Wirthlin, and Mary Woodhead. Salt Lake City Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, and Nick Britton Principle Planner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, February 28, 2007.
(This item was heard at 5:48p.m.)
Commissioner De Lay made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner McHugh seconded the motion. All voted “Aye” the minutes were approved.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:48p.m.)
Planning Director George Shaw gave the Commissioners a Summary of Legislative Bills from the 2007 State Legislature. He noted that if the Commission had input or questions about these bills they could be directed to Planning Staff and if necessary a city attorney could come to a future meeting to discuss them.
Chairperson Wirthlin noted that the Commission would be in favor of a more detailed discussion.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 5:50 p.m.)
The Commission discussed the schedule and process to update the Downtown Master plan as projected by the Downtown Transportation and Downtown Rising Project.
Mr. Shaw noted that the Downtown Rising findings were visionary and innovative and a viable alternative to the Downtown Master Plan which was adopted in 1995.
He noted that Planning Staff had requested that the Transportation Division brief the Planning Commission on the new Downtown Transportation plan, and that the Chamber of Commerce do the same for Downtown Rising. Alternate dates were discussed fro a possible joint briefing with the Transportation Advisory Board. The Commission agreed that they would prefer to have the briefings at the April 11, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. The Commission also briefly discussed a tentative time line for the adoption of the updated Downtown Master Plan.
PRESENTATION
(This item was heard at 5:59 p.m.)
The Commission received a presentation from the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Envision Utah regarding Wasatch Choices 2040 Land-Use and a Transportation Vision Draft Plan, including the "growth principles" recommended to be adopted by local governments and used in updating local Land Use master plans and ordinances.
Chairperson Wirthlin invited the presenters Allen Matheson (Executive Director of Envision Utah) and George Ramjoue (Wasatch Front Regional Council Planning Manager) up to the table.
Mr. Ramjoue noted that a lot of cooperation and involvement went into the project. Envision Utah, known for regional visioning, was involved over an 18 month period and approximately 1,000 people participated. The Regional Council was also involved and officially approved the report and adopted growth principles in late 2005 and all City Councils were approached and involved in the full process.
Mr. Ramjoue noted that the Growth Principles sustain rational and substantial growth. The WFRC looked at the goals and objectives of the Northwest Quadrant plan and vision and found that they were very similar to the Wasatch Choices 2040 principles.
He noted that one of the visions was to lessen the burden of future transportation by encouraging more compact growth through infill, redevelopment, and higher densities. By doing this in the future there would be 18% less congestion by the year 2040. More compact development would mean that 23 square miles of land could be preserved, and the same goals could be reached, however, there would need to be a greater use of mass transportation within the region to reduce dependency on the automobile.
Mr. Ramjoue's recommendations for this plan included:
• Communities endorse these growth principles, and possibly incorporate them into their general plan or through Master Plan reference of some fashion so that land decisions made would be compared and evaluated through these principles.
• Implement ordinances that would help establish these principles.
He noted that he would like the Planning Commission to take a look at the contents of the report and make suggestions regarding recommending ordinances where these principles would be reviewed and used in development procedures.
Mr. Matheson noted that current housing studies were completed as well as projections for the housing market in 40 years. Each community wanted to preserve:
• Clean Air
• Open Spaces
• Congestion Reduction
• Effective Costs
Mr. Matheson noted that various scenarios were devised and viewed by the public, testing different combinations of land-use and transportation, to see which of these relationships were the most effective to accomplish these goals.
He noted that the urban fabric did not need to be change to make a difference; just high density center development could bring about significant change by connecting activity centers with high capacity transportation. There are currently about 2% of residential and 12% of employment that is within convenient walking distance of high-capacity transit. Under the Wasatch Choices 2040 vision 11% of residential and 20% of employment would be within walking distance of high-capacity transit.
Commissioner Chambless noted that around the North East Quadrant of Salt Lake City (surrounding the University of Utah) there is a lot of congestion and gridlock and he inquired about what could be done in that area.
Mr. Matheson noted that light rail has been a terrific benefit for the city, and the Downtown Rising plan would address congestion in that area in the future. There is a real emphasis in tying the University to the downtown area, and even discussion regarding having part of the campus downtown where it would be more accessible.
Commissioner Chambless inquired about a light rail hub that would run along Foothill Boulevard and run along Interstate 80 to connect into more immediate light rail plans.
Mr. Ramjoue noted that transportation issues were reviewed on a continuous basis; especially the impactions of traffic to and from the University, there are some minor roadway improvements that would benefit the area. There is also currently a study underway on Foothill Boulevard to see what might be done to make improvements along there.
Commissioner Muir noted that there is a fundamental resistance to increasing compactness in the city. He inquired about what the best tool would be for the Commission to use to sustain this type of plan.
Mr. Ramjoue noted that there had been resistance, but all of the urbanized areas did not have to be compact; there are places for all kinds of development in the area. Some areas could be strategically picked that would incorporate higher densities into the development. This would be a matter of public education and input that would need to happen over time.
Mr. Matheson noted there is an increase in demand for walkable communities and the market is driving this. In most cases the cities are putting significant constraints on the market. Locally between 20-30% of the residents agree they would want to live in this walkable type of community.
Commissioner Scott noted that a lot of credence is placed in the documents that come before the Planning Commission and other boards, and an emphasis of follow through needs to be placed in educating the Transportation Department to constantly incorporate references to these types of documents.
She suggested that on the Community Council level, regular workshops and meetings could be organized to read and discuss these documents and make them a pertinent part of lively discussions throughout surrounding neighborhoods.
Chairperson Wirthlin inquired about the Commissions action regarding the report, as far as the process of adopting these principles. He noted that a lot of effort and time had gone into this preparation and the Planning Commission would like to see more as it progresses in the future.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(This item was heard at 6:37p.m.)
A request by Redeemer Lutheran Church and School at 1955 Stratford Avenue to rezone one of their parcels located at approximately 1955 Stratford Avenue from Open Space (OS) to Institutional (I). The applicant has requested this rezone so they may expand their current facilities.
Vice Chair Wirthlin recognized Nick Britton as Staff representative.
Mr. Britton noted that the applicant was requesting the rezone to expand their facilities and reorient their parking. He noted that part of the property was an abandoned portion of Hillcrest Avenue, which was closed in 1987 and purchased by the applicant in 1988. He noted that one of the main conditions of the petition was that public access would still exist via pedestrian and vehicular traffic to Hillcrest Park.
On February 8, 2007 the Sugar House Community Council asked the applicant to hold a public Open House for the neighbors surrounding the general area. He noted that the Sugar House Community Council was supportive of the rezone with the condition that public access to the park remained in the future.
Commissioner Muir noted that the parking situation seemed unimaginative and inquired if Staff had suggested that the applicant create more green space.
Mr. Britton noted that a landscape buffer of ten feet from the property line needed to exist according to the zoning.
Commissioner Scott noted that assuming the parking lot configuration might change someday, should the Commission be discussing the traffic ingress and egress into the area.
Mr. Britton noted that a new agreement would be worked out, which would address parking on the new lot, as well as pedestrian access from both corners of the lot.
Commissioner Chambless inquired if there were plans to extend the physical footprint of the structure onto the area that is currently the parking lot.
Mr. Britton noted that the building would not be able to locate closer to the property line, and eventually the church planned to put a recreational facility where the parking lot currently exists.
Commissioner McHugh noted that a better parking entry was being added so she did not see how parking problems would increase.
Commissioner Muir inquired why the Commission had not received any input from the City's Open Space advisory committee.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright noted that there was only a committee that was in charge of the bond funds.
Commissioner Muir inquired if they would address land use and rezoning of open space.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that Staff would inquire about that.
Chairperson Wirthlin invited the applicant to the table.
Lori Briesacher (Representative of Redeemer Lutheran Church and School) noted that there were 130-150 member households in their congregation. She noted that the church ran a day school with a current enrolment of approximately 160 children in grades Kindergarten through eighth. She noted that discussion was held on how to further meet the needs of their aging congregation and school and learned that a different zoning was required to make any improvements to the lot.
Mark Grabl (Architect) noted that a number of studies had been performed to see how to improve the lot, but the different zoning that exists on the property was creating an artificial boundary.
Commissioner Woodhead inquired about how the applicant planned to proceed in respect to public access to the park and parking for this area.
Ms. Briesacher noted that the church currently liked the open relationship with the public and would like to keep it this way. She noted that she had met with Planning Staff to rewrite the public access agreement.
Commissioner Muir inquired if the parking was based on need or was it a product of meeting the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Grabl noted that he thought it was based on the sanctuary profile, and was actually higher than the actual need and noted that the parking count could be reduced.
Chairperson Wirthlin opened the public portion of the meeting.
Philip Carlson (Sugar House Community Council Chair) noted that the Sugar House Community Council supported the Redeemer Lutheran Church and School in their request to rezone the parcel from Open Space to Institutional. The Council also requested that the public easement that existed at this property should not be removed. He noted that most of the trustees felt that the church had fulfilled all the instructions and requirements in applying for this change.
Mr. Carlson noted that it was possible for the Parleys Canyon trail to be aligned in this area and could become a great access point for the trail. He noted that the parking lot position would greatly improve the access for the children to get from the park to the school.
Commissioner Chambless inquired if there would be occasions when the parking might spill out onto the street because of high congestion, for example, weekend uses.
Mr. Carlson noted that the park itself would never require parking to access it.
Sarah Carlson (1917 East 2700 South) noted that she went around the community to inform neighbors of this project and summarized their thoughts about the project. She noted that of those that she had spoken to, seventeen were opposed, three were undecided, and there were many concerns about congestion issues.
She noted that in 1983 the Sugar House City Community created Petition 400-121 to turn the whole parcel into a park. In 1985 the City worked with Redeemer Lutheran Church & School on Petition 400-392, which was issued to approve the easements. She believed that the previous petitions were to preserve the park as open space and not to rezone it into a parking lot or industrial space.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the petitions had been heard by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Carlson noted that they had been approved by the Commission, and served to function as an agreement for a parking lot which had to serve the public as well as the church to access the park. She noted the agreement in 1994 came about because the community raised $9,000 and the church donated $1,000 to build the park and the City had agreed to maintain it, once it was in place.
Liz Copone (1859 Hillcrest Avenue) noted she used the park on a weekly basis and could see there was a need to remodel and expand the churches facilities. She inquired if there was a type of variance that could be granted without doing a complete rezone of the whole area, and then in the future when there was funding to do the entire parking lot a rezoning change could occur contingent upon more permanent plans.
Jeannette Mason (1852 Hillcrest Avenue) noted she was against the rezone and felt that the parking lot would take up nearly half of the Open Space and the other half was a very forested and on steep inclines, which significantly decreases the usable space of the park. She noted that the church was proposing 86 parking stalls in addition to the expansion and she was also concerned about additional traffic increases.
Zachery Mason (1852 East Hillcrest Avenue) noted he never received any information from the church to inform the community of the project. He also noted that the project did not feel harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood.
Rawlins Young (2135 South 1900 East) noted that he was with the Sugar House Community Council in 1983, when Petition 400-121 was created to vacate the parcel and develop the park. He noted that shortly after the church put in a similar request for the same parcel property and in 1987 it was heard by the City Council, which moved to close the street and divide the land. He noted the recommendation of the city portion of the street was greater on the ends to provide access into the park. He noted that he thought that some of the confusion on the zoning map was that it did not reflect the actual ownership of the land.
Carol Mundinger (3808 South 500 East) noted she was in support of the petition.
Chairperson Wirthlin closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Briesacher noted that the Community Council had suggested getting input from the neighbors. She noted that an Open House was held and she had hand delivered about 100 flyers to invite neighbors to the school to hear about the rezoning. Residents within 450 feet of the church were also invited to the Planning Commission meeting. She noted that the feedback she received from the neighbors was positive.
Mr. Grabl noted that the intent of the church was to have an indoor place for the children to play in. He noted if the zoning did not move forward then adding the indoor center was not a possibility.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the church had a gymnasium in the school now.
Ms. Briesacher noted that there was a 900 square foot room in the basement that served as a lunch room and an indoor play room for the children during bad weather.
Commissioner Scott noted that in the Staff Report it stated that the city may gain land from the church on the eastern end of the block to improve access to Hillcrest Park for public access and a thoroughfare for maintenance equipment. She noted that on the map it showed the city already owned that land.
Ms. Briesacher noted that the park was currently accessed for maintenance off of Hillcrest and the city had approached the church for ownership of 2000 East and Stratford Street, to place signage for the park and also to serve as an additional access.
Commissioner Muir noted that there seemed to be enough property to accomplish both aspects of reconfiguring the park, and accommodating the needs and expansion of the school. He noted that one solution could be that the city could obtain some land swaps to obtain a better ultimate result, and buy a little time rather than force the petition through. He noted that he thought the recreation hall should be built on the corner of 2000 East and Stratford, where it would not affect residents and would leave room to have a squared off vest-pocket park at the east end of Hillcrest.
Ms. Briesacher noted that she did not feel that anybody would be opposed to entertaining ideas that would allow the church to have what they needed for their facility and making the park a better fit. She noted she would be willing to get the community together to consider this and other options.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the map that was passed around by Ms. Carlson was not how the property was divided; the entire street right-of-way was sold to the church. He noted that the city believed that a mistake was made when they mapped the city in 1995, because prior to that the whole area was zoned R-2 and churches were allowed in residential districts, and in 1995 it was zoned I (Institutional) because of the size. He noted that there was a lot of misinformation and lack of understanding regarding this petition and suggested that the Commission table the Petition for a month to allow Staff to do additional research. He also acknowledged that there might be a better outcome if Commissioner Muir's suggestions were looked into further.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion to table the petition for one month Commissioner Forbis noted that he would second the motion, noting that there was too much confusion, not enough knowledge about the previous petitions, and there have been too many contradictions that have led to a ton of misinformation on the issue, and tabling the petition would be beneficial to let the parties have more time to work through the issues and allow staff to do some additional research.
Commissioner Muir amended the motion to encourage the city to look at possible land swaps to create a more usable plan for this petition.
All in favor voted, "Aye" the motion carried unanimously.
There was no unfinished business.
(The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.)