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 Vice-Chair, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott. Chair, Prescott Muir and Craig Galli joined the meeting late. Bip Daniels and Jennifer Seelig were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Associate Planner Janice Lew, Principal Planner Ray McCandless, Principal Planner Joel Patterson; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Acting Chair Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:52 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, March 10, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the March 10, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the minutes.
Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless Acting Chair did not vote. Commissioner McDonough abstained. Four Commissioners voted in favor, one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:54 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the North Salt Lake City boundary adjustment proposal which was heard at the last Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the formation of the subcommittee to review this issue will proceed. He said that he will have additional meetings with the Mayor to determine what the Administration’s position is going to be, to give direction to the subcommittee.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee has met since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wheelwright replied that he and Principal Planner Ray McCandless attended the MOSAC meeting Wednesday, March 17th. He said that he explained the proposal and the outcome from the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wheelwright noted that there was discussion regarding the issue but no recommendations made to the Planning Commission at that time.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the Capitol Hill Community Council was scheduled to meet March 17th as well. Mr. Wheelwright said the Staff contacted the Capitol Hill Community Council Chair and indicated that Staff would be willing to attend their meeting. The Chair asked that Staff not attend. The Chair indicated that the Community Council would discuss the issue amongst themselves.
Acting Chair Chambless asked Mr. Zunguze what the anticipated timeframe is for proceeding with the boundary adjustment proposal. Mr. Zunguze replied that he can not precisely identify a timeframe. He stated that Staff will be as timely as possible because of the legal ramifications associated with this case.
Commissioner Scott asked if anyone has come forward from either the MOSAC Committee or the Community Council to serve on the subcommittee. Mr. Zunguze said that after the Planning Commission meeting he received a number of names for consideration for the subcommittee.
Initiated Petitions
Mr. Zunguze requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to modify Zoning Ordinance to address the review of movie/film locations; the purpose of this petition is to shift the review responsibility from the Development Review Team to the City Staff that regulate Special Events.
Commissioner McDonough so moved.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless Acting Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Zunguze requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to allow single family attached dwellings in the "RMF-75 Zone; the purpose of this text amendment is to provide an option for lower density multiple family developments in this zone.
Commissioner De Lay so moved.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless Acting Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Zunguze requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to lower the square footage requirement for planned developments in some of the multiple-family residential zoning districts, the purpose of this text amendment is to provide additional flexibility and procedural options for infill development.
Commissioner Scott so moved.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless Acting Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner De Lay requested that Staff present the current public noticing process to the Planning Commission in the near future. Mr. Zunguze replied that Staff will write up the public noticing process for the Commission which will be included in the next packet.
Commissioner De Lay inquired when the Planning Commission Signage Subcommittee will be meeting. Mr. Zunguze replied that Staff is working to put a meeting together for that Subcommittee.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Commission will be receiving information regarding the continuous education of the Commissioners as well as possible dates for the Planning Commission retreat. He asked the Commission to forward potential items for discussion at the retreat as soon as possible.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
This item was heard at 6:05 p.m.
a. Richard and Judy Bell and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – The Bells are requesting that the Salt Lake City Public Utilities enter into a lease agreement for surface rights and parking lot use of a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake canal property, in association with their business property located at 1742 East Holladay Boulevard. (approx. 4200 South). There has been a prior lease agreement for this same property, when the use was residential. The City property is located in Holladay City.
b. Picture Memories, LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Picture Memories, LLC is requesting that Public Utilities renew a prior lease agreement for surface rights for parking use of a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal property, in association with a business use of the property located at 4227 South Highland Drive (approx. 1700 East). The City property is located in Holladay City.
c. UDOT and Salt Lake Public Utilities and Public Services Departments – The Utah Department of Transportation is requesting that Salt Lake City Corporation renew a lease agreement for a UDOT maintenance shed located in Parley’s Canyon, at the Little Dell exit on the I-80 Freeway in un-incorporated Salt Lake County. The requested new lease is proposed to be for 50 years as an inter-local agreement. (Staff – Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 and Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769)
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the three items noted on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless Acting Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-662, by Richard Craven, requesting an amendment to a previously approved planned development located at 838 West North Temple. The project includes approval for the development of a new commercial building to be constructed between the two existing commercial buildings. The proposed development is located in the Community Shopping “CS” zoning district.
This item was heard at 6:07 p.m.
Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey presented the petition as written in the staff report. She referred to the original approval of the planned development saying that at that time the Planning Commission allowed a zero rear yard setback because there is a thirty foot no build easement in that area. The Applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider modifying the rear yard setback requirement for this project to a zero setback requirement. Ms. Coffey noted a correction in the staff report on page 6, the reference to a six foot rear yard should read zero foot rear yard. She stated that the Poplar Grove and Fairpark Community Councils support this proposal. She indicated that Staff would prefer that the parapet be squared to be compatible with the surrounding structures; however the Applicant is proposing a rounded design of the parapet. Based on the findings of fact Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant approval for the amendment to the existing Planned Development at 832 West North Temple Street with the conditions noted in the staff report.
Commissioner Scott referred to the easement which allows egress from the drive up window and asked if that will be a condition. Ms. Coffey replied that the easement is currently in place from a previous amendment which allows traffic to egress onto 800 West.
Commissioner Scott inquired if there will be additional dumpsters on the property and if the area will be screened. Ms. Coffey replied that there will not be additional dumpsters, and the location of the dumpsters on the site plan will be screened.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the interior landscaping of the parking lot is in compliance. Ms. Coffey stated that the amount of landscaping appears to be in compliance and the Applicant has stated that if there is a need to relocate the landscaped island in the lot, they have more parking than they need and could accommodate that requirement.
Acting Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Craven, the Architect for the proposal addressed that Commission. He referred to the concern with the design of the structure and said that the owner liked the rounded design because it gave the structure an identity that would set it apart from the surrounding structures.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the material and color will match the surrounding structures. Mr. Craven replied that it will and that they want the structures to have continuity.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Craven if they have a tenant in mind. Mr. Craven replied that they do not. He added that they have met the most stringent parking requirements so that they may be allowed to have a restaurant, retail or office space.
Acting Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the parapet discussion and said that she felt that the parapet is more of an architectural detail rather than criteria for a conditional use that hits the core of harmony and compatibility. She said that the major issues such as pedestrian scale or store front are not being discussed; it is more of a decorative matter. She said that in the past the Commission has purposefully avoided the nature of that discussion. She suggested for consistency sake that the Commission take that requirement out of the recommendation.
Commissioner Scott agreed and suggested that condition 3 be modified to read “that the final approval authority of the architecture of the structure be delegated to the Planning Director.
Commissioner McDonough added that her suggestion is based purely on maintaining consistency.
Commissioner Diamond asked Ms. Coffey how condition 3 came about. Ms. Coffey stated that Staff’s intention was to make the store front appear more unified.
Mr. Zunguze noted that although the Commission has not consistently reviewed the architecture and building materials, under item G in the conditions of approval in the staff report, the Commission has the authority to do so.
Commissioner Diamond said that he felt that the Commission should exercise that authority more often.
Commissioner McDonough agreed but felt that in this case the issue is minor.
Motion for Petition No. 410-662
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-662, based on the findings of fact, discussion this evening and the Staff recommendation that the Planning Commission grant approval for the amendment to the existing Planned Development at 832 West North Temple Street with the following conditions:
1) The rear yard setback requirement is modified from thirty feet to none.
2) Maintain the no-build agreement between Albertsons and the North Temple Center to ensure a thirty foot distance between the rear elevation of the buildings in the subject planned development with any building to the north.
3) That the final approval authority for the architecture of the structure be delegated to the Planning Director.
4) Properties included in this planned development shall be maintained as a single property and shall not be sold as separate properties in the future.
5) Work with the Transportation Division to identify the appropriate location for the bike rack.
6) Grant an easement to the property to the north to allow their drainage facilities in the new utility easement on the subject property.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless Acting Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-03-29, by LaJuan Johnson, requesting that the property located at 163 West 1700 South be rezoned from a Community Business “CB” to a General Commercial “CG” zoning district.
This item was heard at 6:22 p.m.
Principal Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report. He said that the subject property is located on the southwest corner of Jefferson Street (163 West) and 1700 South and is located in the Peoples Freeway Community Council. In addition to the subject property which is zoned Community Business “CB”, the Applicant also owns the adjoining property to the south which is zoned General Commercial “CG”. He said that the southern parcel has generally been used for parking and access to the structure on the northern parcel. The Applicant has attempted in the past to sell or lease the building but has had difficulty doing either due the limited uses allowed by the “CB” zoning district. The Applicant has submitted the request for zoning change of the northern parcel from “CB” to “CG” to make the zoning more compatible with the historic use of the building and more compatible with the surrounding zoning. The Applicant met with the Peoples Freeway Community Council who did not have issues with the proposed rezone. Mr. McCandless stated that the building covers most of the subject property, and does not have off street parking. Staff is suggesting that the two lots be combined and that the vacant lot be used for parking as it has been used historically. In light of the comments, analysis and findings of fact in the staff report Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property from “CB” to “CG” as proposed and subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Commissioner Scott noted that the “CG” zone is a more intensive commercial zone and asked what the maximum height limitations are. Mr. McCandless replied that the maximum height is 60 feet or 4 stories high which ever is less.
Commissioner Scott asked what the setback requirements in the “CG” zone are. Mr. McCandless answered that it is 10 feet from the front yard. Mr. McCandless noted that the zoning for the parcel prior to the 1995 zoning rewrite was Light Manufacturing, which does not require setbacks. The structure is currently nonconforming with respect to the rear yard setback in the “CB” zone. Rezoning the property to “CG” would make it nonconforming with respect to the side yard and front yard setbacks, but not the rear yard setback.
Acting Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joe Williams addressed the Commission as the Real-Estate Agent representing the Applicant. He stated that he has been marketing the subject property for over a year. In that time he has found that those that are interested in the property are interested because of the location of property and because there is large electric capability in the building. He said that the change in zoning would open the property up to uses which are not currently available under the current “CB” zoning. He felt that the zoning change would be complimentary to the area and there would be basically no noticeable change in the property. He asked that the Commission accept the change in zoning.
Acting Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Diamond inquired if the property is rezoned to the “CG” zoning, could the structure potentially be altered to raise the height up to 60 feet. He asked if that modification would merit the “CG” setback requirements for the entire structure. Mr. Wilde responded that this property is considered to be noncomplying in terms of setbacks not nonconforming by use. As a noncomplying structure the owner may make additions and extensions as long as the additions do not further the noncompliance. Mr. Wilde added that the ordinance may have a minor exception, but generally they could expand the property if that expansion is within the standards.
Commissioner Scott referred to the definition in the zoning ordinance for the “CB” zoning which is intended to provide for a close integration of moderately sized commercial area with adjacent residential neighborhoods. She noted that there are no residential areas abutting the subject property but some are relatively close. Commissioner Scott read the definition in the zoning ordinance for the “CG” zone which indicates that it has the purpose for providing an environment for a variety of commercial uses, some of which involve outdoor display and storage of merchandise and material. She questioned whether the other uses in the “CB” zoning corridor are pedestrian friendly, Trax is only two blocks away. Mr. McCandless replied that the surrounding businesses are commercial.
Chair Muir joined the public meeting.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-29
Commissioner Noda made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-29 in light of the comments, analysis and findings noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission grant the request to rezone the property located at 163 West 1700 South from “CB” to “CG” as proposed provided that:
1. The two parcels owned by the applicant be combined into a single lot.
2. Off-street parking for the existing building be provided.
3. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along Jefferson Street be installed now or that the applicant enter into an Special Improvement District Waiver Agreement with the City to assure the future installation of these improvements.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”. Tim Chambless Acting Chair did not vote. Chair Muir abstained. Four Commissioners voted in favor. One Commissioner voted against. One abstention, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner Diamond was excused from the meeting.
Chair Muir joined the Planning Commission meeting and continued to conduct the meeting.
Petition No. 410-661, by the House of Refuge – Central Christian Church, requesting conditional use approval for a large residential substance abuse treatment facility at 370 South 300 East. This site is located in the “CC” Commercial Corridor zoning district.
This item was heard at 6:46 p.m.
Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He clarified that the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance has several different definitions for residential treatment facilities. One of those includes a residential substance abuse treatment facility. As the Zoning Administrator reviewed the current petition and the services that are proposed to be provided, the best fit that the Zoning Administrator could find is the residential substance abuse treatment facility. Part of the reason for that is that this program accepts residents that are referred by the State Correctional system and the definition for substance abuse facility that is the only definition in the ordinance that includes the correlation with the State Correctional system. Even through there will be no substance abuse treatment taking place at the House of Refuge that is the best fit according to the ordinance.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Paterson how this proposal compares to the Odyssey House. Mr. Paterson replied that his understanding is that the Odyssey House is a substance abuse treatment facility with programs specifically targeted for that. He did not know if the Odyssey House teaches other life skills as well. Mr. Paterson said that the current proposal is a voluntary residential program which the residents stay for a period of six months and they have to commit to working 40 hours a week after that initial orientation period. He said that on site the residents are taught various life skills such as how to manage a check book, how to pay bills, job skills and they are provided with food and shelter as well as 24-hour supervision, although it is not a lock down facility.
Mr. Paterson said that this is a State licensed Christian based recovery center for men who are homeless, low-income or recently released from jail. This project was reviewed by the Central Community Council on two occasions. Mr. Thomas Mutter the Community Council Chair submitted a letter in support of this project which was included in the staff report. Mr. Paterson stated that this proposal has been reviewed by several City Departments and a residential substance abuse facility is a conditional use in the Commercial Corridor “CC” zone and subject to the following conditions: one that it be a State licensed facility and that there be no other similar residential treatment facilities or half-way homes within 800 feet of this site. Mr. Paterson noted that the State license was included in the staff report which indicates that this facility is licensed for up to 30 people. He stated that the Business License Division indicates that there are no similar uses within 800 feet of this facility. Mr. Paterson noted that since the staff report was written that he has received a response from the Fire Department stating that their concerns have been addressed. He referred to the police report which lists reports of loitering and such. He said that from 1990 to 1992 the Salt Lake Mission used this facility to provide meals for the homeless. The Central Christian Church asked the Mission to leave due to the lack of supervision and the increased loitering. He said that the House of Refuge has actually been in operation at this site for about 14 months. Mr. Paterson said that there was confusion with regard to obtaining a State license and going through the City conditional use process and the House of Refuge contacted the City to complete the process.
Mr. Paterson outlined the structure and classes available at this facility. He said that with the management plan in place Staff is of the opinion that a majority of the problems found with the Salt Lake Mission will not materialize at this time. In terms of parking a new use will require six additional stalls in the proposed location. The Applicant notified Mr. Paterson today that they have arranged an agreement with Diamond Parking for those additional six stalls. Based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant conditional use approval for the House of Refuge at 370 South 300 East as requested by Petition 410-661 and subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Commissioner De Lay reiterated that the House of Refuge has been operating now for 14 months and asked how many residents are there. Mr. Paterson said that the number of residents at this time is about seven or eight.
Commissioner De Lay noted that when the Salt Lake Mission was in operation at this location there was a great deal of crime where as in 2003 the crime has gone down significantly.
Chair Muir asked Staff to explain the suggested reduction on parking based upon compatible use. Mr. Paterson stated that when there are two uses on a site and each use may generate parking demands at different times during the day. The ordinance allows the uses to share parking, thereby reducing the total number of parking stalls required to meet the need of both uses. He said that the ordinance would require the House of Refuge to have eight stalls but through the shared parking analysis Staff found that the parking requirement could be reduced to six stalls.
Chair Muir referred to the Central City Master Plan which is pending Salt Lake City Council approval. He said that the intent of that plan is to create considerable housing on this block and the agenda for eliminating development on the library block was to create an amenity for high density housing. He asked Staff’s opinion in response to those pending issues. Mr. Paterson said that Staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the pending Master Plan.
Chair Muir wondered at what point we reach a cumulative adverse impact given the number of Odyssey Houses on the east side. Mr. Paterson referred to the zoning ordinance standards which require an 800 foot separation between each facility. He said that that restriction may allow one per block.
Commissioner Chambless inquired regarding the amount of lighting on the subject property. Mr. Paterson replied that the lighting is limited on the site. Commissioner Chambless noted that there is residual lighting from light rail line and surrounding uses.
Commissioner Chambless inquired to what extent police traffic is visible at the subject property. Mr. Paterson replied that he did not know if the police had a set schedule to patrol the property; however, due to the past number of calls to the police regarding this property he thought that the police would frequently patrol the area.
Pastor Rob Farris with the House of Refuge and Pastor Steve Sandlin with the Central Christian Church addressed the Commission. Pastor Farris said that they hold an open house monthly and invite the public to attend. He said that the program is very structured. The residents have to sign a six month contract, go through a back ground check as well as agree to random urinalysis tests. He said that the men have to sign in and out at all times and have to maintain employment for the duration of their residence. Pastor Farris said that the residents have to commit to the structure of this program or they are referred to a phase 1 program where they can get a letter of recommendation. He said that there is a need to help people who are coming out of jail or are homeless in the area and they will remain on the street if there are no programs in place to help them. He said that programs like the House of Refuge offer structure rather than a handout.
Pastor Sandlin added that this is a transitional phase 2 program rather than the Odyssey House which is a phase 1. He said that the House of Refuge takes referrals from phase 1 facilities. He said that it is required that the residents obtain employment. The goal of the program is to train the residents to be leaders of the community. He referred to the time when the Salt Lake City Mission was on the Central Christian Church’s property and said that it was problematic and they felt that the Mission was run poorly. Since that time the community is safer because the House of Refuge provides 24-hour supervision.
Commissioner Scott referred to the six month contract which the residents sign, and asked how long the average resident stays at the facility. Pastor Farris replied that the residents generally stay for six months. Pastor Farris stated that they have a 25 percent graduation rate, which is tremendous for a program such as this. Once residents graduate they go to transitional housing and their cases are continually managed for up to two years after graduating from the House of Refuge program.
Commissioner Scott inquired regarding the nature of the residence inside. Pastor Farris replied that the top floor has a large dorm area, and one large private room for the cooks. He said that the Staff has their own rooms and provide 24-hour supervision. In the basement there is an industrial sized kitchen and a dining area.
Chair Muir asked if the location of the facility contributes to the success rate. Pastor Farris replied that being an inner city ministry they find that most of the potential residents are in the City along the 400 South Corridor. He said that they are a facility which meets the needs of the immediate community. He added they are partnered with the Rescue Mission and often direct people on the street to phase 1 programs. Pastor Farris referred to the organizational chart on the back of the brochure in the staff report saying that they do not want to duplicate any service available in the community and have partnered with various groups. He said that the current location is ideal because they have all of the other outreach components at their fingertips.
Pastor Sandlin added that some of the components are the proximity to TRAX and they are located in an area with the heaviest concentration of jobs per block rather than any other location in the Valley.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Commissioner De Lay noted for the public record an e-mail communication from Ms. Anne Burkholder, Chief Executive Officer of the YWCA of Salt Lake City. Ms. Burkholder indicated that she had a long discussion with Pastor Sandlin regarding her concerns and based upon that conversation she believes that the proposed transitional program has adequate supervision and that the participants do not pose a risk to the families that the YWCA is protecting.
Mr. Arthur Baldwin wondered if the Central Christian Church is mandating the ongoing treatment of the residents. He referred to the condition that does not allow the proposed facility to locate within 800 feet of a similar facility. He said that he is aware of a transitional victim’s home located at the YWCA on 300 South and 300 East. He thought that that may be an issue. Mr. Baldwin inquired as to the training of the graduates which have become part of the Staff for the House of Refuge. He wondered what concerns the YWCA had regarding this petition.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Baldwin if he is a resident of this area. Mr. Baldwin replied that he not a resident but currently attends St. Peter and Paul Orthodox Church across the street. He said that he has worked with a program associated with the YWCA, and he is aware of some of their concerns.
Commissioner De Lay stated that there were no specific concerns mentioned in the e-mail message from the YWCA and read the message for the public.
Commissioner De Lay noted for the public record an e-mail communication from Mr. JL Sommer who is opposed to this petition.
Mr. Lawrence Havens addressed the Commission saying that his main concern is safety. He said that he attends the church across the street and there have been many examples of people coming in off the street to use the church facilities. He said that he has made a habit of checking the bathrooms every morning. He thought that the location in proximity to the 7-Eleven and the Liquor Store may be an added temptation to the residents of the facility and may make it more difficult for them to handle.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Havens if he had any indication that those people that have been discovered with problems are residents of the House of Refuge. Mr. Havens said that he would never make that accusation. He said that his point is that there is an existing problem and at the very least the proposed location would be a bad influence on the residents of the House of Refuge.
Commissioner De Lay reiterated that the police report noted in the staff report shows a decrease in criminal activity in the past few years.
Ms. Antoinette Sotiriou an employee of the Broadway Pharmacy at 242 East Broadway addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal. She mentioned extreme concern with the homeless and criminal activity in the area. She indicated that she has had several unpleasant encounters with the homeless. She felt that there are more appropriate areas outside of the City to allow the proposed use.
Chair Muir asked Ms. Sotiriou what she thought the sense of the surrounding community is with respect to the direction that the community is headed. Ms. Sotiriou replied that they are less likely to want to come to this area. She felt that the House of Refuge intentions are good but she does not sense support for the proposal from the people who shop in that Pharmacy.
Commissioner De Lay asked Ms. Sotiriou if she could determine if any House of Refuge residents shopped in the Broadway Pharmacy. Ms. Sotiriou replied that she had no way of knowing where they live. Commissioner De Lay reiterated that Ms. Sotiriou is opposed to these kinds of people living Downtown in general. Ms. Sotiriou said that she is opposed because of her experiences as an employee of the Broadway Pharmacy and the unpleasant encounters she has had.
Mr. Leo Sotiriou addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal. He said that the proposed location may have a negative impact on Downtown Salt Lake City, specifically the new library. He felt that Downtown has enough of these facilities and felt that the proposed project should move south. He asked how the facility was able to run for 14 months.
Chair Muir said that quite often people go a head with installations without the City knowing and when the City becomes aware they enforce the issues and work to get them to comply.
Mr. Paterson agreed with Chair Muir saying that sometimes uses start operating without the City’s knowledge. In this case there is correspondence with the House of Refuge and the Salt Lake City Zoning Administrator dating back to December 2003 and the City has been working with them since.
Father Basil Hartung, Pastor of the St. Peter and Paul Church addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal. He referred to the success rate of 25 percent as mentioned by Pastor Farris and said that he believed that those that do not graduate end up causing trouble in the community. He asked that the Commission locate this facility in another area.
Commissioner De Lay asked Father Basil what outreach programs for Substance Abuse are available at the St. Peter and Paul Church or that work in partnership with the Department of Corrections. Father Basil replied that they do not work with the Department of Corrections nor do they have programs for Substance Abuse. He said that they provide food and services available for anyone who comes into their church.
Commissioner Scott asked Father Basil if he has noticed a change in the outreach level within the past 14 months since the House of Refuge has been in operation. Father Basil said that he did not notice a change and he was pleased to find that it had been in operation for that long. He said that he would not complain if the amount of maximum residents remained at 7. He stated that he is opposed to the 30 resident maximum.
Ms. Valeria Nakoryakov addressed the Commission in opposition. She said that helping people return to society is a good thing but it can not be done over night. She said that the interests of the community need to be carefully considered and the safety of others can not be overlooked. Ms. Nakoryakov attends the St. Peter and Paul Church and said that the church is never locked and as a mother she worries about her children. She indicated that she has had many unpleasant encounters already and believed that they would increase if the proposal is approved.
Ms. Natalye Zhuravlova addressed the Commission stating concerns with the safety of those that attend the St. Peter and Paul Church.
Ms. Kandi Hartung, wife of Father Basil addressed the Commission in opposition. She said that the Central Christian Church has good intentions but they are in the wrong area. She felt that the residents will be offered too many temptations. Ms. Hartung asked that the Commission deny the proposal.
Commissioner De Lay asked Ms. Hartung if she could determine of the residents of the House of Refuge were the people causing trouble. Ms. Hartung said that she could not determine that. She said that she was not aware that the House of Refuge was in operation until the she received the public notice. Ms. Hartung said that she is not blaming the House of Refuge residents for the indecent activity. She voiced concern that the residents of the House of Refuge are not put into a situation that would set them up to fail.
Commissioner Chambless asked Ms. Hartung if she is of the opinion that there is sufficient lighting and police traffic. Ms. Hartung said that there is not sufficient lighting. She felt that there is a need for lights in middle of 300 East. She said that with respect to policing the area the police only come when they are called. Ms. Hartung reiterated that the residents of the facility need to be isolated from temptation.
Commissioner Chambless said that part of the solution could be the increased lighting on the public thoroughfare.
Mr. Ed Sperry addressed the Commission as an adjacent property owner. He spoke to the Commission in opposition saying that the reduction in the number of police calls is due to the fact that he got tired of calling. He felt that the House of Refuge should not be rewarded for operating for 14 months with out the proper permits.
Mr. Paul Kelley addressed the Commission saying that he was extremely angry when initially hearing about this proposal. He said that he lost a considerable amount of business when the Mission was in operation. Since he has become aware that that House of Refuge has been in operation he is not necessarily for or against the petition. He indicated a concern with the success of his business and was not sure if this is the best proposal for the surrounding community.
Chair Muir stated that the difficulty that the Planning Commission has if they decide against the Staff recommendation, the Commission has to come up with their own findings of fact. He felt that the 800 foot spacing requirement is inappropriate. He wondered if the City has saturated the capability of this neighborhood to absorb the current proposal as well as similar uses.
Mr. Kelley noted that there is a transient population Downtown and he could not say that those that are panhandling in front of his business are the residents of the House of Refuge
Chair Muir said that there is a need to build housing in this neighborhood and asked Mr. Kelley for input regarding how to rejuvenate this area.
Mr. Kelley said that he believed that the current proposal will scare people away because of the attitude that the concept is great but not in my neighborhood. He said that he believed in what the Applicant is trying to accomplish. Mr. Kelley said that he has customers that ride TRAX to the library stop and are uncomfortable walking on the north side of 400 South to the corner of 300 East even since the Mission stopped operating. He mentioned concern that more people were not informed of the public hearing.
Ms. Tatyana Golub addressed the Commission in agreement with the comments that the program is good and there is a need for it; however, she felt that the issue is the location. She mentioned concerns with the safety of those that attend the St. Peter and Paul Church.
Mr. Ruda Noaghiu addressed that Commission saying that he agreed with the comments that the location should be moved from the nucleus of the City.
Ms. Natalia Alipy addressed the Commission saying that she completely supports all of the comments presented this evening in opposition. She felt that it is not a practical location for the proposal. She said that it would be unfair to approve the proposal and may compromise the needs of the congregation of the St. Peter and Paul Church. She said that the outcome is questionable, and this type of facility should be isolated from the community.
Ms. Grace Sperry addressed the Commission on opposition of the petition. She said that she has witnessed on several occasions residents of the House of Refuge contributing to the criminal activity in the area. She said that they attract other vagrants and problems and the surrounding residents would like the residents of the facility to leave.
Mr. Richard Meiners addressed the Commission saying that the new library attracts transients. He felt that it would be unconscionably negligible to move a criminal element into the area. He implored the Commission to deny the proposal.
Chair Muir read the following public comments for the record:
Ms. Irene Prokivchak did not wish to speak but is in opposition of the proposal.
Izabella Sinca did not wish to speak but indicated that the location is not appropriate due to the proximity to a historical building and an Orthodox Church.
Pastor Farris spoke to the Commission to address the questions and concerns of the community. He said that they have been in operation because they thought that the City and State were working with each other to decide how to license this use. He said that when they came to the City to get the conditional use permit they found out that they did things backward and have since tried to rectify that.
Chair Muir asked if the House of Refuge obtained a business license. Mr. Paterson noted that the House of Refuge is registered as a church, and churches are not required to have a business license.
Pastor Farris referred to the comment regarding police patrol. He said that the police are constantly in the 7-eleven parking lot. He said that the concerns of the St. Peter and Paul congregation are valid; however, if the House of Refuge relocated the transient problem would remain. He added that if the residents of the facility do not follow the restrictions they go back to jail. He stated that this type of program needs to be located in the heart of the problem to make a difference.
Commissioner De Lay asked Pastor Farris if any of the residents have been arrested while in the program. Pastor Farris replied that just one gentleman who returned to jail and subsequently returned to the program.
Commissioner De Lay reiterated that those residents that do not follow the restrictions go back to jail and therefore are not put out on the street. Pastor Farris replied that they either go back to jail or to a phase one program, but are not put out on the street.
Commissioner De Lay asked how many current residents are being treated for substance abuse. Pastor Farris replied that none are currently being treated for drugs in the home; however, they do offer AA counseling.
Commissioner De Lay asked the Applicant to respond to the comments that the residents are contributing to the unwanted activity. Pastor Farris replied that many of residents smoke and they all go outside together as an accountability measure.
Pastor Sandlin added that the intent of the facility is to mirror real life and the residents are allowed two 15-minute breaks per work shift. They are expected to stick to a strict work schedule.
Commissioner Chambless asked that the Applicant respond to the comment that the residents of the facility attract other vagrants and problems. Pastor Sandlin stated that no visitors are allowed without 24-hour written notice and then the visitor has to be approved by the Staff.
Commissioner Chambless inferred that the problems discussed this evening are not coming from the residents in the program. Pastor Sandlin agreed and stated that the House of Refuge recognizes that the vagrancy and alcoholics that loiter Downtown is a community problem and they are sensitive to that issue. He said that he shared the same concerns with the vagrancy and stated that no one is allowed to loiter on their property.
Commissioner Chambless asked the Applicant to respond to the various comments expressed that the proposal is a great concept but the location is an issue. Pastor Farris restated that this location is ideal and the fact that the House of Refuge is providing 24-hour supervision of the area the loitering has reduced. Pastor Sandlin felt that the House of Refuge is being blamed for a community problem. He said that if the House of Refuge relocated the crime would increase. He said that the supervision of the property as well as the accountability of the residents are the reasons why the community is safer.
Commissioner Scott asked if the facility Staff has ever contacted the police regarding a resident. Pastor Farris said that there has never been a need to do so. He reiterated that the residents frequently have to submit to urinalysis tests and the House of Refuge Staff may go through the resident’s belonging at any time.
Pastor Sandlin stated that the comment that the residents drink on the property is untrue. He said that alcohol is not allowed on the property whatsoever, if someone comes onto the House of Refuge property they are asked to leave or pour the alcohol out. He added that if a resident was found drinking alcohol they would be dismissed from the program.
Commissioner Galli asked the Applicant to clarify if this is a lock down facility or if the residents may come and go as they please. Pastor Farris explained that if a resident is off restriction they may sign out with a practical reason and time that they will return. He gave examples of work, visiting family and such. No keys are given to residents; they must ring the doorbell to get in to the facility. In the event that a resident does not return to the facility before 10:00 p.m. they are not allowed back in that night and must appear before a peer disciplinary board the next morning.
Commissioner Galli reiterated that the facility provides 24-hour supervision for those that choose to commit to the structure of the facility. He said that for the period of time that the residents sign out they are not supervised. He asked the Applicant to explain the claims made this evening that the surrounding neighbors have observed residents leaving the House of Refuge to loiter in the neighborhood and consume alcohol. Pastor Farris disputed that noting when asked by the Planning Commission if the neighbors could determine that the people responsible for the problems in the neighborhood are the residents of the facility the neighbors said no, they could not verify that.
Pastor Farris said that there are three things that a resident can do to be dismissed from the program immediately, violence of any kind, refusing to take a breathalyzer or urinalysis, or disappearing for more then 24-hours without leave. He said that the residents are held accountable for their time away from the facility so in a sense they are supervised.
Commissioner Galli asked how many residents have been dismissed from the program. Pastor Farris replied that no one has been dismissed, but there have been several disciplinary actions taken on behalf of the peer board. He said that if the resident does not agree with the disciplinary action they are free to go, and the House of Refuge notifies the police. Pastor Farris said he has not seen a resident that has left the program around the neighborhood.
Chair Muir asked the Applicant why they requested a 30 resident maximum when they typically have about 9 to 15 residents. Pastor Farris replied that they would like room to grow and the State mandates that the House of Refuge has sufficient Staff for the amount of residents.
Chair Muir asked if Mayor Workman directed the House of Refuge to locate this facility in Sandy. Pastor Farris replied that they never spoke with Mayor Workman nor did they speak with Mayor Anderson. He said that they had the location in mind when they proposed the facility.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Chair Muir said that he is concerned that the neighborhood is reaching capacity. He recognized a great need in the community to help these people become responsible citizens. Chair Muir felt that the House of Refuge runs a strict facility. He said that Mayor Anderson shared with him that Salt Lake City has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the Country. He said that he is dismayed that Salt Lake City carries a huge disproportionate burden of these types of facilities.
Commissioner McDonough wondered what other similar uses could be allowed at this location according to the table of permitted and conditional uses. Mr. Paterson said that the church will remain and the treatments homes are allowed as conditional use.
Commissioner McDonough stated that the Salt Lake Mission operation was a permitted use. She said that she has observed the comments this evening that a problem was escalated during time that the Mission was functioning. She said that she understands the intent is to not go back to that scenario. Commissioner McDonough wondered how much control the Planning Commission decision has over the issues at this site. She felt that a lot of the vagrancy happens because of the general dynamics of the area. She did not know if the Planning Commission’s approval would make the situation worse.
Commissioner Scott asked if the YWCA is within 800 feet of the proposal. Mr. Paterson indicated that the YWCA is within 800 feet. He said that Staff will have to find how the YWCA land use is specified by the City. He noted that when he requested input from the Business Licensing Division listing the type of facilities that can not be located within 800 feet, the Business Licensing Office replied with an email that they were not aware of such uses within 800 feet.
Chair Muir asked Staff what the recommendation would be if the YWCA is found to be classified as a transitional victim’s home or another type of home listed in the ordinance. Mr. Paterson replied that if the proposed use does not meet the 800 foot spacing requirement then the use could not be approved because that is one of the conditions that the ordinance requires. He said that a substance abuse treatment home is a conditional use and subject to meeting the state licensing requirements and the 800 foot spacing requirement.
Commissioner Galli was concerned with the 800 foot spacing issue. He also mentioned concern whether the community has been given sufficient notice. He said that his understanding is that noticing requirement is for all of the properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. He said that if the Commission tables this item and it comes back to the Commission for review, he suggested that the notice be sent to all of the property owners within 800 feet. He felt that there is not enough information for the Commission to move forward.
Chair Muir said that the measurement of the net cumulative effect for this district should be reviewed and that the notification for this petition should be equal to the 800 foot spacing requirement.
Commissioner De Lay agreed and added that the definitions of the treatment facilities should be reviewed as well.
Commissioner Scott noted that the Planning Commission initiated a petition to map the conditional uses in the Central City and East Central Communities. She said that that petition has been put on hold and thought that that project should be reviewed. She felt that that would help the Commission specify the net cumulative impact.
Chair Muir said that in consideration of Staff’s time hopefully they would come back to the Commission with recommendations on how the Commission should deal with these issues.
Chair Muir asked if the sense of the Commission is to table the item which would be brought back to the Commission if it passes the test of proximity to the YWCA.
Commissioner Chambless said that he supported tabling the item.
Chair Muir said that by tabling the issue the facility will continue to operate. The Commission could deny the petition and come up with findings, or the Commission could approve the proposal based on the presentation this evening.
Commissioner Galli stated that if the petition fails the spacing requirement the issue would become an enforcement issue.
Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff is capable of dealing with the issues that the Commission raises. He said that he is troubled by the discussion of increasing the notification area requirement, outside the scope of the ordinance.
Commissioner Galli added that the notification cannot be arbitrarily changed for this particular proposal. He believed the Commission can table the proposal based on the need for more information regarding finding K. He said that if the petition comes back to the Commission he felt that they could require additional information regarding the cumulative impact. He said that the Commission could invite other residents or businesses within that zone of influence, but not as a noticing requirement.
Motion for Petition No. 410-661
Commissioner Galli made a motion that the Planning Commission table matter 410-661 a request by the House of Refuge at 370 South 300 East, with instructions for Staff to specifically readdress whether finding K is valid and appropriate and whether this petition meets the criteria set forth in the finding K with respect the 800 foot spacing requirement.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Chair Muir followed up the motion by asking Staff to come back to the Commission with an idea of how to address these issues. He wondered whether this area warrants a small area plan which would allow the issues to be examined specifically with respect to the concerns of this area. He conveyed those concerns to Staff to address rather that mandate a petition at this time.
Commissioner McDonough noted that it is often an interpretation on behalf of the individual Commissioners as to what net cumulative adverse impact means. She hoped that this particular petition could supplement and identify all similar and relative uses within a reasonable space.
Chair Muir said that the 800 foot spacing requirement does not give the Commission discretion to listen to the public and assess if there is a problem. If a use is within 800 feet it is not allowed. He did not think the cumulative impact could be measured by proximity alone.
Commissioner McDonough felt that the net cumulative effect is determined by the similar uses that contribute to the issues discussed this evening.
Commissioner Galli referred to the language in the ordinance and said that there is a significant amount of discretion given to the Commission to analyze the material net cumulative impact, not only regarding the 800 foot buffer, it also references the neighborhood or City as a whole. Commissioner Galli said that perhaps the new library is becoming an attractive nuisance as mentioned by many this evening.
Chair Muir agreed and suggested that Mr. Paterson invite Council Member Saxton to participate in a dialogue regarding what her experience has been with these issues.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the Community Council approved the proposal and asked Mr. Paterson if he knew the vote. Mr. Paterson replied that the letter indicates that the vote was unanimous. Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Paterson if he would research how many trustees attended that meeting.
Petition No. 410-660, by PacifiCorp represented by Gina Crezee, requesting conditional use approval to expand the electrical substation located at 2436 South Highland Drive in a Single Family Residential "R-1-5000" zoning district; and
Petition No. 400-04-03, by PacifiCorp represented by Gina Crezee, requesting that the City close or vacate the alley located in Block 6 of Highland Park Plat “B” subdivision, as a public right-of-way, and declare the alley property as surplus.
This item was heard at 9:18 p.m.
Associate Planner Janice Lew presented the petition as written in the staff report. She indicated that the new equipment will be located south of the Utah Light and Railway building which will be accessible from Parkway Avenue. The existing historic structure will remain in place and will be repaired to preserve the historic character of the site. She noted that three adjacent homes will be demolished. Ms. Lew referred to the public alley which runs through the southwest corner of the property and noted that the Applicant has submitted a request to close the alley. Staff did not receive comments in opposition from the various City Departments; however, several requirements were included and addressed through the conditions of approval. The Sugar House Community Council voted in favor of the request based on the Applicant’s willingness to provide several amenities which were outlined in the Community Council’s letter that has been included in the staff report. Ms. Lew stated that Staff received several inquiries from the public regarding this proposal. She referred to a telephone call from Ms. Maurine Record who resides at the Wood Hollow Condominiums. She was concerned with the impacts that this expansion may have on the area and received copies of the plans. Ms. Lew said that she received a telephone call from Ms. Karen Vandevote, also of Wood Hollow who was concerned with the location of the alley. Ms. Jean Lowering contacted Ms. Lew with concerns relating to the location of the alley, health issues and the construction time frame. Mr. Steve Scottorn also contacted Ms. Lew requesting information regarding the alley. Ms. Lew noted that Staff did not receive comments in direct opposition to the proposal. Based upon the comments, analysis and findings of fact noted in the staff report Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the expansion of the electrical substation subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Lew referred to the proposed alley closure and said that the alley is entirely encompassed by PacifiCorp owned property and would be integrated into the proposed site plan for the expansion. The alley does not physically exist, and the access to the alley is currently restricted by the fence that surrounds the substation, making it unavailable to the public. Ms. Lew stated that based on the analysis and findings identified in the staff report Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close and abandon the subject alley and declare the alley property surplus to the City’s needs as a public alley, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Lew requested that the Applicant have the opportunity to review their plans in more detail for the Commission. She noted that the Planning Commission received additional information in which the Applicant is considering a different material for the wall that would screen the facility. Ms. Lew noted a correction in the staff report which indicated that the ornamental metal gate for the wall would be 24 feet. Ms. Lew stated that the gate will be 24 feet in width and 9 feet high.
Ms. Gina Crezee addressed the Commission representing PacifiCorp. She stated that the area for the proposed expansion is growing with respect to retail and their demand for additional power. She referred to page three of the staff report which states that the Applicant committed to repairing the 1911 historical structure. She clarified that the Applicant will be hiring a Historical Architect to look at the structural integrity of the building. Ms. Crezee said that the Community Council’s concerns were related to the broken or boarded windows of which PacifiCorp is planning to replace.
Chair Muir referred to the Applicant’s promises to the Community Council and indicated that the Community Council is an advisory body to the Planning Commission. He said that the Commission appreciates the fact that the Applicant has made commitments with the Community Council; however, those commitments are not necessarily binding. Ms. Crezee said that she understood that but did not want the Community Council to think that PacifiCorp is moving in a different direction.
Ms. Crezee referred to the request of the surrounding residents that the new wall maintain the integrity of the current wall and that the Applicant use brick for the new construction. Ms. Crezee referred to the samples presented to the Commission this evening showing tilt up walls. She said that the tilt up wall is more structurally sound and easier to replace. She added that graffiti washes off easier, which is another concern raised but the neighbors. Ms. Crezee said that they are willing to defer to the judgment of the Commission but they just wanted to give them another option for the material of the wall.
Ms. Crezee referred to the homes that will be demolished and said that it is the preference of PacifiCorp that the neighbors be allowed to have first pick of what is in the homes because many of them are currently remodeling their homes. She added that PacifiCorp will submit pictures of the homes and drawings of the floor plans to the Sugar House Historical Society. She said that there will also be a plaque posted at the site commemorating the homes. Ms. Crezee said that the Applicant prefers ornamental iron rather than wrought iron for the gate. Ms. Crezee said that the Sugar House Community Council offered to vacate the alley for free if PacifiCorp would put money into the trail system that Sugar House Community Council is working on.
Chair Muir stated that the Sugar House Community Council does not have the authority to make that decision. He said that that is the nature of the public process and obviously people are always trying to improve their areas. He said that it is his understanding that Staff has advised the Applicant of that. Ms. Crezee indicated that Staff had advised them of that.
Chair Muir asked if there are any health issues associated with the expansion. Ms. Crezee stated that there are none.
Commissioner Chambless asked what decibel level the associated noise will be. Ms. Crezee said that she did not know in exact decibels but the new equipment will be quieter than the old equipment. She added that the tilt up wall is also a sound barrier if the Commission decides to select that type of wall.
Commissioner Chambless referred to Ms. Crezee’s comment regarding lowering the line of sight and asked if the Applicant could lower the actual facility so that it would not be visible from street level. Ms. Crezee said that it would not be completely out of sight. The Applicant does however have to berm down 3 feet which will shield a large part of the facility.
Commissioner McDonough asked regarding the existing fence on the west side if the Applicant has received input from the residents to the west. Ms. Crezee said that they have received positive input from those residents. She said that the Public Safety Division requested that that fence remain as it currently is so that the rear of the property is visible.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Ms. Grace Sperry addressed that Commission as a representative of the Sugar House Community Council. She said that the letter included in the staff report speaks for what was agreed. She said that the Community Council was pleased with what the Applicant has agreed to do. She referred to the new style of fence which was submitted this evening and said that if the Commission approves that option, she would prefer the sandstone or cobble rock which she felt would compliment that area. Ms. Sperry noted that the Sugar House Community Council did not address that option at their meeting.
Chair Muir stated that the Planning Commission respects the input from the Community Councils especially in terms of desires that they wish the Applicant achieve. He said that he wanted to make it clear that agreements made between the Applicant and the Community Council are not necessarily binding, and it is a cooperative gesture of both parties. Ms. Sperry said that she is aware of that and made the Applicant aware of that as well. She said that she did not take part in some of the requests made of the Applicant.
Mr. Rawlins Young addressed the Commission saying that the proposed site is the gateway of the largest trolley car subdivision in the State. He said that there has been an ongoing effort for this area to be recognized as a historic district. He felt that it is very important to keep the historic Utah Light and Trolley Building intact as a landmark structure.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-660 and 400-04-03
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-660 based on the comments, analysis and findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission approve the expansion of the electrical substation subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall meet all applicable City, County, State or Federal requirements.
2. All utilities and utility easements shall be approved by each City entity having an interest in said utility and/or easement.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning Director.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owners shall consolidate their parcels of land into one lot.
5. The conditional use approval shall be valid for a one year period unless a building permit is issued and construction is actually begun, or the use commenced within that period, or a longer time is requested and granted by the Planning Commission.
6. The material of the wall shall be masonry.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-03 based upon the analysis and findings identified in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close and abandon the subject alley and declare the alley property surplus to the City’s needs as a public alley, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
2. Prior to City Council consideration, the applicant shall reach an agreement regarding the price to be paid for the alley property with the City’s Property Management Division.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall formally combine the parcels owned by the applicant in Block 6 of Highland Park Plat “B” subdivision including the alley property.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Scott wondered why the current petitions do not require housing mitigation due to the loss of the three houses. Mr. Wilde stated that two factors trigger housing mitigation; one being a change of zoning and the other is a conditional use to create a parking lot.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the material selection for the wall and felt that the brick rendering is the more appropriate look rather than the rock product. She felt that the rock product does not compliment the historical integrity of the structure. Commissioner McDonough suggested that an additional condition be added to require that the material of the wall be masonry.
Commissioner De Lay accepted that additional condition. Commissioner Chambless accepted that condition as well.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Wilde said in terms of negotiating a final solution regarding the wall, often times ornamental iron with hedge forming vegetation has been used to screen an area. He asked the Commission if that would be acceptable.
Commissioner McDonough inquired if that would include only the areas of the wall with ornamental iron. Mr. Wilde asked how much flexibility the Commission is willing to allow the Applicant if they prefer to expand the ornamental iron to other areas of the wall.
Chair Muir felt that the Applicant should work with the community to get a sense of their preference as well, in order to come up with a reasonable solution.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Zunguze referred to a request by Staff for the Planning Commissioners to submit their automobile information to avoid parking tickets. He asked those that have not submitted that information to do so.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the Planning Commission agendas which typically note times for each specific case. He said that Staff would like to do away with that. He noted that the Planning Commission is the only body that lists times with the cases. He asked if the Commission would accept that change to list only the cases on the agenda and not include times. The Commission agreed.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.