SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 31 5
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Max Smith, Aria Funk, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Jim McRea, Andrea Barrows and Carlton Christensen. Gilbert lker and Fred Fife were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless and Everett Joyce.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Mr. Young. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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
Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, February 20, 1997 as presented. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted II Aye". Mr. Fife, Mr. McRea and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-257 by AirTouch Cellular requesting a conditional for cellular telecommunication antennae to be located on the roof of a multi-family residential building located at 4 75 East 900 South in a Residential - RMF-45" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Gary Jones, representing AirTouch Cellular, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the
staff recommendations.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Jones why the antennae are roof mounted rather than side mounted on the building. Mr. Jones said that if the antennae were side mounted they would need to be angled to service the intersections and with the irregular shape of the building, the antennae would be more visible than if it were roof mounted. He also stated that the owner of the building requested the antennae be roof mounted.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Petition No. 410-257:
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 410-257, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Ms. Barrows stated some concern about the antennae being roof mounted.
Mr. Wright commented that the staff concurs with the explanation that Mr. Jones stated. Mr. Wright said that the building has a smooth face with not a lot of irregularity in the architecture so, the staff concluded that the antennae would be less noticeable on the roof rather than on the sides of the building. There being no further discussion, Mr. Young called for a vote on the motion.
Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea and Mr. Smith voted “Aye". Mr. Fife and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-258 by Jaren Davis requesting a conditional use for a residential planned development consisting of 1 2 units in six buildings located at 363 East 9th Avenue in a Special Development Pattern Residential IISR-1 "zoning district.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Jaren Davis, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lynn Williams, an abutting property owner, spoke in favor of the proposal. He said that he has lived in this neighborhood for 59 years and he believes that this proposal is the best possible use for this property and that it will be an asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. Eric Johnson, a resident from the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the proposal. He said that he is very pleased that the proposal is residential and that it will add significantly to the neighborhood.
Mr. Richard Davis, a resident from the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the proposal and is pleased to see that the proposal is residential.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that he had a phone call from Ms. Linda Huntington, a resident from the neighborhood. Ms. Huntington was opposed to additional development in the Avenues, her concerns included truck traffic, high speeds and dust due to the construction.
Mr. Donald A. Duff, a resident from the neighborhood submitted a letter in opposition to the proposal. He feels that the best use of the property would be for single family residential homes. A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Wheelwright why there is no guest parking on the site plan.
Mr. Wheelwright said that the architect had proposed some guest parking on the private driveway, but that conflicted with the Fire Department's requirement for access. The architect is now working on fitting one or two stalls in the vicinity of the private driveway without using up a lot of the open space.
Motion on Petition No. 41 0-258:
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 410-258, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea and Mr. Smith voted 11Aye". Mr. Fife and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-97-3 by Salt Lake Schools Credit Union requesting Salt Lake City to rezone the property at the northeast corner of Richmond Street and Zenith Avenue from a Residential JJRMF-30" to a Commercial 11C8" zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Bill Minahan, President of SCI, a company that specializes in designing and building credit unions, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Steve Anderson, President of Salt Lake School Credit Union, was also present and stated that he was also in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Smith expressed concern about the amount of parking. Mr. Joyce stated that there is currently excessive parking for the ordinance requirement. If the expansion is approved, there would still be an excess of about four or five stalls. Mr. Minahan said that his design for expansion will allow for some excessive parking without losing a lot of landscaping.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Joyce what the difference is in the number of parking spaces required for the current size of the building and the expanded size. Mr. Joyce stated that the current size of the building has a 1 2-14 parking stall requirement and the expansion would require a 20-22 stalls which is about 1 0 stalls less than what is being shown on the site plan.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address
the Planning Commission. Ms. Barbara Embly, an abutting property owner, spoke in favor of the proposed development and zoning change.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Petition No. 400-97-3:
Mr. Smith moved to approve Petition No. 400-97-3, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with an additional condition that the Planning Director have the discretion to reduce the parking to a level that is consistent with the usage of the building and preserve as much green space as possible. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea and Mr. Smith voted 11Aye". Mr. Fife and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
ISSUES ONLY INFORMAL HEARING- The Planning Commission will receive public comment on concept development plans within the Sugar House Business District (bounded by 2100 South. 1300 East. Wilmington Avenue and Highland Drive No decisions will be made at this meeting.
Mr. Young explained that this was an issues only hearing and no decision would be made at this time. He stated that this is the second issues only informal hearing for continued public input on the proposed improvements. Following the first issues only hearing in November 1 996, a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission with community representatives was formed.
Ms. Short, Chair of the Sugar House Business District Subcommittee, briefed the Planning Commission on the progress that has been made. There is approximately 20-25 individuals that attend each subcommittee meeting with representatives from the Sugar House Community Council, Planning Staff, Planning Commission, developers of the project, KOPE Kids, the library and anyone that has had an interest in the proposal. She stated that the subcommittee has made a lot of progress since the last informal hearing in November. Tonight's hearing will be helpful to the subcommittee as we hear the concerns, opinions and suggestions from the community regarding the updated concept development plans.
Mr. Smith, a member of the Sugar House Business District Subcommittee, mentioned that the 11City Design Workshop" that was held in January had a Design Team of about nine nationally renowned designers, planners and urban specialists that took time to look at this Sugar House project. During their review of this project, it was mentioned that a good design is really good business. Mr. Smith said that the proposal presented tonight represents a good design. It is not a finished product, but it is moving in a positive direction. He then stated that the subcommittee's general feeling is that the good design is stimulated by community action.
Mr. Lew Swain, representing the Boyer Company, gave a briefing of the major issues involved in this design including master plan policies, community council input and the development issues involved with the project.
Mr. Swain described the changes and concept corrections that has brought the site plan to a substantially different point. He also responded to issues addressed in a letter by the Sugar House Community Council, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Some of the community council concerns were the need to create a focal point in the center of the project to draw people in, parking issues, architectural elevations and UTA bus stops. Mr. Swain identified the changes made to the above concerns. He said that wide pedestrian walkways and buildings will help create a focal point, an arched entryway will let people know that there is something ~different' to see and there will be a parking garage added to create more open space and bring second story elevations to the project. The Utah Transit Authority has not come to any conclusions regarding the locations of bus stops, but they have been included in the discussions. The site plan and the elevations are a joint effort between Russ Naylor, Nichols Naylor Architects, and Fred Babcock, Babcock Design Group. A slide show was given to illustrate the elevations of the buildings that are being proposed on the site plan.
Mr. Babcock introduced the slide show. He stated that the architecture designs for the facades are an adaptation of what they might have done many years ago if they were the first developers in Sugar House. Mr. Babcock explained that the slide show will give an idea of what will be seen at eye level in relation to the elevations on the site plan.
Mr. Richard Mendenhall, representing Woodmen Properties, one of the petitioners, presented the current proposals for the hotel and the restaurant. Mr. Mendenhall explained that there were many proposals looked at for the hotel. He used briefing boards to demonstrate the differences and stated that the final proposal chosen was also the original proposal.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Jessica Fawson, one of the KOPE Kids, would like to see a connection with Sugar House Park and eventually one with Fairmont Park. She likes the hotel proposal that was chosen.
Ms. Fawson had questions concerning the width of the sidewalks, the roof pitches and traffic impact.
Mr. Swain stated that there will be a combination of narrow sidewalks and extra wide sidewalks, depending on the location in the development. He mentioned that there will be many different sizes and shapes of roof pitches being used.
Ms. Julie Schlesinger, one of the KOPE Kids, would like to see a community area that will attract people to Sugar House either by driving, walking or biking. In the future, she would also like to see some of the past included such as historical monuments, recreational opportunities, an amphitheater and fountains.
Ms. Agnes Greenhall, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposal. She is pleased to see a development that balances commercial interests and community interests in a pedestrian non-vehicle oriented neighborhood. She would like to see connection to the parks, green space or planters between the road and the sidewalk, children's playground areas, less parking above ground and gymnasium facilities.
Ms. Jan Haug, representing the Southeast Neighborhood Council, stated that the project appears to be moving along in a positive direction and reflecting the needs and the wants of the community. She has concerns regarding the hotel alignment along the creek and suggests that the hotel and restaurant parcels be looked at as extensively as the entire project.
Ms. Alice Edvalson, Secretary of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that she would like to see a larger room for community activities and meetings, more open space with recreational opportunities and a balance of retail.
Ms. Ivana Thomas, a member of the Sugar House Community Council, is pleased to see that the developer has incorporated the community's concerns in the revised site plan. She would like to see safe wide pedestrian walkways. Ms. Thomas stated that she is pleased with the architecture and feels that this development will look like it I belongs' in the Sugar House community.
Ms. Cheri Carleson, is pleased to see that everyone is involved. Ms. Carleson does not want to see Elizabeth Street closed. She feels that if it were a public nonmotorized street that it will provide a safe pedestrian and bike oriented transportation thoroughfare.
Ms. Nancy Jacobsen, a concerned citizen, stated that she has had a business in Sugar House for over 20 years. She hopes that the existing merchants in the proposed area will be considered and included in the new development. Having a place to operate a small business or a family business and be a vital part of the community is what has made Sugar House what it is today.
Mr. Swain responded by stating that once the site plan has been completed, they plan to meet with all of the existing tenants to see what their expectations are. If the expectations are agreed upon, they can sign a lease and stay in the area.
Mr. Wright stated that an effort has been made to vary the sizes of the tenant spaces that would be made available at different locations. This plan now provides opportunities for a variety of tenants and size of tenant spaces.
Mr. Rich Bennett, a member of the Sugar House Community Council, has been working with the subcommittee and is pleased with the work that has been done. He stated that the retail space keeps expanding which results in more parking. He would like to see a compromise made so that the parking can be reduced.
Ms. Betsy Burton, a retailer in Sugar House, was concerned with the size of retail space because a community is made up of people as well as buildings. If national chains are brought in to a community, they eventually put the local businesses out of business. As a result, it will harm the community. Ms. Burton also has some concerns with the impact of the traffic.
Mr. Swain stated that in regards to traffic irr1pact, the level of service being proposed will maintain the same level of service that exists currently. This does not mean that there will not be additional traffic on the street. He stated that traffic will not double and that by the mitigation measures being accommodated, the efficiency of the road system is not compromised
Mr. Mendenhall spoke concerning the hotel. He stated that the hotel seemed to be the best use for this location because it complimented the other businesses in the Sugar House District. He said that it would add vibrancy, night time activity and bring a new customer base to the market that doesn't exist and should add to the business element. The hotel was picked because it has the lowest impact on traffic, especially as an extended stay hotel.
Mr. Ted Knowlton, a concerned citizen, said that he would like to see entrances in the fronts and the backs of the buildings. If there is not an entrance on the street, it discourages pedestrian use on the streets and increases the distance the pedestrian needs to travel. Mr. Knowlton also expressed some concerns with the open space sunlight. To make the open space enjoyable, it needs as much sunlight as possible.
Mr. Wright stated that there have been discussions on both of Mr. Knowlton's concerns. The architects are designing many of the buildings with multiple front facades. Mr. Wright then stated that a study will be done to prevent excessive shadowing on the open space area.
Mr. Bruce Fallon, a concerned citizen, stated that he would like to be able to see the site plans on a regular basis and make comments during the process, especially concerning the hotel. He would also like to see a break-up in the parking.
Mr. Scott Kisling, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, addressed concerns regarding pedestrian circulation, amount of retail space and surface parking. He feels that there needs to be strong visual elements with a mixed use. The community desires a very successful high density, mixed use development on this block so that our open space and public amenities are maintained and enhanced.
Mr. Rawlins Young, Vice Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, presented some post cards of a development that had a balance of open space, retail and parking. He hopes to see the final outcome of the proposed development to be as balanced and be something that the community will be proud of.
Ms. Greenhall brought up some concerns about the creek and the pond.
Mr. Swain stated that the pond is regulated by the creek, so there should always be water in the pond. Mr. Wright stated that the pond level will be determined by the availability of the water.
Mr. Kimball Young stated that eight cards had been received from people who did not wish to speak but whose comments would be entered into the record. Their concerns included having building entrances on the streets, working with the redevelopment of current tenants, preserving a sense of tradition and history, having lots of open space with many trees and would like more local Utah based businesses rather than national chains.
Mr. Young said that the intent of this project is to accommodate what already exists and to help everyone become more successful. The needs should accommodate the small retail space along with the larger retail space to benefit everyone. Mr. Young thanked all those who have participated, and will continue to participate, in helping to making this work.
Ms. Short stated that she has taken copious notes on the comments made and will be taking the issues back to the subcommittee for further discussions. She also thanked the community for their efforts and hopes that the project will be a success.
Mr. Smith said that he feels that the project is going in a good direction. The project should not come back to the Planning Commission until it is ready for an action to be made.
Mr. McRea stated that there has been a lot of participation and good input from the subcommittee as well as the community. He mentioned that it is important to focus on how the local tenants can be transitioned and facilitated into the project.
Mr. Wright stated that the subcommittee will start working on the new issues.
OTHER BUSINESS
Update on Cellular Antenna Monopoles
Mr. Brent Wilde stated for the past three or four months the industry has agreed to an informal hold on applications for telecommunication monopole antennae. At the last Planning Commission meeting, a map was presented identifying a three to five year plan for cellular antennae. At the meeting, staff was asked to get a legal opinion on placing a cap on monopoles.
Mr. Christopher E. Bramhall, Assistant City Attorney, prepared a memorandum to the Planning Commission in response to their request, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The memorandum stated that it would be impossible to place a cap on the number of monopoles.
Mr. Wilde stated that although it may be impossible to place an arbitrary maximum number on monopoles, we can continue to increase our focus on the quality of design. A discussion followed concerning issues such as fee structure, locating monopoles on City owned properties (i.e. parks; which is not providing much of an opportunity at this point), making this a benefit to the entire community, performance bonding and vertical landscaping to camouflage the monopoles.
Mr. Wilde said that he would keep the Planning Commission informed on any new developments related to the Telecommunication Ordinance. He then stated that staff will be prepared to present detailed information concerning vertical landscaping, performance bond options and small impact fees at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Other subcommittee reports
Mr. Wright mentioned that Ralph Becker, a retired Planning Commission member, used to serve on the Block 57 Design Review Committee. As a part of the Redevelopment Agency's efforts to build out Block 57, the committee meets to review design issues. The Redevelopment Agency would like a replacement for Ralph Becker to serve on the committee. Mr. Christensen volunteered to be a part of the Block 57 Design Review Committee.
Update on Senate Bill 14 regarding billboards
Mr. Wright said that the City's efforts to change Senate Bill 14 from its original filing status was successful. The original bill would have effectively overriden any local ordinances governing billboards located along any interstate, national highway or state highway system and allow for total reconstruction of any noncomplying or nonconforming billboard. The billboards located in Salt Lake City along the interstate will be designated as State authorized if they need to be relocated due to a widening. The billboards can be relocated on the same property if a lease can be obtained, moved to an adjacent property, be moved to a distance within one mile of the site or a mutual agreement made to move them to a new location.
Luncheon for retired Planning Commissioners The Planning Commission members discussed a day and time to have a luncheon to honor the recently retired Commissioners Ralph Becker and Rick Howa. Mr. Smith asked if the condo conversion process could be handled administratively rather than by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright stated that when the ordinance was established, there was a concern that there would be a massive conversion of housing. Therefore, it went to a public review process as an effort to be able to stop potential displacement of the low income population. Mr. Wright said that since the displacement issue seems to no longer be a concern, we can have a policy discussion on an upcoming agenda.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.