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 Chairperson Tim Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Craig Galli, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Peggy McDonough. Commissioner Jennifer Seelig was out of town.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Community Development Director Louis Zunguze, Deputy Community Development Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik, and Planning Commission Secretary Andrea Curtis.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:49 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.
Planning Commission Members voting during the meeting are as follows: Commissioner Noda, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner McDonough. Commissioner Chambless, as Chairperson, did not vote.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairperson Chambless announced to the public that Petition 400-04-52, Intermodal Light Rail Extension, and Petition 410-713 for a conditional use by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had been postponed. He invited Director Zunguze to comment on the postponement of Petition 400-04-52. Director Zunguze explained that new information had been received immediately prior to the Planning Commission meeting which warranted review and consideration. He expressed a desire to avoid wasting the Commissioners and public’s time by discussing a petition that may be revised, stating it therefore would be prudent to postpone the item until Staff were able to confer with UTA and the applicable subcommittees. When asked, he estimated that the review and revision process may be completed as early as April or May.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005
(This item was heard at 6:00 p.m.)
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the February 23, 2005, ratified minutes.
Commissioner Scott referred to page 10, paragraph 3 of the minutes, and stipulated that the name “Scott” be changed to “Muir”. She then moved for the Planning Commission to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Muir voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough abstained. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Six Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:53 p.m.)
Chairperson Chambless reminded the Commissioners of the joint meeting with the City Council on Tuesday, March 15, from 5:00-6:30 p.m. in Room 326.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:53 p.m.)
Community Development Director Louis Zunguze highlighted some of the items he hopes are discussed in the meeting with the City Council on March 15. He referred Commissioners to the packet of the work the City Council did in review of the Central Community Master Plan. He noted that this is an affirmation of Staff’s recommendations for guiding policies and a standardized format for master plans. He stated that on Friday he would provide the Commission a working format for broad-based policies and suggestions for standard master plan formatting for their consideration prior to the joint meeting.
Director Zunguze briefly reviewed the history of the Transit Oriented Development Ordinance (TOD) and how changes to the Walkable Communities Ordinance would affect the TOD. He drew Commissioners’ attention to the copies of the TOD changes that were given to them tonight and requested that Commissioners come to the March 23 meeting prepared with a decision as to whether or not they would like to have an additional hearing or simply proceed with the matter.
He reminded the Commission of a visit last fall from housing developers in the community who asked that the City review parking requirements for housing projects. He indicated that Staff was ready to review the matter and asked that the Commission initiate a study to look at the potential reduction of parking requirements in appropriate urban housing infill areas.
Commissioner Muir made a motion to initiate the study as per the Director’s recommendation. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in the affirmative, 7-0, therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(These items were heard at 5:57 p.m.)
Quest Communications and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Quest Communications is requesting that Public Utilities allow a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property to be used to locate a new communications interface cabinet, behind the property located at 1235 East 3300 South, just south of the Brickyard Shopping Center. This location is just south of the Salt Lake City limits in the un-incorporated Salt Lake County. This is proposed as a standard utility permit, and the staff of the Public Utilities Department intends to approve the request.
Draper City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Draper City is requesting that Public Utilities allow a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property to be used for a pedestrian bridge crossing over the canal, in conjunction with the use of a portion of the canal property as a public trail. This portion of the canal property is located at approximately 13200 South 255 West in Draper City. This authorization is proposed as a standard use permit, and the staff of the Public Utilities Department intends to approve the request. (Staff: Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178)
It was noted that these items are published for the benefit of the public and no action is required by the Planning Commission. Any public comments or concerns may be directed to the respective department managing the project. Chairperson Chambless asked if anyone on the Commission or from the public had any questions or wished to comment on the public notice agenda items. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless moved to the public hearings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(This item was heard at 6:15 P.M.)
Petition No. 410-663 – Harper Contracting, represented by Lawnie Mayhew, is requesting conditional use approval to operate a concrete batch plant at approximately 1120 West 2300 North in the “M-1” light manufacturing zoning district. (Staff – Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354)
Petition No. 490-05-02 – Harper Contracting, represented by Lawnie Mayhew, is requesting Minor Subdivision approval to subdivide one existing parcel at approximately 1120 West 2300 North, into two new lots, one of which is for the proposed batch plant. (Staff – Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354)
It is noted that these two items, being interrelated, were presented and discussed together. However, in accordance with Planning Commission Policies and Procedures, the two petitions were addressed in separate motions.
Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik drew the Commissioners’ attention to the map of the area and specified the boundaries for the proposed subdivision. She explained that the proposed concrete batch plant would have a small office and the batch plant equipment, both installed on permanent foundations. The majority of the site will remain for outdoor storage and operations and for vehicle circulation. She stated that both of the proposed lots exceed the standards of the M-1 zone. Lot 1, where the proposed batch plant would be located, is 5 acres, and Lot 2 is approximately 8.1 acres.
Ms. Gasparik noted that the Staff report contains various recommended conditions and highlighted four of them, namely:
1. Submittal of a site-specific surface fault rupture hazard and liquefaction potential study. She acknowledged that this may change the site plan configuration slightly but noted that given the overall size of the entire site, there is adequate space to move structures as necessary.
2. Installation of public way improvements (curb, gutter and driveway approaches) along the entire frontage of the proposed subdivision for Lot 1 and Lot 2, and submittal of an SID waiver for sidewalks improvements to the Engineering Division.
3. A 15’ front yard landscape setback required on Lots 1 and 2. The existing landscaping on 2300 North is within the right of way; an additional 15’ of landscaping is required behind the existing wall. The purpose of the additional landscaping is to ensure compliance when the road expands.
4. The wetlands area will not be landscaped as the entire wetlands are being left in a natural state, which more than exceeds the required 15’ and provides a natural buffer. Ms. Gasparik noted that leaving the wetlands in its natural state is in accordance with recommendations from both Staff and the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Chairperson Chambless asked if the projected population growth in the northwest quadrant would place homes within 0.5 to 1 mile of the projected batch plant. Deputy Director Wheelwright responded that the site is located near the City’s boundary with North Salt Lake City. Housing in the area is north of the Davis County boundary and east of I-15; within Salt Lake City, Redwood Road and 1700 North or the Capitol Hill area would be the closest residential areas. Commissioner Scott noted that the property is located across the street from a sewer waste treatment plant, which has an odor easement in place and which would be a deterrent to building housing in the immediate vicinity.
Chairperson Chambless invited a representative from Harper Contracting to speak to the Commission.
Dawn Whaley, environmental consultant representing Harper Contracting, reported the extensive work done with Staff during the past few months to determine a better location for the concrete batch plant. She noted that although Lot 1 is identified as 5 acres, there are only approximately 3 useable acres with the other 2 acres being wetlands. She noted that the site has been built up so the wetlands are below the grade of the site and remain in their natural state. She indicated that the US Army Corps of Engineers has asked for some minor reclamation work, removing fill placed in the area previously, as a condition of approval, which Harper Contracting is willing to complete.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the wetlands would be in any way made inaccessible to traffic from the plant itself. Ms. Whaley noted that the wetlands are naturally delineated with a hill approximately 15 feet high and then with concrete barriers along the top to ensure safety. The eastern edge is wetlands to 1100 west; no additional fencing or restrictions are anticipated.
Commissioner De Lay asked if Harper Contracting feels they can meet the recommendations in the Staff report. Ms. Whaley assured the Commission that they are able to do so.
Commissioner Scott commended Harper Contracting for working with Staff to come to a resolution for a satisfactory site location after concerns were expressed about neighborhood and environmental impacts at the initial site discussed last fall.
Chairperson Chambless asked for a representative from the Community Council or general audience to speak on the matter. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-663: Commissioner De Lay moved that Petition 410-663 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Remedy the wetland violation on the site in compliance with the US Army Corps of Engineers requirement.
2. Final site plan layout approval be delegated to the Planning Director, with input from the DRT including the Building Services and Licensing Division and the Transportation Division.
3. Record a notice to purchasers that the property is serviced by a private sewer facility that is not the responsibility of Salt Lake City Public Utilities.
4. Provide an easement for private sewer line, for both public and private property.
5. Coordination with the Urban Forester of existing tree removal in the public right-of-way for required street improvements.
6. Use of Warm Springs Road by the batch plant will be minimal for both supply and deliveries, or else extensive improvements will be required to Warm Springs Road.
7. Recordation of an Avigation Easement with the Airport.
8. Final landscaping plan approval authority be delegated to the Planning Director.
9. Submittal of an SID waiver for the sidewalk to the Engineering Division.
10. Final subdivision approval and final plat recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. All voted in favor, 7-0; therefore the motion to approve Petition No. 410-663 passed unanimously.
Motion for Petition No. 490-05-02: Based on analysis and findings of fact from Staff, Commissioner Scott moved the Planning Commission approved the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Installation of public way improvements (curb, gutter and driveway approaches) along the entire frontage of the proposed subdivision lot 1 and 2, and submittal of an SID waiver for the sidewalk improvement (for both lots) as required by Salt Lake City Engineering.
2. Submittal of a site specific surface fault rupture hazard and liquefaction potential study, to identify where the fault line is (or where it is not) on the subject property, which includes a foundation design. The findings need to be recorded as a notice to purchaser on the final subdivision plat.
3. A recorded deed combining the McNeil land locked parcel with the eastern parcel into one lot and creating a new address and new parcel ID number.
4. Recordation of an Avigation easement with the Salt Lake International Airport.
5. The 15’ front yard landscape setback is required on lots 1 and 2 to be installed.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. All voted in favor, 7-0; therefore the motion to approve Petition No. 490-05-02 passed unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 6:10 p.m.)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Tim Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Jennifer Seelig, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Peggy McDonough. Commissioner Craig Galli was out of town.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Ray McCandless, Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis, and Planning Commission Secretary Andrea Curtis.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:46 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.
Planning Commission Members voting during the meeting are as follows: Commissioner Noda, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner McDonough. Commissioner Chambless, as Chairperson, did not vote.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairperson Chambless announced to the public that Petition 400-04-37 and Petition 490-05-07 by Victor Kimball have been postponed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005
(This item was heard at 5:48 p.m.)
Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Muir voted “Aye”. Commissioner Seelig abstained. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Six Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner abstained; therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:49 p.m.)
Chairperson Chambless informed the Commissioners that he had attended the National American Planning Association (APA) Conference this week and that information he collected from that conference would be provided to them in their next packet.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:49 p.m.)
Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright reported on Planning Staff changes. With Brent Wilde’s appointment as Deputy Community Development Director, his former position as Deputy Planning Director fell vacant. That position was filled internally by Cheri Coffey, formerly Planning Program Supervisor, effective March 28, 2005. The selection process for a new Program Supervisor is now in progress.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(These items were heard at 5:50 p.m.)
Staff: Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769, Matt Williams at 535-6447, or Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178
UTOPIA DBA Murray City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – UTOPIA is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard utility permit to allow a communications conduit to be installed under a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property, located at approximately 668 E. Larchwood Drive (6070 South). Public Utilities staff intends to approve the utility permit.
UTOPIA DBA Murray City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – UTOPIA is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard utility permit to allow a communications conduit to be installed within a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property, located at approximately 6931 South 500 East. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the utility permit.
TK Enterprises/Mike Keim and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – TK Enterprises is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard utility permit to allow water and sewer lines to be installed under a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property, located at approximately 13100 South 250 West in Draper City, just west of I-15. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the utility permit.
Quest Communications and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Qwest is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard utility permit to allow a communication conduit to be installed under a portion of the Big Cottonwood Conduit, located within a City owned easement within a UDOT (I-215 East) right of way at approximately 3393 East Upland Drive (3772 South) in the un-incorporated Salt Lake County near Skyline High School. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the utility permit.
PacifiCorp and Salt Lake City Property Management Division – PacifiCorp is requesting that Property Management grant a utility easement for a pre-existing power pole guy wire, which extends north into the Forest Dale Golf Course property 30 feet from the stub-ended McClelland Street (1045 East). The proposed easement would be 10 feet wide, centered on the existing guy wire location. The address location is 2588 South McClelland Street. The City owned golf course property is zoned Open Space (OS). Property Management and City Parks Division staff intends to approve the easement request.
It was noted that these items are published for the benefit of the public and no action is required by the Planning Commission. Any public comments or concerns may be directed to the respective department managing the project. Chairperson Chambless asked if anyone on the Commission or from the public had any questions or wished to comment on the public notice agenda items. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless moved to the public hearings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(This item was heard at 5:52 p.m.)
Petition No. 410-713 – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, represented by Tracy Stocking & Associates, is requesting conditional use approval to expand the existing parking lot of a Place of Worship (the Belvedere Ward) onto an adjacent 0.14 acre residential parcel, located at 1803 South 600 East Street in an R-1/5,000 zoning district. This expansion would require the demolition of an existing residential duplex structure and must also meet the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Ordinance. (Staff – Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409)
Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis noted that the Belvedere Ward’s request to expand their parking lot onto the adjacent residential parcel is a self-imposed action. The City has not requested that this place of worship expand their facilities to meet current code, nor has the City received complaints from the neighborhood about on-street parking in the vicinity of the Belvedere Ward. The applicant is proposing to purchase the adjacent residential lot, demolish the existing duplex structure, and develop an expansion for the existing church parking lot.
Ms. Lewis cited ordinance regulations as foundation for her report.
Section 21A.24 Residential: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses – Places of Worship on lots less than 4 acres in size are listed as a Conditional Use in all of the residential zones (except SR-2 which is in reserve); therefore, the expansion of all existing conditional uses are required to go before the Planning Commission for approval.
Section 21A.10.020 B.1: Public Hearing Notice for Conditional Uses – upon application for conditional use it is required that all land owners within 300 feet, exclusive of intervening streets, are notified. The Planning Division, in order to ensure the inclusion of properties across any intervening streets from a subject site, requires that notice be made to land owners within 450 feet. This identified area of notification, as designated in the zoning ordinance, is considered the immediate area of potential impact from a proposed conditional use.
Section 21A.54.010: Conditional Use – a conditional use is a use which has potential adverse impacts upon the immediate neighborhood and requires careful review of its location, design, configuration, and special impact to determine the desirability of allowing it on a particular site.
Section1.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses – The Planning Commission shall only approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional use based upon written findings of fact with regards to each of the standards set forth below and, where applicable, any special standards for conditional uses set forth in a specific zoning district. Ms. Lewis pointed out that the Staff report cites these specific standards A-L on pages 5-12 and then it discusses standards of concern in this matter.
She read into the record Conditional Use Standard B: “The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.” Ms. Lewis observed that the development being proposed is a parking lot expansion; demolition of the duplex leaves a single family home located at 1795 S. 600 E. completely surrounded by pavement as an isolated dwelling unit at the end of the block. This negatively impacts the character of the neighborhood. She also noted that the proposal is not in harmony with the Central Community Master Plan’s goals to protect and maintain the existing housing stock.
Ms. Lewis read Conditional Use Standard F: “Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.” She explained that automobile noise, headlights, and other impacts from the parking lot would be moved closer to the remaining homes, and a detailed landscape plan would be required in order to show that all the impacts could be mitigated.
Conditional Use Standard G reads: “Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.” Ms. Lewis reminded the Commission that the proposed development is for a parking lot; architecture and building materials are not relevant to the new use. However, the existing residential structure is compatible. Parking lot expansion would eliminate the existing structure and rear lot garage.
Conditional Use Standard I: “The proposed development preserves historical architectural and environmental features of the property.” Ms. Lewis stated that the proposed development requires demolition of a 51 year old structure. While the area is not within an historic preservation overlay nor is the structure a landmark site, the structure is typical of the neighborhood in which it is located.
Conditional Use Standard K: “The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.” Ms. Lewis explained that the parking lot expansion would only net 13 additional stalls. She stated that during the Liberty Wells Community Council meeting, those attendees who opposed the measure did not focus on off-street parking impacts but rather the impact the demolition would have on the neighborhood. She acknowledged that with the parking lot expansion there would be13 fewer vehicles parked on the street but recognized the community would lose a legal duplex structure that provides two living units completely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The isolated home would also be less than five feet from the existing property line to the south, dramatically increasing the impacts to it because of its proximity to the expanded parking lot. Ms. Lewis reiterated that the demolition of the duplex for 13 new parking stalls is not consistent with the City’s Housing Plan.
Ms. Lewis acknowledged that the majority of the residents in attendance at the December 8, 2004, meeting of the Liberty Wells Community Council voted in favor of the project. Members of the community who were opposed to the project stated that they felt the residence should not be demolished as it is a good example of the type of structure that adds value to the community’s housing stock, and they suggested considering alternative methods of transportation.
Ms. Lewis referred the Planning Commissioners to the communication from citizens both in support and opposition to the project that was provided in their packets. She noted previous denials of demolitions to enable parking lots expansions occurred in August 2001 and September 2001 for churches in R-1/5,000 zones. Approved projects occurred in RMF-45 and D-1 zones.
Ms. Lewis concluded that based on the findings of fact in the Staff report, the Planning Commission should deny the conditional use request based on the negative findings for Standards B, F, G, I, and K. She reiterated that the remaining house would be isolated, completely surrounded by pavement, and out of character and harmony with the existing neighborhood. The demolition of the duplex dwelling is not consistent with the City’s Housing Plan and the remaining house would be exposed to additional impacts due to noise and lighting. She stated that the net cumulative impacts to individual homes in the neighborhood from the addition of 13 parking stalls does not justify the demolition of a compatible, legal, existing, and occupied duplex; the benefit of removing 13 cars from on-street parking does not outweigh the loss of an existing residence. She noted that the Community Development Director and City Attorney have determined that if the Planning Commission approves the conditional use, mitigation as determined in the Housing Loss Mitigation Report would be required.
Commissioner Scott inquired if there were any limitations for on-street parking. Ms. Lewis answered that it is open parking. Deputy Director Wheelwright noted that on-street parking is unrestricted and that the streets are slightly wider than normal, leaving ample space to park cars on both sides of existing streets while still maintaining adequate travel way for vehicles. Chairperson Chambless confirmed with Mr. Wheelwright that the amount of traffic on the street is fairly minimal in comparison with 700 East nearby.
Commissioner Muir inquired how the angled parking around the Hawthorne School, located nearby, originated. Ms. Lewis had no information on that matter.
Commissioner De Lay asked about the mitigation and value determined. She sought to confirm that the owner of the property is willing to sell it for the tax value and the purchaser is willing to purchase it for the difference in the values. Ms. Lewis stated that the purchase arrangements between the private property owners are unknown to Staff. Commissioner De Lay asked if an appraisal were required; Ms. Lewis responded that it is not required for the Housing Mitigation Report. Commission De Lay expressed concerns about this process, noting the possibility that the tax value may be inaccurate.
Chairperson Chambless invited the applicant’s representative to address the Commission. Tracy Stocking, independent architect, represented the petitioner. He thanked Ms. Lewis for her efforts and time but respectfully disagreed with the Staff recommendation. He stated that the existing parking lot has 18 angled spaces; neighbors indicate that average meeting attendance involves 58 cars, putting approximately 40 cars on the street. The proposed expansion of 13 stalls is an improvement of 72%, which the applicant considers to be significant. He reiterated the petition has the support of the Community Council and presented the Commission with a statement of support signed by eight community members.
Mr. Stocking identified the reason for the Church’s request as being a way to better accomplish its purpose of providing opportunities for religious, recreational, educational, and social activities to community members regardless of their religious affiliation. Additional parking enables the participation of those who are currently unable or reluctant to attend these activities due to the lack of adequate, safe onsite parking. Average attendance on Sunday places approximately 40 cars along the street, creating a hazard for young families with small children, the elderly, those with limited mobility, etc., especially during inclement weather. Mr. Stocking affirmed that for many of these people, regular church attendance is important from both a religious and social standpoint, since church activities serve as a neighborhood support network as well as an opportunity to worship.
Mr. Stocking stated that though the additional parking would still fall short of current zoning requirements, which would require 54 stalls, the investment to improve the parking situation by 13 stalls is considered worthwhile by the petitioner.
Mr. Stocking explained that the request for additional parking is a result of social and demographic changes. When the building was constructed in 1925, more people walked from greater distances and the area was primarily settled by young families with greater mobility. Over time, the percentage of church members in the area has declined, which has resulted in the expansion of the geographic area which attend services in this building. As a result, the need for parking is greater than in the past.
Mr. Stocking identified various buildings owned by the Church in the area which have been sold to private developers, who demolished them and built high quality, single family homes. He acknowledged that the Church itself did not function as a developer for the new housing but recognized their role in making the development possible. He expressed the belief that the main impetus for Staff’s negative recommendation is the loss of housing stock. He assured the Commission that all City requirements would be met without the need for variances, including zoning ordinances, public works, public utilities, transportation, building codes, etc., and that other issues mentioned by Staff could also be addressed.
He stated that the City has an ordinance that provides for the mitigation of the loss of housing but declared the ordinance is limited in how “mitigation” is defined. He said that one of Staff’s recommendations was that the Church work with them to improve the wording of the ordinance and invited Commissioner De Lay to involve herself in that process. He expressed the belief that the Belvedere building is a significant, integral component of the neighborhood and stated that the LDS Church has made a commitment to keep this building when others in the area have been demolished. He referred to the difference in styles of more modern buildings and alluded to the value of the unique Belvedere structure. Mr. Stocking reminded the Commission the petitioner has enabled the construction of 15 single family homes along Emerson Avenue, Park Street, and 200 East near 1000 South that are compatible with the neighborhood and requested Commissioners consider that the LDS Church has indeed mitigated the loss of a single duplex.
Commissioner Scott referred to the information received today and included in the packet materials from the petition, which states there is a “lack of available, safe, and convenient parking [that] substantially burdens Church members” and clarified that this implies the on-street parking is unsafe, inconvenient, and/or unavailable. Mr. Stocking agreed that as compared to onsite parking, street parking is less safe and less convenient.
Commissioner Muir asked if utilizing the alley as an access to additional parking had been considered as part of the design analysis and suggested using the space behind the duplex to create additional parking without demolition of the structure. Citing the measurements of the area, he commented that 10 additional spaces could be gained. Mr. Stocking allowed that option had not been considered but might be possible. Commissioner Muir referred to the different plan schemes and suggested that access from the alley should be utilized rather than demolishing the structure. Mr. Stocking responded that the requirement for double stall parking necessitates 60’; the area only has 48’, which would enable a single row of angled parking or 5 additional stalls, but acknowledged the option may be worth consideration.
Chairperson Chambless asked if the Commission had any further questions for the applicant. Hearing none, and with no representative from the local community council present, he invited community member Cindy Cromer to address the Commission.
Ms. Cromer referenced her personal history of opposing parking lots in residential areas dating back to the late 1970s. Within a decade she was on television opposing a church parking lots; subsequently she found herself on the Planning Commission. After 7-1/2 years in that role, she resumed her battle against parking lots with support from the new 1995 zoning ordinance. She stated that parking problems cannot truly be solved, so reducing them slightly does not justify losing housing. She declared that additional parking lots generally do not solve a building’s parking problems and nearly always result in the demolition of housing which contributes significantly to neighborhood character. She reviewed the case of the Cannon Ward in the early 1990s when Staff supported the demolition of three houses on 900 West, which isolated the remaining houses between the parking lot and a park. The remaining houses were eventually demolished. She expressed the belief that living with asphalt on one side and an alley creates an untenable environment that will lead to the eventual loss of the remaining housing structure. She refuted the idea presented by Mr. Stocking that the LDS Church is responsible for the additional housing and should receive credit for housing loss mitigation, citing the developers as those responsible for the creation of additional housing. She expressed the personal belief that the congregation does not have a long-term future due to changing demographics and Church building practices, and she called the additional parking lot a stop-gap measure to prolong the viability of the Ward.
Commissioner De Lay queried the source of Ms. Cromer’s information that the building is being used less and may be done away with in the future. Ms. Cromer explained that she believes this is a pattern for the wards in the area; as they consolidate their congregations the Church closes buildings and sell them for other purposes.
Chairperson Chambless invited Helen Peters, Sugarhouse Land Use and Zoning Community Council Committee Chair, to address the Commission. She explained she was the Chair of the Sugarhouse Community Council at the time the Highland Park Ward petitioned for the removal of open space to provide additional parking. She challenged the Belvedere Ward to consider alternative solutions, as the Highland Park Ward eventually did. She reiterated the assessment that isolated homes quickly become a blighted area. She also noted that removing a home that contributes to the rejuvenation of the environment and replacing it with asphalt increases the temperature of the isolated home and surrounding area. She requested the Commission support Staff’s recommendation to deny the request.
Commissioner Diamond asked what suggestions were made by the Sugarhouse Community Council to the Highland Park Ward. Ms. Peters explained that some of the issues in that case were the result of two congregations meeting in the building; shifting time schedules was therefore a consideration. For the Belvedere Ward, she would recommend limiting onsite parking to the elderly or disabled as a congregational decision. She opined that most neighbors would prefer parking on the streets during meeting times than the loss of housing or open space.
Chairperson Chambless asked for any additional community comments; hearing none, he invited Commissioners to ask any final questions of Staff. Commissioner De Lay asked Ms. Lewis if a letter had been received from the owner of the property that would be isolated should the proposal be approved. Ms. Lewis said no.
Commissioner Muir asked if approval would be given to another church that wanted to build in the neighborhood and required additional parking. Ms. Lewis responded that a new structure would be a conditional use in the R-1/5,000 zone and would have to meet the parking requirements of approximately 66 stalls for a building of equivalent size. Commissioner Muir asked if a reduction in that parking requirement could be granted under conditional use. Ms. Lewis stated that a reduction in required parking has not been previously entertained; she explained that undo impact to churches is avoided, so they are accepted as they are under the 1995 conditional use ordinance.
Commissioner De Lay compared the dimensions of the building to the number of cars present and questioned if the congregation is particularly small for such a large building and whether it is declining. Ms. Lewis was unable to comment. Chairperson Chambless asked for someone in attendance to speak for the applicant in response to the query. Larry Simpson, Stake President in the area, spoke and confirmed that the congregation in the Belvedere Ward is consistent with the size of other wards in the area, utilizing the entire facility during religious services. He stated that there is currently one congregation assigned to the building; in the past there have been two congregations while another building was being remodeled.
Commissioner Seelig asked if the congregation is drawn from a specific geographic area. Mr. Simpson responded that the boundaries for that congregation are from 700 East to 400 East and 1700 South to Ramona Avenue. Commissioner Muir asked if the boundaries expand and contract based on congregation size. Mr. Simpson responded that such adjustments do occur occasionally, recalling two such changes in the past 12 years. Commissioner Muir referred to information provided in the packet materials and verified that the current trend is towards expanding geographical boundaries, thus requiring people to commute rather than walk to services. Mr. Simpson responded that many elderly and families with smaller children prefer to drive rather than walk to the building.
Chairperson Chambless thanked Mr. Simpson for his answers and asked the Commission if there were further questions for Ms. Lewis or the applicant. Mr. Wheelwright suggested the applicant be provided an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Stocking referred to previous comments about the historic significance of the house which they propose to demolish, indicating it is not a bungalow but a post-war rambler with no particular architectural significance. Chairperson Chambless invited the Commissioners to ask any final questions of Mr. Stocking. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner De Lay expressed concerns about the mitigation policy and determination of fair market value. She agreed with Mr. Stocking’s comments that the house is not currently historically significant but noted it would be so in another 25 years. She stated that her greater concern is about the isolation of the single dwelling that would remain should the proposal be approved. She concurred with Ms. Cromer’s projections that the isolated residence would eventually disappear as well. She expressed remorse that the original design of the building did not allow for additional on-site parking but believes that isolating one residence is not a good solution. She repeated her desire to receive comments from the owner of the residence that would be isolated.
Commissioner Noda concurred with Commissioner De Lay’s concerns about isolating the remaining structure and reiterated that no complaints about on-street parking have been received. She reaffirmed the street is particularly wide and able to easily accommodate a number of parked vehicles, stating that leaving a single home in isolation would not be in the best interests of creating a walkable community.
Commissioner Scott approved of Ms. Peters’ suggestion that the congregation address the parking concerns of the most needy and reserve those on-site stalls for the elderly or those with small children. She stated that since there is plenty of on-street parking, it would not be in the best interests of the neighborhood to demolish the residential structure for additional parking.
Commissioner Muir suggested that the applicant consider purchasing both homes to avoid isolation of a single unit while expanding parking and preserving a significant amount of the streetscape along 600 East. He queried whether this would be more acceptable from a Planning Commission perspective.
Commissioner McDonough asked for clarification which house Commissioner Muir referred to. He identified it as the house to the east on Downington Avenue, which has a side yard onto the alley, instead of to the north on 600 East. This would surround the church with parking while avoiding isolating a single housing structure.
Commissioner De Lay expressed understanding of the church’s needs for additional parking but requested a more creative, more neighborhood-friendly proposal that could work for all parties.
Commissioner Muir complimented the character of the older building and expressed a wish that newer buildings were as distinctive. He asked that the Commission show some leadership to help stabilize the demographics of the facility and extend its useful life. He noted the negative effects on a neighborhood when a church closes down.
Commissioner McDonough explained that her greatest concern is the precedent that may be set by demolition of a residence for expansion of asphalt, as a general principle. She reiterated the desire to densify neighborhoods and, while acknowledging the need for compromise, is hesitant to suggest demolition.
Commissioner Muir asked if the area had been down-zoned from a higher zoning to an R-1/5,000. Mr. Wheelwright stated it was at least an R-2 prior to 1995; there may have been some R-3A or R-4 pockets. Commissioner Muir concluded that previous Commissions may have sent mixed messages to the community by down-zoning the neighborhood for lower density housing, which is mainly automobile dependent. He asserted that isn’t his own personal preference but noted this appears to be the message sent to the public by previous Planning Commissions and may represent community desires that served as impetus for the original down-zoning petition.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the applicant return to the Transportation department to consider implementation of angled, parallel, or perpendicular parking along 600 East and Downington Avenue. He concurred that he is not a proponent of demolishing a house nor of adding asphalt. He observed that the church was originally constructed in a time when people primarily walked to church, which is part of the beauty of the facility, and supported Ms. Peters’ suggestion that on-site parking be set aside for the most needy. He expressed the belief that in working with Staff and Transportation, concerns about on-street parking could be resolved.
Commissioner Muir asked if Commissioner Diamond was proposing the petition be returned to a subcommittee to explore parking lot options. Commissioner Scott commented that no one has suggested a negative impact on the congregation due to lack of parking. She agreed with Commissioner Diamond’s assessment that the scale of the building and neighborhood makes the building more attractive with less asphalt surrounding it. She noted the facts and findings in the Staff report and reminded the Commission that conditional uses must be evaluated in accordance with the ordinance standards, agreeing with the report that there is fairly overwhelming argument for negative findings. She reiterated that no argument has been presented that the congregation is in a precarious position due to lack of parking; therefore, there does not seem to be a need for subcommittee review simply because the parking is less convenient than preferred.
Commissioner Diamond conveyed a commitment to resolving the concerns through subcommittee review or Staff assistance but expressed the opinion that the design review team and Transportation Department should review the issue prior to subcommittee review. He concurred with Commissioner Scott’s assessment that the conditional use ordinance is the main issue of concern.
Commissioner Noda stated that the existing church adds a great deal of character to the neighborhood and is a valuable asset. She noted for the record that the church has implemented many improvements to the structure itself and to surrounding sidewalks at substantial expense. She reiterated the outstanding qualities of the building and commended the petitioner for making the efforts to maintain it in the neighborhood. She identified it as an asset both as a place of worship and a lovely structure, and hopes that the Commission’s decision will in no way be seen as anything other than a concern about the impact on the neighborhood of isolating a single residence. She encouraged the petitioner to consider some of the recommendations made by Commissioner Diamond and Ms. Peters.
Motion for Petition 410-713
Commissioner Noda made a motion that the Planning Commission deny the conditional use Petition 410-713 for the expansion of the church’s parking lot based on the negative findings for Standards B, K, G, and I: The existing single-family home, directly north of the church will be left as an isolated dwelling unity, completely surrounded by pavement and out of character and harmony with the existing neighborhood and the demolition of the duplex dwelling is not consistent with the City’s housing plan; negative findings for Standards F and G: The demolition of the existing duplex and detached garage leave the adjacent dwelling units exposed to impacts due to noise and lighting, as a direct result of the parking lot expansion; and negative finding for Standard K: The net cumulative impacts to the individual homes in the neighborhood itself, due to the addition of 13 parking stalls in the proposed parking lot expansion, are not justification for the demolition of a compatible legally existing and occupied duplex. Therefore, the benefit of removing the 13 cars from on-street parking does not outweigh the loss of an existing duplex residence.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioners Noda, De Lay, Scott, Seelig, Diamond, and McDonough voted in favor of the motion and Commissioner Muir voted against; Commissioner Chambless, as Chair, did not vote. Therefore the motion to deny Petition No. 410-713 passed 6-1.
The Chair called for a brief break at 6:46 p.m.
(This item was heard at 6:50 p.m.)
Petition No. 410-709 – Sinclair Oil Corporation requesting planned development approval for the demolition and reconstruction of a gasoline station/convenience store in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) at approximately 1974 South 1100 East & 1068 East Hollywood Avenue (1970 South). (Staff – Ray McCandless at 536-7282)
Principal Planner McCandless explained that the reason the gas station has two separate addresses is because it sits on two separate parcels. The gas station itself is located on one parcel, the Hollywood Avenue address, and the canopy and gas pumps are located on the other parcel. He identified the existing convenience store as a converted single-family dwelling located on the west side of the property. The property itself is located on the west side of the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD), with RB zoning to the north, public lands to the east, and the Jordan & Salt Lake Canal with a residential neighborhood to the west. He clarified that a gas station is a permitted use in this zoning district requiring Planned Development approval for new developments that increase the existing floor area by 25% or more.
Mr. McCandless explained that the existing building is fairly narrow and does not meet ADA requirements. The petitioner plans to demolish this structure and replace it with the new structure, renderings of which are included in the Staff report. Mr. McCandless noted that the petition was reviewed by the Planned Development Subcommittee in November 2004, at which time the main building was set back but the proposed placement of the mechanical equipment enclosure was at the street with the trash dumpster located near by. The Subcommittee recommended the mechanical equipment enclosure and trash dumpster be relocated to the south side, away from residences; this was implemented.
The CSHBD zoning district does not have any required side or front yard setbacks; however, the building has been set back approximately 18’ to align with the single family dwellings along Hollywood Avenue.
The project was reviewed by the Sugar House Community Council. Mr. McCandless referred the Commissioners to the letter from Sugar House Community Council included in their packet materials. The concerns focused on the blank wall along the west of the building, and a recommendation for windows along the west side of the building to increase natural surveillance; if such windows are not possible, the Community Council requested adequate lighting with additional supplemental motion detection lighting on that side of the building. Their third recommendation was that the signage on the north side of the building be changed from a stucco to a brick background and reduced in size.
Mr. McCandless addressed these three concerns, stating there is a requirement for a 7’ wide landscaping strip along the west side of the property. Sinclair has provided that. Discussion about treatment of the wall included the inclusion of some glass block and an additional window along that side of the building. However, due to the interior layout of the facility, a window will not provide much opportunity for improved surveillance. Staff recommended additional shrubbery along the west wall to break up the wall plane. He noted that as part of the 7’ buffer, the zoning ordinance requires a vegetative hedge and fence along that side of the property. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, through the Planned Development petition, waive the requirements for the hedge and fence for security reasons as the back side of the building, combined with additional landscaping, provides adequate buffering.
Mr. McCandless noted the requirement for at least 40% glass for the sides of the building facing the streets. He noted that one elevation meets that requirement but the other has only 16% glass, since Sinclair changed the location of the cashier’s desk to provide surveillance of the street frontage as requested by the Subcommittee. Mr. McCandless stated that Staff recommends waiver of the glass requirement from 40% to 16%.
Mr. McCandless referred to the requirement for a geotechnical report because the County’s geology maps show a possible fault line in the area. He stated that the report has been completed.
Mr. McCandless expressed that Staff recommends approval for the petition with the eight conditions listed in the Staff report. He referred to Condition 4 and noted its inclusion is because the canal along the property is old and brittle and could possibly suffer damage if the heavy construction equipment were backed over it. Commissioner De Lay queried the condition of the canal; Mr. McCandless responded that the canal is more like a tunnel with a brick archway.
Mr. McCandless noted that there are two driveway entrances on Hollywood Avenue. The revised site plan reduces this to a single drive approach, which results in additional landscaping and improved safety.
Commissioner Muir referred to the traffic problems left turns cause at this location. Mr. McCandless verified that the City’s Transportation Division is comfortable with the single approach along one side and the dual approach on the other. Chairman Chambless concurred that a difficult traffic situation exists in the area. Mr. McCandless reminded the Commission that the new plan is not changing the existing use; it is simply a redesign and therefore should not impact the current traffic situation.
Commissioner McDonough asked if the hatching on the landscape plan for the north side of the structure indicates sod; Mr. McCandless confirmed that it does. She queried the actual setbacks of residences on the street. Chairperson Chambless invited Craig Anderson, an engineer with Sinclair Oil, to address the Commission and respond to questions. Mr. Anderson stated that they measured the setbacks for residences along the street, which averaged approximately 17’. Commissioner McDonough asked for setback information for the Davis residence immediately west of the Sinclair property. Mr. Anderson explained that the setback for the Sinclair structure is aligned with that setback.
Commissioner McDonough asked what material is planned for the revised sign inset on Hollywood Avenue. Mr. Anderson stated that the original proposal included a stucco sign; when the Community Council requested a concrete sign similar to that being done at Westminster, Sinclair contacted the same manufacturer and will utilize the same design features. He noted the size will be different due to the dimensions of the Sinclair logo.
Chairperson Chambless referred to previous hearings before the Board of Adjustment in the late 1990s. He noted that the Board approved the building itself as a major improvement and provided a variance for a pole sign. He acknowledged the site provides less than perfect ingress and egress but has been used for the current purpose for some time.
Commissioner Diamond questioned if there are limitations to the size of the footprint of the building on the specified parcel as it relates to the existing structure. Mr. McCandless indicated there is no existing setback under current zoning ordinances. Commissioner Diamond asked if the building has therefore been maximized. Mr. McCandless stated that limitations for maneuvering room and parking place some restrictions on the size of the building. Commissioner Diamond confirmed that the two parcels are being combined as part of the petition.
Commissioner Diamond noted that on the west elevation, the reverse bay of the rooftop units would funnel noise directly toward the neighbor and suggested the design be reconfigured. Mr. Anderson stated the units would be screened. Commissioner Diamond urged a redesign, stating screening would not be sufficient and citing the need to be a good neighbor. Mr. Arnold asked if the roof needed to be redesigned so the units were at the center. Commissioner Diamond agreed that may be an alternative. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that if the screening were solid and noise-buffering rather than simply sight-obscuring it would be acceptable. Commissioner Diamond concurred.
Commissioner Scott referred to the 7’ landscape buffer on the west side and asked if the angle caused by the canal created an average or minimum 7’ buffer. Mr. McCandless affirmed that it is a minimum 7’ buffer. Commissioner Scott concluded that the buffer would therefore be greater than the buffer that currently exists, especially when considering the added distance of the alley.
Commissioner McDonough queried the purpose of the mirror indicated on the plan next to the cashier on the exterior of the building. Mr. McCandless noted the mirror was a suggestion to provide better surveillance.
Chairperson Chambless invited Mr. Anderson to speak on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Anderson stated that Sinclair Oil took over the facility in 1986 as a result of bad debt. At that time, it was being operated as a service station with people living in the residence. Sinclair has never had anyone living in the home. He noted the building is structurally sound but has many problems, including not being ADA compliant. Major structural changes would be required to bring the building up to code; with the age and configuration of the building, it is more effective to raze and rebuild. Mr. Anderson recognized Sinclair Oil’s work with the Subcommittee, Sugar House Community Council, and Planning Staff, and observed their endeavors to accommodate all requests. He expressed that Sinclair Oil believes they have done their best to make the proposed facility one that would be acceptable and pleasing in the community.
Commissioner De Lay confirmed her participation in those Subcommittee meetings and acknowledged Sinclair Oil’s integration of the changes requested.
Commissioner McDonough noted that a suggestion was made during the Subcommittee meeting to have a parapet, flat roof rather than a pitched roof in order to be more compatible with other commercial structures in the area. She stated that while the term “compatible” may be widely interpreted, a pitched roof is more typical of residential structures than commercial ones. She referred to Mr. Anderson’s statement during the Subcommittee meeting that he “preferred” a pitched roof and asked for his reasoning. Mr. Anderson cited Commissioner McDonough’s request that they visit a 7-11 store on Third Avenue and K Street that has a flat roof and green awnings and stated they simply did not like the building. He mentioned the Subcommittee meeting wherein the reason for wanting the building to look commercial was expressed as resulting from the mechanical equipment facility’s proximity to the sidewalk. The site was therefore redesigned to align the building with the residences. He clarified that Sinclair’s interpretation of Commissioner McDonough’s request for a flat roof sprang from the proximity of the building to the sidewalk; with that obstacle removed, Sinclair felt able to proceed with the pitched roof design that they much prefer. Commissioner McDonough pointed out that a parapet roof would provide greater opportunity to screen the noise from rooftop equipment.
Commissioner McDonough clarified that the type of building material proposed is atlas brick. At Commissioner De Lay’s request, she explained that atlas brick is a modular masonry unit that is structural in nature similar to concrete masonry but larger than a modular brick measuring 4”x16” as opposed to modular brick used by residential structures in the area.
Chairperson Chambless invited Helen Peters, Chair of the Land Use and Zoning Committee of the Sugar House Community Council, to speak. She complimented Sinclair for the work they have done with the Community Council to implement suggested changes. She noted the concrete sign on the north side has been changed as requested, but noted that the large blank wall to the west is problematic. She referred to the possibility of the McClellan Canal becoming a trail at some future time, which would increase the need for visibility to provide protection and security. She stated that the west wall is the major concern for the Community Council, as well as the need for the building to be constructed of modular brick rather than atlas brick to maintain neighborhood compatibility. She acknowledged that Sinclair has worked hard to accommodate the community and expressed appreciation for their efforts.
Chairperson Chambless asked for additional public comments. Hearing none, he offered the applicant the opportunity for final comments. Mr. Anderson stated that the brick is not a cinderblock, it is a 4”x16” brick chosen for economy, but he assured the Commission it could easily be changed.
Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner De Lay confirmed that the purpose of the exhaust fans is to vent interior mechanics and suggested they be pointed up, stating that other suggestions seem to have been complied with. Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner De Lay’s comments, noting the mitigation of shrubbery adds greatly to the plans, and commended the applicant for their dedication in working with Staff and the community.
Commissioner McDonough asked to enter into the record a telephone call from Derek Payne, resident of Hollywood Avenue and Community Council member. She said Mr. Payne suggested the west wall include a window into the office. She requested that Mr. Anderson respond to this request. Mr. Anderson responded, citing security concerns as the reason for not including the window since windows are an easy way to enter the building. Commissioner McDonough suggested high level windows that would break up the brick wall and allow light on the alley. Mr. Anderson reiterated the security concerns since the office space will seldom be occupied. Commissioner McDonough stated that this is an area that attracts vagrants and noted that anything to deter that is preferred. Commissioner Diamond noted that the neighbor’s windows do look onto the alley, providing at least some opportunity for surveillance.
Mr. Anderson asked to clarify concerns about the fans on the roof. He noted that fans are an air conditioning and heating condenser, which are wide and low and do blow up rather than toward the neighbor. He acknowledged that the draftsman’s rendering provides an inaccurate representation of the situation.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the Hollywood Avenue elevation provided in the packet that shows the window as 9’ wide and contrasted that with the rendering shown at the meeting. Mr. Anderson explained that merchandising cigarettes only occurs along the back wall of the cashier area, which limits the size of the window, making it smaller than previously requested.
Commissioner McDonough asked if the sod noted on the plans could be replaced by landscaping that prevents sitting and hanging out. Mr. Anderson assured her that would be done.
Commissioner Seelig drew the Commission’s attention to the Staff report regarding the need to break up the blank wall. Commissioner Diamond concurred that large, blank walls offer ideal locations for graffiti. Commissioner De Lay referred to the Smith’s wall along Elm Avenue and confirmed with Commissioner Diamond the assessment that interspersing glass block deters graffiti more than a blank wall.
Commissioner Muir agreed with Commissioner McDonough’s comments and expressed concerns that this applicant is being allowed to circumvent restrictions imposed on other petitioners. He compared requiring Sinclair’s to comply with glass requirements and a flat roof to requesting McDonald’s to make concessions to a neighborhood’s character.
Commissioner De Lay supported Sinclair’s request for a pitched roof, stating it looks more like the houses. Commissioners Scott and Noda concurred. Commissioner Noda noted that with the setback, the pitched roof seems more pleasing and appropriate.
Commissioner McDonough referred to Standards for Conditional Use B, page 6 in the Staff report, that states the “proposed building is compatible with both…commercial businesses along 1100 East and the adjoining residential neighborhood…” She confirmed that the boundary is actually within a commercial zone and stated a preference for clear delineation between residential and commercial areas in urban areas. Commissioner De Lay suggested the appropriateness of a graduation of structures since many businesses are in homes. Commissioner McDonough stated the Sinclair building is not a residential structure and affirmed that it is architecturally less successful for one use to imitate another, in this case a commercial building imitating a residence.
Motion for Petition 410-709
Commissioner De Lay made a motion that based on the findings of fact in the Staff report, Staff recommendations, and the evidence heard tonight, the Planning Commission grant Planned Development approval for Petition 410-709, the redevelopment of the Sinclair station, with the conditions as follows:
1. Modify the requirement for 40% glass on the north building elevation to 16.4%.
2. Waive the requirement for a 4 to 6 foot high sight proof screening fence and 4 foot high hedge along the west property line but provide adequate, shielded lighting on the west side of the building.
3. Prior to construction and site development, a site-specific geotechnical report that addresses the fault line that crosses the property shall be completed by the applicant and reviewed by the City to determine appropriateness and safety of construction.
4. Coordinate construction activities with the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department to avoid damage to the Jordan / Salt Lake Canal.
5. Combine the two parcels into a single parcel of land.
6. Address all City Departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.
7. Delegate final approval of the landscaping plan that is walkable but does not encourage vagrancy to the Planning Director.
8. Delegate final approval for the architecture of the building to the Planning Director.
9. Delegate final approval for the location of exhaust fans on the west side of the building away from the neighbor to the Planning Director.
10. Per Community Council suggestion and the offer of the owner, change the proposed sign to one similar to Westminster College’s sign.
11. Change the building material from atlas brick to modular brick.
12. Include 20%-40% translucent blocks on the west wall.
Commissioner Scott asked that Condition 2 be amended to include the Community Council’s recommendation for adequate lighting. Commissioner Seelig questioned the meaning of “adequate”. Commissioner De Lay suggested “security lighting” would be a better option. Commissioner Scott expressed concerns that “security lighting” could be interpreted as lighting that switches on and off, disrupting neighbors; she identified “adequate, shielded lighting” instead. The amendment was accepted by Commissioner De Lay and is noted in the conditions above.
Commissioner Diamond expressed concerns about the unrelieved brick wall and asked to include an amendment requiring some glass block interspersed along the wall. Commissioner De Lay asked for clarification about the percentage of glass block requested. Suggestions were made of at least 40%. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that the 40% glass requirement is on building fronting streets, not for buffering walls. Commissioner Seelig confirmed that the condition being imposed is to defer graffiti, not to comply with an ordinance. Commissioner De Lay accepted the amendment, which is noted in the conditions above.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. All voted in favor, therefore the motion to approve the petition passed unanimously, 7-0.
Chairperson Chambless called for a brief break at 7:41 p.m.
(This item was heard at 7:44 p.m.)
Petition No. 410-717 – Eric Saxey requesting an 11 unit residential planned development, located at approximately 625 East 200 South, to build multiple buildings on a single site and to modify some of the required coverage and setbacks in an RMF-45 zoning district. The site is located within an Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District. (Staff – Doug Dansie at 535-6182)
Commissioner De Lay recused herself from the hearing on Petition 410-717.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie identified the site as being located directly east of the Odyssey House, formerly the Moose Lodge. The lot is a separate lot that was formerly occupied by a surface parking lot, although not highly visible from the street. The lot is approximately 66’ wide and 330’ deep; the Jordan & Salt Lake Canal runs through the middle of the lot, compounding the difficulties created by the lot’s unusual dimensions. The canal is owned Fee Title by Salt Lake City, so the lot is actually three parcels. Planned Development is necessary to make the project feasible. Under the RMF-45 zoning, if a single building could meet the setbacks, 15 apartments could be built on the site. The petitioner is asking for Planned Development approval because there are three different multi-unit buildings, one building of three units, one of six, and one of two units. The units at the rear of the property were suggested by the Planned Development Subcommittee. The elevation of the unit facing 200 South has a porch and will be oriented to the street so the appearance of the development maintains scale with other buildings along 200 South; other units will be oriented to the driveway. Setbacks in this zone require a 25’ rear yard; the site plan proposes for 10’, which backs upon a church parking lot on the north. The side yard requires modification to 10’; the Planned Development Subcommittee requested that certain overhangs be allowed, which reduces the distance to 8’ for bay windows and overhangs. These requested changes create variation in the rooflines and façade so the building is not just a long, blank wall. Hawkes Court is directly east, with the homes there facing east. As a result the homes on the adjacent court and new town homes are back-to-back. On the west side, a modification landscaped yard from 8’ to 4’ is needed to accommodate fire lanes and driveway requirements. Staff recommends approval of the petition with modifications in required setbacks with landscaping plans to be approved by the Planning Director, since the determination of yard maintenance as individual yards or as a Home Owners’ Association has yet to be made. The Historic Landmark Commission will be reviewing the final design of the building on April 6 as the site is within the Central City Historic District; their review is expected to focus on the compatibility of building materials, although they also review height and mass. It was determined that coming to the Planning Commission first for approval of the general concept was the best course.
Commissioner Diamond queried the representation of the project presented. Mr. Dansie responded that the elevations are true in design, with a two-story unit on top of the garage. The elevation shown is for the six-unit building.
Commissioner Muir asked if this case is establishing a new precedent for petitions to be reviewed first by the Planning Commission and then by the Historic Landmarks Commission. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the layout of the project needed to be approved first; without that approval there is no need for approval of building materials. He confirmed that the Planning Commission makes the decision for the use of the land. Commissioner Muir questioned whether the petition would return to Planning Commission if the Historic Landmarks Commission made revisions. Mr. Wheelwright confirmed that they are expected to only approve building materials; any layout changes would be returned to the Planning Commission as it would no longer be consistent with the approved Planned Development. Commissioner Diamond expressed hope that the Historic Landmark Commission will explore the scale of the project. Mr. Dansie clarified that although the Historic Landmark Commission is expected to address the issue of scale, it is not expected they will require changes to the scale as Staff considers it to be well within the scope and scale of other projects in the area.
Commissioner Scott queried whether the inclusion of a light-proof fence needs to be added as a condition of approval or will be an automatic inclusion. Mr. Dansie stated it would need to be noted as a specific condition for approval. Commissioner Scott then asked if the maintenance agreements and utilities easements made necessary by having to go under the canal by at least 4’ would also need to be identified as a condition for approval. Mr. Dansie clarified that if the petitioner doesn’t have agreement with public utilities for access across the canal parcel, they will not obtain a building permit; therefore, this does not need to be set as a condition for approval. He also confirmed that Salt Lake City will retain ownership of the canal property. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the parcels involved are actually not three separate units. The parcel Mr. Saxey is requesting permission to develop is one parcel with a single Sidwell number that is disjointed by the City’s ownership of the canal property; the plat is arrowed across the canal property. At the end of the development, the parcel will be divided into PUD units or condominium lots.
Mr. Dansie confirmed that the remaining parcel will be owned by Mr. Saxey and will go through the subdivision process after it is determined if the units will be sold as condominiums or individual small lots. He cited that Sanford Courts’ units have 10’ rear yards dedicated to each unit so that individuals may elect to landscape as they choose. Commissioner Scott queried access to the backyards for the purposes of fire response, seeking clarification of whether the yards are gated and contiguous or not. Mr. Dansie explained that each unit does have a back door and a pad in each rear yard, however, the rear yards are not part of the fire response plans. The fire department will access the properties from the front.
Commissioner Muir asked if the best option is to have backyards of this development face the backyards of Hawkes Court, considering the western exposure. Mr. Dansie explained the current design creates a setting of single family town home abutting single family home. If the development were flipped, the layout would be attached units backed against either non-residential or multifamily dwellings. Mr. Wheelwright explained that flipping the project to enter from the east would require re-advertisement as the impact on the Hawkes Court residents would change considerably.
Chairperson Chambless invited Eric Saxey, the petitioner, to address the Commission. Mr. Saxey thanked the Commission for hearing his request. Commissioner McDonough asked how paving would denote the location of pedestrian walkways. Mr. Saxey indicated the plan calls for asphalt up to the stairways exiting the units. He wasn’t clear if the additional walkways were required. Commissioner Diamond explained that the addition of walkways serves two purposes: increased pedestrian safety and aesthetic break up of the length of asphalt fronting the building with possibilities for landscape and noting entrances to the buildings. Commissioner McDonough recommended the continuation of sidewalk connecting to the public walkway on 200 South. Mr. Saxey confirmed that a 4’ strip of concrete rather than asphalt running parallel to the units all the way to 200 South would meet this requirement and agreed that could be included. Mr. Dansie noted the narrowness of the area necessitates a reduction of the landscaping area on the west side, acknowledging the delineation of the walkways can be clarified by the paving material.
Commissioner Diamond queried the width of the driveway; Mr. Saxey confirmed the driveway is 20’, with an additional 4’ to the face of the building. Commissioner Diamond expressed concerns that the straight design of the west side will encourage parking regardless of the lack of space. He suggested that adding planting along that west side, with landscaping and variations in paving materials and depth, will eliminate the problem. Mr. Saxey confirmed that resulting sections less than 4’ would subsequently be accepted. Mr. Dansie noted that the fire department had expressed concern about vehicles parked along the west side, which would interfere with their emergency response. Commissioner Diamond asked for clarification on the north-south depth of the lot. Mr. Dansie answered it is 330’. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the turnaround on the plans is for residents’ use only. Mr. Saxey confirmed that all units will be built with sprinklers and that the fire department would back their vehicles out as necessary. He further confirmed that the fire department does not require an additional hydrant on the property as the distance from the existing hydrant falls within existing requirements. Commissioner Diamond acknowledged the difficulty of the lot’s configuration but stressed that paving materials and landscaping can provide adequate delineation of walkways and building entrances while deterring illegal parking.
Commissioner Chambless identified one of the City’s housing goals to be affordable housing and asked Mr. Saxey to characterize this project. Mr. Saxey responded the project is probably slightly above median income, with housing costing approximately $200,000 per 1,300 square foot unit.
Commissioner asked for representatives from the Community Council or community who wished to speak. Jim Allred, resident of 163 South 600 East, next to the Odyssey House, asked for clarification of the height of the units. Mr. Dansie responded they are approximately 38’ high, two stories above a garage. Mr. Allred acknowledged the difficulties of the site due to its irregular shape and size and stated the proposed development appears quite pleasing. He asked if the Commission had any insight into plans for the properties to the east. Mr. Dansie explained there is no information available as a result of this petition. Mr. Allred suggested that if the other lots became available it would be easier to work with and confirmed that the proposed site had not been purchased from the same owners.
Chairperson Chambless asked for final comments from the petitioner or questions to Staff. Commissioner Scott noted that there is some type of easement off Hawkes Court where traffic passes that simply disappears where it meets the lot being considered. She inquired if it is a utility easement or another easement that may cause difficulties during construction. Mr. Dansie responded that the area is not an actual easement but a separate lot people currently drive across for access. Mr. Wheelwright indicated it is most likely a gap or overlap in the parcel layout; easements would have to be disclosed as part of the final plat recording and so would not be overlooked in the planning process. He suggested it is most likely a vacant lot that could qualify for a new house.
Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner Diamond’s concerns about the need for additional delineation of walkways and landscaping to preclude illegal parking and increase safety. She also suggested that the fire department be consulted again for an additional review to confirm they are satisfied with the plans as presented.
Motion for Petition 410-717
Commissioner Scott made a motion that in light of the analysis and findings noted in the Staff report and comments made during the meeting, Petition 410-717 be approved with the following conditions:
1. The required yard setbacks be modified as per the site plan (the yard be reduced to 4’ on the west side, 10’ with 2’ overhangs on the north and east side, and allow the porch encroachment into the front yard on the south side).
2. The landscape design be subject to final review by the Planning Director.
3. Defer the final design of the buildings and applicable signage to the Historic Landmark Commission.
4. Per Finding H, a light-proof fence be required on all three interior lot lines.
5. Maintenance agreements and easements for the utilities be required since utilities serving this development will be routed through separate parcels.
6. That walkway material to delineate a pedestrian lane along the east side of the drive be required.
7. That final approval for landscaping to discourage parking along the west side of the drive be delegated to the Planning Director after review by the fire department.
Commissioner Noda asked that the final condition be amended to include review by the fire department. Commissioner Scott accepted that amendment as noted in the conditions above.
Commissioner Muir seconded the motion. All voted in favor, therefore the motion to approve the petition passed unanimously, 6-0.
It is noted that after passing the motion, several Commissioners expressed congratulations to Mr. Saxey and commended his project design.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 8:16 p.m.)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.