SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Marilynn Lewis, Jackie Gasparik, Ray McCandless, Greg Mikolash, Melissa Anderson, Joel Paterson, and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:41 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased
Approval of the Minutes from Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Ms. Arnold requested that it be specifically noted in the minutes if the agenda items are done out of sequence. She also requested that each agenda item note the time it begins and ends in order to determine how much time is spent on each item.
Mr. Muir referred to the following pages for correction:
Page 4, fourth paragraph, third sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Chambless said the real issues before the Commission were what was discussed”, etc.
Page 4, fifth paragraph, last sentence, last word shall be corrected to read, “petition”.
Page 4, sixth paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “….a matter that was ultimately going to be litigated and appealed”, etc.
Page 10, second paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “...agenda item for the April 30th retreat.”
Mr. Muir requested that all references to “Padagonia” be correctly spelled as “Patagonia”.
Page 26, Section A under Commission Finding, the first sentence shall be corrected to read, “The proposed development is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is not compatible with the implementation and planning goals and objectives of the City”, etc.
Page 27, Section D under Commission Finding, the first sentence shall be corrected to read, “The proposed conditional use is not compatible with the intended neighborhood shopping center zoning and detracts from the ultimate proposed development.
Ms. Funk referred to the following page for correction:
Page 7, seventh paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Pace said he believed the motion”, etc.
Mr. Diamond referred to the following pages for correction:
Page 5, second paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Ms. Noda reiterated”, etc.
Page 11, first paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Ms. Arnold believed it was important”, etc.
Ms. Seelig referred to the following page for correction:
Page 11, seventh paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Ms. Seelig moved to approved the property conveyance matter as outlined in the agenda and the staff report.”
Mr. Jonas referred to the following pages for correction:
Page 13, eighth paragraph, a second sentence shall be added to read, “No one came forward.”
Page 16, third paragraph, sixth sentence shall be corrected to read, “Most of the merchants lost about 10 percent of their parking, and for”, etc.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve the minutes as corrected for Wednesday, April 23, 2003. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Scott voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Louis Zunguze announced that there will be a public meeting held on May 19, 2003, coordinated by City Council Member Saxon regarding the Main Street Plaza issue. He invited the Planning Commissioners to attend that meeting.
Mr. Zunguze then reported that the Land Use Appeals Board heard the appeal from Smith’s Food and Drug on May 5, 2003. The Land Use Appeals Board upheld the Planning Commission’s decision.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
None to consider.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Presentation by Envision Utah and UDOT on the Mountain View Corridor (Previously called the Western Transportation Corridor).
Mr. Matt Sibul, from UDOT presented the first part of a slide show covering the following points:
1. An Environmental Impact Statement
2. Participants in the study/project.
3. Population Projections – Western Salt Lake County
- Year 2000 164,000
- Year 2030 340,000
- Increase of 107%
4. Population Projections – Northwest Utah County
- Year 2000 73,335
- Year 2030 179,477
- Increase of 145%
5. Mountain View Corridor Environmental Impact Statement Project Goal
- To meet the transportation need through proactive community involvement and assessment of environmental issues.
6. Public Involvement – Critical to Success
- Key Partner is the PUBLIC
- Proactive communication through:
- Five Growth Choice workshops in May/June
- Two EIS open houses in July/August
- Community Meetings/Workshops at Existing Forums
- City/Community/Neighborhood Councils
- School Programs
- Individual Stakeholder Meetings
- udot.utah.gov/mountainview – accessible early May
7. Environmental Impact Statement – January 2003 – Spring 2006
8. Project Timeline – 2003 through 2006
Mr. Bob Terragno, from Envision Utah, presented the rest of the slide show covering the following points:
1. Growth Choices Process
2. Potential Benefits of the Process
3. Growth Choices Committees
- Stakeholder Committee
- Technical Committee
4. Public Participation
5. Growth & Transportation Public Workshops
6. Workshop Invitations & Announcements
7. The Invitation Process
8. Schedule of Public Workshops
Copies of the slide show were handed out to the Commission members. Mr. Terragno gave each of the Commission members a copy of a packet entitled “Mountain View Corridor – Growth Choice Process – Public participation Process”. He drew the Commission’s attention to the second page of the packet which showed a prospective stakeholder list. Mr. Terragno said it was important to talk with the Planning Commission about this project because it is all about land use. Mr. Terragno invited the Planning Commission members, the City Council members and key City Staff members to the June 4, 2003 Salt Lake City Workshop at Granger High School.
Mr. Zunguze said he was pleased to hear that land use will be a predominant element in the review. He expressed concern that there was no regional entity helping to coordinate land use. He asked Mr. Terragno how any land use disputes, particularly around borders, would be handled. Mr. Terragno said there will be a scenario-building analysis that results from the workshops in the aggregate as those take place. There will be differences among jurisdictions. In building a scenario they will look for common themes, conflicting issues and potential border conflicts, etc. The process will be worked out with the stakeholder committee and the technical advisory committee with Envision Utah’s professional consultants.
Mr. Sibull said Mr. Zunguze’s point had been raised by Mayor Anderson at one of the stakeholder meetings. That concern needs to be discussed further.
Mr. Terragno said it is an opportunity to challenge each of the jurisdictions to take a look at a more regional view of this project.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Terragno what he envisioned to be the future population of Salt Lake City Proper up to the year 2050. Mr. Terragno did not know, but said he would get that information to Mr. Chambless.
Mr. Chambless said West Valley was the second largest city in the state, and would someday be larger than Salt Lake City. He asked if the Commission’s job would be easier if 25 years ago in 1978 Salt Lake County had voted in favor of unification. Mr. Terragno’s personal opinion was that he was in favor of unification in 1978 and had voted for it.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Terragno to ask the people in the workshops to rethink the whole notion that the project is being called a corridor. Calling it a corridor implies a solution, and assumes that it is a north to south corridor as opposed to east and west corridor. Mr. Sibull said that north/south and east/west were connected and went hand-in-hand.
Mr. Jonas asked why the project stopped at I-80 on the North. Mr. Sibull said that was considered the northern terminus of the project from the standpoint of where people are going, i.e., the airport, major interstate, etc.
The presentation ended at 6:19 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-10, by Shaw Homes Inc. requesting an amendment to the West Salt Lake Zoning Map to rezone the property located at approximately 1551 West 200 South from R- 1/5,000 (single-family residential district) to CG (general commercial district). This request would also require an amendment to the West Salt Lake Master Plan.
This hearing began at 6:19 p.m. Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the petition as written in the staff report. Last Fall, Staff forwarded a request for a 3 lot, single-family subdivision for review on this site. The project could have been addressed administratively. However, due to environmental concerns of land uses on adjacent properties, Staff was extremely concerned about negative impacts of intentionally placing residential dwellings so close to an active rail line. At that time, the applicant withdrew their request. The applicant is now requesting an amendment to change the property from R1/5,000 to CG. The community’s greatest concern with this has been the wide range of uses allowed in the CG zone that would not be compatible with an adjacent residential community. Zoning enforcement has also received numerous complaints about dumping on the site. In order to allow the applicant more flexibility to develop the site, while eliminating the possibility of developing low density residential homes with a potential for poor quality of life, based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend a zone change from R1/5,000 to CN (neighborhood commercial). The CN zone is more complimentary to the neighborhood setting and is consistent with the West Salt Lake Master Plan.
Mr. Jonas took a moment to compliment Mr. Zunguze and Staff on the new and consistent format of the staff reports.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Jim Shaw, with Shaw Homes, spoke next. He accepted the findings of Staff for a CN zone.
Mr. Jonas asked if Foss Street had been vacated and was a part of Mr. Shaw’s property. Mr. Shaw said yes. Mr. Jonas asked if Foss Street was being rezoned as well. Ms. Coffey said it was.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the Community Council would like to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then opened the hearing up to the general public and invited anyone who wished to speak to come forward.
Ms. Marne Eggleston, 1557 West 200 South, #B-201, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104, spoke next. She said Foss Street runs through her condo development. Their community had just had a Homeowner’s Association meeting. They are against any development on the proposed site. They are trying to get a petition together to close 200 South so that the train whistles will stop blowing. Any commercial development would disrupt the neighborhood. They would prefer to leave the proposed site vacant. She thinks the proposed site is too small to develop anything of worth to the community.
Mr. Daniels asked Ms. Eggleston if 200 South were closed and a quiet zone were enforced, if she would be amenable to more housing put on the proposed site. Ms. Eggleston said yes, that would bring up everyone’s property value.
Mr. David Bouse spoke next. He has purchased apartments on Foss Street. He said he had not been made aware of the proposed zone change and asked how many feet away from a property one had to be to be put on the notice list. Mr. Jonas said 350 feet. Mr. Bouse said the train noise would be a negative factor for any housing put on the proposed site. Neighborhood Commercial zone might fit. He said the neighborhood was trying to improve the area, and he would hate to see anything of low quality be developed on the site.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Ms. Funk said the Commission and previously discussed the idea of homes on the site, and it was decided it would not be safe for small children because of the railroad. She liked the idea of CN zoning on the site.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition 400-03-10 by Shaw Homes, Inc., and to send a recommendation to the City Council to change the zoning to CN based on the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report, with the recommendations also as outlined. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion.
Ms. Seelig asked if the zoning designation in the area was related to any criteria associated with a quiet zone designation. Ms. Lewis said no. Ms. Seelig wished to make sure that any decisions of the Commission on this issue would not change whether or not the area could be designated a quiet zone. Mr. Zunguze said he did not think so.
Mr. Jonas asked if the motion included making a modification to the West Salt Lake master plan. Ms. Funk said it does and amended the motion appropriately. Mr. Daniels accepted the amendment as well. She said that closing 200 South would not be negated by the Commission’s action tonight. Mr. Wheelwright said if the closure occurred it would be west of Montgomery Street. The crossing of the street over the railroad tracks would be closed.
Mr. Jonas said for the record that when the parcel was combined it was close to ¾ of an acre.
Mr. Muir asked if the CN zone allowed for storage units. Ms. Lewis said no. It would have been allowed in the CG zone.
Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition 400-03-10 by Shaw Homes, Inc.; and to send a recommendation to the City Council to change the zoning to CN, and amend the West Salt Lake master plan based on the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report, with the recommendations also as outlined. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Scott voted “Aye”. Mr. Diamond voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Findings: Rezoning the subject property from a residential to a commercial use creates the potential for a neighborhood based business. It is however, important that the new businesses be compatible when they are located within neighborhoods. Once the zone is changed, permitted uses would be allowed to set up and service areas far greater than the boundaries of the existing neighborhood. The Poplar Grove Community Council is concerned that some commercial zones, such as the one proposed general commercial (CG), could allow more intense uses that would be incompatible, which would defeat the goals of the master plan. A less intense commercial zone would decrease the potential for residential development or illegal dumping, while providing the opportunity to allow compatible commercial development that services the neighborhood. The change of zoning from residential to commercial would require an amendment to the West Salt Lake Master Plan Future Land Use Map
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Findings: A commercial use could be developed in a manner that is functional
and harmonious with the neighborhood character. In order for a commercial use
to be compatible, the intensity of the use must be taken into consideration to
ensure the use is harmonious with the surrounding area. In this instance, a
proposed use has not yet been identified. Rezoning the property to CG, which
allows many uses that are incompatible with this residential neighborhood, is not
appropriate. Many of the uses allowed in the CG zoning district that are allowed
as a permitted use, (which would not require any public input or Planning
Commission review) are not appropriate in a residential neighborhood. A less
intensive commercial zoning use within the CN zoning district, could provide services to the neighborhood, while decreasing the potential for negatively impacting the neighborhood with noise, traffic, visual appearance or undesirable activities and is a more appropriate zoning classification for the subject properties.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Findings: Development of the property would upgrade the site, and keep it from being used as an illegal dumping ground, which adversely affects the adjacent properties. However, if the zoning is changed to CG there will be a host of business ventures allowed, that may present adverse impacts to the community. The CG zone allows a variety of uses that would negatively impact adjacent residences. A less intensive commercial zone, such as CN could provide necessary services to the residents.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards.
Findings: New development will need to adhere to height restrictions and building standards, depending on the use, within the Airport Influence Zone “C” (an airport overlay zone). However, given that there is no specific project proposed, it is not possible for Staff to make a definitive finding to this standard.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Findings: Specific recommendations from these departments would require a proposed use, in order to make accurate determinations relating to the adequacy of public facilities and services. That is not possible at this juncture because the applicant has not indicated a specific use for development. However, it is noted in the report that there is concern over the variety of development opportunities in the CG (general commercial) zone that may have negative impacts on the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: In order to allow the applicant more flexibility in developing the site while eliminating the possibility of developing low density residential land use with potential for poor quality of life, and based on the findings of fact identified in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend a zoning change from R-1 /5,000 (single-family residential to CN (neighborhood commercial) rather than CG (general commercial) as originally requested for the following reasons:
1. The CN (neighborhood commercial) zoning district affords development opportunities that are appropriate for the location near the transportation corridors without permitting high intensive commercial uses that are inappropriate in a residential neighborhood.
2. The CN (neighborhood commercial) zoning district will provide a variety of small neighborhood business development opportunities that would be more complimentary to the neighborhood setting, and consistent with the West Salt Lake Master Plan.
This hearing ended at 6:36 p.m.
Petition No. 400-03-06 by Asset Management Services requesting to rezone property located at 1341 South State Street from a Corridor Commercial (CC) and Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35) to a Moderate / High Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-45) Zoning District including approval of a 2-lot Subdivision Plat Amendment, Amending lots 1 through 17 and Lots 26 through 46 and a portion of lots 18 and 25 of the Nye's Addition Subdivision.
This hearing started at 6:37 p.m. Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report. He presented aerial site maps to the Commission. The property is one piece, but is unusual because it has a commercial strip center along the west side, and on the east side there is a 90-unit apartment complex. The petitioner wishes to sell off the eastern half of the property to Utah Non-profit Housing. The property needs to be subdivided in order to sell it.
Mr. McCandless presented a drawing of the site plan to the Commission. Initially there was an alley running through the middle of the property. That is where the existing zoning boundary line lies. He explained to the Commission the various rezoning requests for different areas on the property.
Staff recommends preliminary subdivision amendment approval and approval of the rezoning from RMF-35 to RMF-45 as requested and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recordation of a final plat.
2. Meeting all City departmental requirements.
3. Implementation of all site improvements as shown on the proposed site plan.
4. The building height is restricted to the height of the existing buildings which is 25 feet.
5. The number of units not to exceed the current number of units whish is 59, 1-bedroom units and 36, 2-bedroom units, 95 units total.
Mr. Jonas asked if the proposed new lot line at the east edge of the commercial building was consistent with a CC zoning. Mr. McCandless said yes.
Ms. Funk wondered why the petitioner wanted RMF-45 zoning. Mr. McCandless said it was because of density. If it was left as RMF-35 the number of units would not comply with the current zoning.
Ms. Arnold asked if the property was left as RMF-35 and a fire burned down the apartments, the petitioner would have to rebuild less units. Mr. McCandless said yes.
Mr. Jonas asked what zoning was in place when the complex was originally built. Mr. Wheelwright said it was probably R-6, a high density residential zoning district.
Mr. Jonas asked what the maximum density would be for RMF-35. Mr. McCandless said 66 units.
Ms. Arnold asked if Staff was looking at total units or whether the units were 1-bedroom or 2-bedroom. Mr. McCandless said they were looking at total units.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Randy Smith, 1574 West 1700 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84104, represented the applicant. He is from the land surveying and engineering firm working on the site for Asset Management. He said the applicant was pleased with the site and that the removal of the fitness club would improve the area and bring it into compliance by having adequate parking. It will increase the flow of traffic and increase security of the units by allowing better fire and emergency services access through the property. The applicant supports the staff’s recommendation to approve the petition.
Mr. Jonas asked what the applicant’s connection was to Utah Non-Profit Housing. Mr. Smith said Mr. Jonathan Morris, of Utah Non-Profit Housing, is working on purchasing the property from Asset Management and will be the owner of the property pending the petition approval.
Mr. Jonathan Morris spoke next. The name of the buyer for the property is Morris Health and Housing, Inc. It is a non-profit organization formed four years ago. It has a dual charter to provide housing for the mentally ill and urban poor. It is working with Valley Mental Health to set aside 20 units for patients who are part of the Valley Mental Health system.
Mr. Daniels asked what changes and improvements would not be made if the rezoning was not granted. He asked if the property could not be improved upon even if it were not rezoned. Mr. Smith said the rezoning application is the solution to the history of the property being in nonconformance and non-enforcement of previous decisions by councils and commissions. Mr. Morris said he could not get financing unless the zoning was in conformity.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the community council wished to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then opened the hearing to the general public. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Mr. Muir questioned whether the Commission could legally grant the petitioner’s request. It appeared that they would be changing a zone and then applying conditional use tools to a rezone process in imposing restrictions. He was in favor of a rezone, but not imposing restrictions. Mr. Jonas said he thought the Commission could grant the request because they would also be granting a subdivision amendment. Mr. Wheelwright said in similar situations they had done a “conditional rezoning”. The Commission should be careful not to get to the point of “contract zoning”. In the past, the Commission has included conditions such as the height limit in a rezoning ordinance. It becomes like a deed restriction to the property. Mr. Wheelwright believed it came down to the question of whether the Commission would be comfortable with the building being at 45 feet. If they are comfortable with it, they can go with Mr. Muir’s suggestion. If they are not comfortable with it, they could structure the rezoning ordinance to include that condition. If it was approved by the City Council, it would be binding like a deed restriction on the property.
Mr. Jonas asked what the height was in a CC zone. Mr. Wheelwright said it is 30 feet or two stories, with the potential through conditional use to go to 45 feet.
Ms. Arnold asked why the restrictions needed to be included. Mr. Jonas said it was because right now it was zoned RMF-35 and it abuts to an R1/5,000. Ms. Funk said the community council had requested the height restriction.
Mr. Jonas said the applicant seemed fine with the 25 foot height restriction as long as they could get the density. Mr. Muir said he was uncomfortable with the restrictions and the precedent it would set to approve RMF-45 along with the restrictions. He did not like incrementally rewriting the zoning ordinances. Ms. Arnold agreed.
Ms. Funk asked the applicant if it made any difference on his funding whether it was RMF 35 or RMF 45 zoning. Mr. Dave Bouse, from Utah Non-Profit, spoke next. He said the different zonings do make a difference because of density. Financing requires that if the 95 units were destroyed, the same 95 would have to be rebuilt. That would be impossible with an RMF-35 zone. The height restriction was requested to protect the community’s interest.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition 400-03-06 with regard to the rezoning to RMF-45, based on the findings of the staff report and the testimony heard; that the Commission give the applicant subdivision amendment approval; and forward a recommendation to the City Council, including the five recommendations as listed. Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas clarified that the motion includes a 25 foot height restriction and a restriction of 95 units total.
Ms. Seelig agreed with Mr. Muir and was concerned with the height restriction. However, she did agree with the rezone. Ms. Funk said it could be rephrased to say that there be a deed restriction to limit the height. She agreed with Mr. Muir that they did not want to rewrite the zones.
Ms. Arnold asked if they could vote separately on the zoning and deed restrictions. She did not like the height restrictions.
Ms. Funk amended her motion to rewrite Restriction Number 4 to state that there be a deed restriction on the height at 25 feet. Ms. Noda accepted the amendment.
Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition 400-03-06 with regard to the rezoning to RMF-45, based on the findings of the staff report and the testimony heard; that the Commission give the applicant subdivision amendment approval; and forward a recommendation to the City Council, including recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 as listed. Recommendation 4 shall be rewritten to say that there be a deed restriction imposed upon the property to limit the height to 25 feet. Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Ms. Scott, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Funk, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda voted “Aye”. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Chambless voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Zunguze asked if the deed restriction would apply to the subdivision of the property and not to the zoning. Ms. Funk said that was correct. If the property is not subdivided, the zoning remains separate.
Mr. Jonas clarified that the 25 foot restriction was only on the RMF-45 property, not the CC property.
Findings of Fact:
21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Findings: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Findings: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Findings: The overlay district provides an opportunity to eliminate the required 15' front yard setback along State Street to reinforce historical land development patterns along the street (buildings with no front yards or setbacks). This applies to new development only and not to existing development. The commercial development on State Street is existing. Therefore, there are no additional requirements that need to be met. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the applicable overlay zoning district.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Findings: Public facilities are adequate to serve the apartments and commercial retail center.
20.31.090 Standards for general amendments.
A. The amendment will be in the best interests of the City;
Findings: The amendment will be in the best interests of the City.
B. All lots comply with all applicable zoning standards;
Findings: Both lots comply with applicable zoning standards.
C. All necessary and required dedications are made;
Findings: Cross access easements / agreements will be required.
D. Provisions for the construction of any required public improvements are included;
Findings: Provisions for the construction of any required public improvements are included.
E. The amendment complies with all applicable laws and regulations;
Findings: The amendment complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
F. The amendment does not materially injure the public or any person and there is good cause for the amendment.
Findings: The amendment does not materially injure the public or any person and there is good cause for the amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above comments, analysis and findings, Staff recommends preliminary subdivision amendment approval and approval of the rezoning from RMF-35 to RMF-45 as requested subject to the following conditions:
1. Recordation of a final plat.
2. Meeting all City departmental requirements.
3. Implementation of all site improvements as shown on the proposed site plan.
4. A deed restriction shall be imposed upon the subdivided property to limit the height to 25 feet.
5. The number of units not to exceed the current number of units which is 59, 1-bedroom units and 36, 2-bedroom units, 95 units total. (Community Council Recommendation)
This hearing ended at 7:05 p.m.
Petition No. 400-02-05, by Thomas A. Duffin requesting to rezone the property at 2275 South Green Street from R-1-7000, single-family residential to SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential Zoning District, to facilitate the construction of a two family dwelling.
This hearing began at 7:06 p.m. Planner Melissa Anderson presented the petition as written in the staff report. The SR-1 zoning would allow for single-family and two-family homes. The applicant wishes to build a duplex on the property and is applying for a rezone. The staff report outlines the policies associated over time with the area, which has had more than one downzone. In the 1950’s there was an impetus in the City to upzone properties to create more housing. After some development occurred, there was some deterioration of single-family neighborhoods. The cost of that was recognized by the City and efforts to downzone some of the neighborhoods went forward. That was outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan in 1985 and then implemented with a downzone. In 1995 there was another downzone with a city-wide rezoning process, which established the area as an R-1-7000 zone. Prior to that, there were a handful of multi-family homes along the block. The existing policy is to preserve and maintain the single family homes and character of this established low-density neighborhood.
This application to rezone a single parcel is considered a spot zoning in Utah and is not allowed. If the Commission wants to consider a rezone, it would need to be considered as a package, like a block or several properties. If the whole block was rezoned to allow duplexes, there may be more encouragement of demolition of existing single-family homes. Rezoning the whole block would therefore have a negative impact.
Mr. Muir asked if spot zoning was precluded, why this issue was before the Commission. Ms. Anderson said the applicants wished to make their case and are allowed due process. Mr. Muir asked how that would be due process when the Commission could not act upon it. Ms. Anderson said if the Commission would like the applicant consider getting other property owners involved to have a larger area, or to have staff evaluate that, it provides an opportunity to look at other options.
Ms. Anderson said Staff has a negative recommendation for the petition based on the findings of fact. She asked Mr. Wilde about previous policies regarding an R-1-7000 zone and if he had any more to add about why the area was zoned as such. Mr. Wilde said prior to 1995 most of the properties in this area were zoned R-2. It was the 1995 zoning rewrite that changed the zoning in many similar neighborhoods to R-1. The issue is not a question of whether the single lot should be zoned, but rather if the general neighborhood was improperly zoned. Spot zoning is defined as being a request to change a single parcel or a small area that is not consistent with the master plan.
Ms. Anderson said the master plan identified the area as low density residential land use. The SR-1 as well as R-1-7000 could be considered consistent with that land use.
Mr. Zunguze addressed the question of spot zoning. He said State law always provides guidelines to good land use practices. It is up to each local jurisdiction to then articulate those guidelines in community development. It is also the right of every property owner to bring a request forward with respect to change of use to the governing body and to let the governing body make the final call. The Planning Division could not deny the applicant the right to come to the hearing to present his case.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and speak. Mr. Thomas A. Duffin, 4222 Wander Lane, Salt Lake City, Utah 84124, and his son Mr. Jim Duffin, 6589 South 1300 East, #250, Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 spoke next. Mr. Jim Duffin said they had met with the Community Council over a year ago, who had passed a resolution in favor of the duplex. He said he and his father were a small family business that has owned property on Green Street for 30-40 years. They are the largest property owners in the area. They bought the property in question when the zoning was favorable with their intent to build a duplex.
Mr. Duffin drew the Commission’s attention to a map of the area, and explained that there were already many multi-family residences on the block. He felt that a new house built on his property was unacceptable because it was not economically viable. He showed the Commission their site plans for a duplex. He finished by saying the lot was empty, weedy and tended to collect debris. Their duplex would look like a house from the street.
Mr. Thomas Duffin spoke next. He pointed out again all the multi-family residences on the block. He said the neighbors would like to see the lot developed as a duplex. The zoning in the neighborhood is wrong, in his opinion. He said spot zoning was not statutory. It is court appointed. He believed the Commission had the right to change his property’s zoning because the duplex is a good idea for the neighborhood.
Mr. Jonas invited any members of the Community Council to come forward. Helen Peters, Sugar House Community Council Chair, spoke next. This issue came before the Council before she was Chair. She referred to a letter from the previous Chair regarding the matter, which indicated that rezoning was never mentioned when the issue was discussed – only the building of a duplex. The Community Council was not in support of a rezone. The Council would like to have a single-family dwelling on that particular lot to create a balance on the street.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing up to the general public. No one came forward. Mr. Jonas then invited Mr. Thomas Duffin to rebut any comments. Mr. Duffin claimed that Ms. Peters was expressing her personal opinion. He said the Sugar House Community Council was aware that a rezoning would be necessary and voted in favor of it.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. He stated for the record that a letter from the Sugar House Community Council did state that Mr. Duffin was requesting support for a zoning change for his property.
Mr. Jonas was troubled by the issue of spot zoning. He read the definition of spot zoning as written in the staff report. He then read the definition of an SR-1 zone. He wondered why the Commission would have to deal with the whole block rezone when Staff was using those two definitions. Ms. Anderson said it was important that it was just one parcel as opposed to a grouping of neighboring parcels.
Mr. Muir thought this matter should have come before the Commission as an issues only hearing and that several options could have been presented. The community should have been notified about it and the Commission could have had a sense of what they wanted.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved to deny Petition 400-02-05 and not recommend the rezone of the property located at 2275 South Green Street from R-1-7000 to SR-1, based on the findings of fact as written in the staff report. Ms. McDonough seconded the motion.
Ms. Funk said the Commission could extend the time on the petition and request that other possibilities be explored. She said the petition could be carried over to ask the Staff for additional possibilities. She believed three or four parcels on the street were contiguous and could be rezoned SR-1 without redoing the whole block. Ms. Anderson said if Staff proposed a larger grouping, a public notification would have to be done.
Mr. Muir said that would be another application. The Commission would be better served to reject the current application with the caveat that the applicant could try another formula.
Ms. Funk was disinclined to endorse an alternative solution unless the Commission was inclined to do that, because there is a filing fee and more due process.
Mr. Jonas asked for Mr. Muir’s thoughts on a duplex being built on the property. Mr. Muir said the problem would be notification – it needs to be broader.
Ms. Arnold asked if the existing fourplexes were zoned properly. Mr. Zunguze said no, they were nonconforming. Ms. Arnold said if the intent for the neighborhood was to keep or restore it into single-family dwellings, there was a lot to be said for keeping it the R-1-7000 zoning.
Mr. Daniels was also inclined to deny the petition.
Mr. Zunguze talked about spot zoning. Staff did not say that spot zoning was a statutory term. In planning practice, spot zoning is not good. If it is done too often, the community development pattern would be chaotic. Mr. Zunguze has consistently said that it is important that a master plan and supporting ordinances speak in the same tone. This case is a classic example of that happening. The master plan notes that the neighborhood needs to go towards single-family dwellings, and the City downzoned accordingly. He asked the Commission to deal with this issue in light of the master plan and the zoning envisioned for this area.
Ms. Funk she would not personally be in favor of her suggestion that it was a possibility to zone several properties SR-1. She was simply offering an alternative if Mr. Muir wanted one. She supports Mr. Muir’s original motion.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote:
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Scott voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Jonas stated for the record that this case was a perfect example for an issues only hearing.
Findings of Fact:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Findings: Since the 1980’s, the land use policies and zoning for the proposed parcel and surrounding properties on Green Street have supported the preservation of the predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. The R-1-7000 zone is designated for the proposed parcel in order to implement a single-family home development pattern, consistent with the majority of the block. A rezone to SR-1 will run contrary to the policies that govern this property, by undermining the intent to support the stability and character of this predominantly single-family residential neighborhood.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Findings: Rezoning only one lot to SR-1 will be considered a spot zoning and is not allowed in Utah. Rezoning the entire street face along Green Street will bring some of the existing development more into compliance; rezoning will also negatively impact the overall character of existing development and will run contrary the policy intended to preserve and enhance the character of existing low-density residential neighborhoods
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Findings: The proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties by conferring special privileges for one property owner rather than protecting the general health, welfare and safety of the entire community.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards.
Findings: The site is not located within any overlay zones.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Findings: Staff requested feedback from the Building Services and Licensing Division, Public Utilities, Zoning Enforcement, Engineering, Transportation, Property Management, the Fire Department and the Police Department. There were no specific objections to the zoning map amendments. All requirements cited by each department would need to be addressed during the building permit and site plan review process.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the comments, analysis and findings of fact noted above the Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission transmit a recommendation to the City Council not to rezone the property located 2275 South Green Street from R-1-7000 to SR-1.
This hearing ended at 7:45 p.m.
Petition No. 410-632, by Johansen Thackeray Commercial Real Estate Services requesting a conditional use and planned development permit at the southwest corner of 2100 South McClelland Street. The proposal involves demolition of an existing building to construct a new, single story commercial structure for retail and restaurant use, in the C-SHBD Zoning District.
This hearing began at 7:54 p.m. Planner Melissa Anderson presented the petition as written in the staff report. The property is in the Sugar House Business District zone. The proposal for both restaurant and retail use is consistent with the master plan. The general land use and site design are consistent with the master plan. There is an unusual condition because the lots are separated by an alleyway. The proposed building on the northeast corner is similar to what exists now. It is less expensive to build a new structure. There are improvements to the parking lot area with landscaping and buffers. The orientation of the building is from east to west. A front bay will be a restaurant with double entrance doors, making a street front addressing 2100 South. There are doorways that will be operable into the center retail unit. The Community Council recommended that the south restaurant put a doorway on McClelland Street. All McClelland Street and 2100 South Street would be addressed with windows and operable doorways. Staff incorporated the Community Council recommendation into their recommendations.
Staff is recommending the applicant allow for a two foot overhang for the automobiles on the perimeter parking lot set back area to allow for two rows of parking on the north and a single row of parking on the south. Also, 40 percent glass is required through the zoning ordinance at the time of site design. Staff recommends that the Planning Director be given authority to approve the final site design for landscaping, as well as the elevations.
Staff is in support of this application with the conditions that are outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification on some areas where some leeway is being allowed, specifically the vehicle overhang, and the landscape buffering of 5 feet 5 inches. Ms. Anderson said that generally a 7 foot perimeter parking lot landscape buffer is required. If the automobile hangs two feet over the landscaped buffer area, Staff is requesting that it be allowed. It is assumed then that it is a 7 foot landscape area. The Transportation Division does not require a 7 foot perimeter. The zoning ordinance requires it. More landscaping is still being achieved than what is presently on the site.
Ms. Arnold asked why there is an off-site parking lease agreement before the permits were issued. Ms. Anderson said it was because of the four separate parcels. The applicant has an agreement with one the property owners that the applicant will lease the property until they die.
Mr. Diamond asked if the building straddles the northeast and northwest parcels. Ms. Anderson said no, the placement of the building was for optimum placement. Mr. Diamond asked how Ms. Anderson felt about that from a vehicular/pedestrian perspective as it related to the master plan.
Ms. Anderson said the applicant and Community Council were very open and happy to have the building placed where it is on the site design. The tenants were adamant about having the orientation facing east/west. She went over the site design again and said it was not ideal, but was essentially a compromise.
Mr. Diamond felt the curb cuts off of 2100 South were problematic for vehicular traffic and cross traffic from the pedestrian side. Ms. Anderson suggested the developer be consulted.
Ms. Scott asked if the east elevation would have 40 percent non-reflective glass. Ms. Anderson said yes, the ordinance requires a minimum of 40 percent non-reflective glass. Ms. Scott asked if the two northern parcels were owned by the same owner. Ms. Anderson said yes. Ms. Scott asked if the two southern owners were separate owners. Ms. Anderson said there are two owners at present, but there would ultimately be one owner. The applicant has an agreement to buy the two parcels on the west. The other two parcels on the east would be leased until the current owner dies, and then the applicant would buy it in full.
Mr. Jonas asked the applicant to come forward and speak. Mr. Armand Johansen, of Johansen Thackeray and Company, 1165 East Wilmington Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He had read the Staff’s recommendations and said he would comply. He showed the Commission on the aerial site map who owned the different parcels of land. The applicant will be able to give cross easement agreements for all the parcels.
PeiWei Restaurant and Baja Fresh will be coming into the development. Those tenants do not want public access from McClelland. The site design includes doors that will be rear exit doors, but the kitchen is in the back and the eating area is in the front. If the Commission requires the applicant to have public access in the back, it may kill the project. The rear and the front of the buildings will look the same on 2100 South and McClelland, but there will not be public access in the rear.
Mr. Daniels said the Community Councils had encouraged the applicant to lease the space to local businesses. He asked if any of the tenants would be local. Mr. Johansen said the center space had not been leased yet. They are in discussion with two locals, but nothing has been agreed. Baja Fresh is not a local. PeiWei is owned by P.F. Chang, which is a regional chain.
Mr. Chambless asked if Mr. Johansen felt these restaurants would encourage a more walkable neighborhood. Mr. Johansen said absolutely. The outside eating patio will be about 25 feet back from the curb. They will try to make the area look very inviting. Mr. Chambless then asked what Mr. Johansen envisioned for lighting in the area. Mr. Johansen said there would be signs and outdoor lighting. He will work with Ms. Anderson to find artistic lighting. Lighting will also be installed in the parking lot.
Ms. McDonough asked about the McClelland Street elevation and the suggestion to comply with 40 percent non-reflective glass. She wanted to know how the applicant would accomplish that. Mr. Johansen showed Ms. McDonough which areas of the building would be in glass. Mr. Diamond asked if the glass would be reflective because the kitchens were facing McClelland Street. Mr. Johansen said they would work with the tenants about that. In some areas there may need to be reflective glass. He will try to get as much see-through glass as possible.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Johansen to show him on the map where dumpsters would be placed. Mr. Johansen referred to an area on the parking lot, but said another area would need to be selected for dumpsters as well to have enough for all three restaurants.
Mr. Jonas said the staff report referenced the fact that the building had been designed to make all the entrances on 2100 South, and had since been turned another direction. Mr. Johansen said there was an entrance off of 2100 South. Mr. Jonas said the spine of the walkable community is considered to be 2100 South in the master plan, and noted that there was only one entrance off of that street. Mr. Johansen said the design was originally for all entrances to be off 2100 South. All of the tenants they approached with that design could not deal with having the entrance on 2100 South and parking in the rear – they could not handle the two door system from a security standpoint and they liked proximity to parking. Mr. Johansen said he was trying to balance the community’s desires with those of the tenants.
Mr. Jonas said that was a reoccurring theme for the Commission, and mentioned the recent problems with Smith’s Food and Drug. Mr. Johansen reiterated that he wished to do what the Commission wanted, but that he had to satisfy the tenants as well.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Johansen to address Mr. Diamond’s suggestion for deleting the existing curb cut coming off of 2100 South into the parking lot. Mr. Johansen said he felt outgoing traffic would be orderly and showed on the site design the other exits from the parking lot. He felt maintaining the curb cut on 2100 South would not be a hazard.
Mr. Diamond asked if the building could be pushed back to have space at the corner. Mr. Johansen said he would lose his parking. Mr. Diamond said there could be parking on McClelland. Mr. Johansen said he could do that, but had always been told that because they were on a corner the City wanted them on the corner to provide the walkable feel. Mr. Johansen said he had no problem exploring Mr. Diamond’s suggestion.
Ms. McDonough asked if in terms of tenant space, whether it was feasible to have just the two tenants and put the kitchens in the center of the building where the middle tenant would be. There could be reflective glass in the center of the building and all glazed around the corner and facing the parking lot. Mr. Johansen said he would lose too much square footage. The tenants would not necessarily be amenable to paying for that much more space.
Mr. Muir asked what the prospect was for vacating the easement on the alleyway. Mr. Johansen said it was good. They would pursue that if they received approval from the Commission tonight. Mr. Muir encouraged Mr. Johansen to work with the Planning Director and Ms. Anderson on vacating the easement, as it could create more opportunity for outdoor dining. Mr. Johansen agreed. Ms. Funk wondered if pursing the easement could not be made a condition of approval.
Ms. Funk said from a visual standpoint she would prefer to see landscaping across the curb cut onto 2100 South. She would like to see ingress and egress from the back area if the Transportation Division would approve it.
Mr. Jonas then asked if anyone from the Community Council wished to speak. Ms. Helen Peters, Sugar House Community Council Chair, spoke next. The proposal before the Council the first time was for the north and south oriented building. The Council liked that proposal. She said it was unfortunate that the tenants were not favorable to the north/south orientation. The east/west orientation is a compromise. The northern most tenant needs an entrance off 2100 South and there will be outdoor dining, so the Council feels comfortable with that. The real issue is the east side of the building. The Council would like to see all glass panels. They recommend two functional entrances – one for the southern most tenant and one for the middle tenant. This would make for more street interaction on McClelland.
Mr. Jonas asked for Ms. Peters’ opinion about Mr. Diamond’s suggestion to flip the building orientation and create a back of house on the very west portion of the property. Ms. Peters said zero setback was an important thing. She felt the Community Council would not like Mr. Diamond’s suggestion, because the Council was trying to drive towards the fact that there would be no vehicles in between the sidewalk and a building entrance.
Ms. Peters said she believed the tenants would accept the suggestion for glass panels, but would reject the request for functional doors.
Mr. Diamond said the present design was taking a strip mall approach. Mr. Jonas did not believe there could be a nice façade on McClelland. All deliveries would be coming in there, and all the trash would be going out. Interaction with McClelland would require a main entrance on McClelland (which none of the tenants want), or flipping the building orientation as per Mr. Diamond’s suggestion.
Mr. Diamond asked if two buildings could be constructed and have parking in between. Mr. Johansen said more parcels of land would be needed for that.
Mr. Wilde then said the City had worked hard in Sugar House Commons on Rubios and the Panda Express. They did get some screened glass on the kitchen side for those tenants, but the tenants struggled with the glass requirement. They arrived at a good compromise where there is now a sense of a front entrance on both the north and patio side. Mr. Wilde said such a compromise for the east side of the proposed building would achieve a good balance. Mr. Johansen said again that he would do all he could to meet the City’s objectives.
Mr. Jonas opened the meeting up to the general public. Mr. Michael Polacek, 1411 Utah Street, #6, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104, spoke next. He liked that Sugar House is trying to create a walkable community. He felt that the Commons was a failure in that effort. He said the design of the new building was trying to maximize profit.
Mr. Jonas invited Mr. Johansen to rebut any comments. Mr. Johansen asked for permission to proceed with the project. He committed to keeping the site as walkable as possible and to make it look like the City wants it to.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition 410-632 for a conditional use and planned development permit at the southwest corner of 2100 South McClelland Street based on the findings of fact presented in the staff report, and with the recommendations in the staff report, with the following additional recommendations:
9. The applicant will apply for closure of the alley and subsequent purchase.
10. The applicant will pursue the possibility of not having vehicle access on and off of 2100 South.
11. A subcommittee will be created to work with the applicant and Staff on improving entrances and facades, with the final approval being given to the Planning Director.
Mr. Chambless seconded the motion. He liked the idea of a subcommittee.
Ms. Arnold was concerned about closing the entrance to 2100 South. She felt it could hinder the customer’s understanding on how to get into the parking lots. She said 2100 South was no more problematic than McClelland.
Mr. Diamond referred to a past presentation by Landmark about the Sugar House Master Plan. He disagreed with a curb cut on 2100 South Street. He is in favor of development on the site, but not necessarily as presented. It does not mesh with the master plan.
Ms. McDonough agreed that the most important element of the motion was the creation of a subcommittee. There was much yet to be worked out with the tenants and with the good will of the developer and how it all gets interpreted.
Mr. Jonas said the process was backward – a subcommittee should have been created on the front end, and not after a project is approved. He went on record to say he was in favor of the project, but was not in favor of the design. The need to have the building right up on McClelland is not there. He liked Mr. Diamond’s suggestion to flip the building orientation.
Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Johansen if he had considered all of the buildings being oriented to 2100 South and set back so that all restaurants could have patio dining. Mr. Johansen said the tenants would not agree to front doors on 2100 South Street.
Mr. Lynn Pace, City Attorney, spoke next. He said it was permissible and appropriate for the Planning Commission to approve something subject to minor details being delegated to a subcommittee or the Planning Director. It is probably not appropriate to say that they wanted something developed on the site but did not know what the footprint or layout is and to delegate that to someone other than the full Commission. If the Commission was not approving the proposed site design, they would need to bring it back another day.
Mr. Muir said that in downzoning the residential areas the City was not putting people on the street that would afford and support commercial orientation to the street. He felt the site design was the best they could get as middle ground. It is inherently problematic, but until the City starts building higher density housing in the neighborhood it is the most to be hoped for. Mr. Muir was also not in favor of closing the 2100 South entrance. There is still an auto oriented environment. He expressed concern that they may be micro-designing the project to death. The requirement for 40 percent glass on the three prominent elevations was enough.
Ms. Funk clarified that her motion did not include changing the footprint of the building, but only to improve entrances and facades.
Ms. Noda said the subcommittee looking at only the facades and entrances was agreeable to her. She agreed with Mr. Pace that if the Commission wanted a new footprint, the petition would have to be tabled for another day. She was comfortable with Ms. Funk’s motion. She also agreed with Mr. Muir that the Commission did not need to micro-design the project.
Ms. McDonough asked if Ms. Funk would consider removing the requirement to pursue closing the 2100 South vehicle entry from her motion. Ms. Funk said she felt the Transportation Division would turn down that request anyway. It was not her intention that the 2100 South entrance closure be mandatory. She just wanted that option looked at.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote:
Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Scott voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Mr. Diamond voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title.
Findings: The site is located within the C-SHBD zone, and all new construction of principle buildings are required to have conditional use and planned development approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, off-site parking is allowed in the C-SHBD zone as a conditional use.
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.
Findings: The land use, scale and design of the proposed development are compatible with the Sugar House Community Master Plan, with the exception of the east elevation facing McClelland Avenue, which has insufficient windows. The east elevation will need to include a minimum of 40% non-reflective glass on the building. Staff recommends that final approval of the elevations be delegated to the Planning Director.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
Findings: According to the City’s Transportation Division, the streets are adequate to carry the demand created by the development proposal. Public way standards will need to be addressed at the time of site plan review.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Findings: The internal circulation system is adequate for automobiles. Pedestrian circulation to the proposed new building is adequate. Staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance modification to allow a two-foot, five inch (2’5”) vehicle overhang within the west and southeast portions of the perimeter parking lot setback area.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Findings: The site is located in an existing developed area. The proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and will conform to the City’s construction standards and policies.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Findings: Light and noise will not create a negative impact to the surrounding properties.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Findings: Architecture and building materials are generally consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. A minimum of 40% non-reflective glass on the floor street front and front elevation is required. Staff recommends the applicant work with the proposed tenants to incorporate into the design a functional public entrance from McClelland Street to the southern end unit and the middle unit of the proposed building. Staff recommends final approval of the elevations be delegated to the Planning Director.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Findings: Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development. The 5% interior parking lot landscaping requirement is met and the majority of the perimeter parking lot landscape setback is provided. Staff recommends a modification to the zoning ordinance through the planned development review process to allow a reduction of the seven-foot perimeter parking lot landscape setback requirement to five-foot five-inches on the north side of the south-east lot and a reduction to six-feet five-inches on the west side of the north-west lot. Staff recommends that final approval of the landscape plans be delegated to the Planning Director.
I. The proposed development preserves historical architectural and environmental features of the property.
Findings: There are no historical architectural resources on the site. The site is located in a surface-fault rupture special study area. A geo-technical study is required to be completed prior to issuing site plan approval.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Findings: The adjacent land uses are also commercial; therefore the operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Findings: The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Findings: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for off-site parking. Compliance with all applicable codes will be required prior to the issuance of any building permit.
21.54.150 Planned Development Review Standards
The proposal meets one or more of the objectives of the Planned Development Purpose Statement including:
• Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations.
• Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities.
• Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships.
• Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features, and the prevention of soil erosion.
• Preservation of buildings, which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City.
• Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment.
• Inclusion of special development amenities.
• Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation.
Findings: The project meets one of the objectives of the purpose of a planned development: the use of design, landscape and architectural features to create a pleasing environment.
21.54.150E. Other Planned Development Standards
1. Minimum Area: A planned development proposed for any parcel or tract of land under single ownership or control shall have a minimum net lot area for each zoning district as set forth in Table 21A.54.150E2.
Findings: The proposal meets the minimum lot area requirements for planned developments (20,000 s.f.) in the C-SHBD zone.
2. Density Limitations.
Findings: This standard does not apply because this is not a residential development.
3. Consideration of Reduced Width Public Street Dedication.
Findings: This standard does not apply because this is not a residential development.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the comments, analysis and findings of fact noted in the report, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use and planned development, which includes off-site parking, with the following conditions:
1. Parking crossover-easements are established before issuing a building permit.
2. Off-site parking lease agreements are completed before issuing a building permit.
3. A geo-technical study must be completed for submission with the application for site plan review; and if the results of the geo-technical study warrant a significant change in the proposed site plan, the applicant must return to the Planning Commission for an amended approval.
4. A two-foot six-inch vehicle overhang is allowed within the west and southeast portions of the perimeter parking lot landscape setback area.
5. The seven-foot landscape setback requirement is reduced to 1) a five-foot five-inch landscaped setback, on the north side of the south-east lot; and 2) a six-foot five-inch landscaped setback on the west side of the north-west lot.
6. The minimum requirement for 40% non-reflective glass on the front elevation and street front facing 2100 South and McClelland Street is met.
7. The applicant work with the proposed tenants to incorporate into the design a functional public entrance from McClelland Street to the southern end unit and the middle unit of the proposed building.
8. Final approval of the landscape plans and elevations be delegated to the Planning Director.
9. The applicant will apply for closure of the alley and subsequent purchase.
10. The applicant will pursue the possibility of not having vehicle access on and off of 2100 South.
11. The applicant will work with the Planning Staff to improve the entrances and facades and give final approval for that to the Planning Director, with the creation of a subcommittee to work with Staff and the applicant.
The Commission created a subcommittee to work with the applicant and Staff on improving entrances and facades consisting of the following members:
Kathy Scott
Tim Chambless
John Diamond
Arla Funk
Mr. Zunguze reminded the Commission that the walkable communities ordinance will be coming back to them. He appealed to the Commission to remember that it is critically important to be as flexible as possible. There is still a market system in place, and they should be careful not to price the community out of the development business.
This hearing ended at 8:51 p.m.
River Glen Subdivision Phase II, by Iverson Homes to create nine Single Family Dwelling lots at 1345 South Utah Street in an R-1-7000 Zoning District.
This hearing began at 8:52 p.m. Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the petition as written in the staff report. Ms. Gasparik noted that the Commission had been provided two letters, one from Ms. Morgan identifying her concerns with the project, and a response letter from Mr. Iverson. Ms. Gasparik said she had asked Archie Archuleta, the Minority Affairs Representative from the Mayor’s Office, to be present at this hearing in case anyone needed a Spanish interpreter. Ms. Gasparik acknowledged the presence of Ms. Erin Willson, the Chair of the West Salt Lake Community Council, at this hearing and said Ms. Willson would like to address the Commission at some point.
Ms. Gasparik said the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the City standards for minor subdivision approval Title 20.20.020, as outlined in the staff report. The Planning Division is recommending approval based on the City reviews, the conditions in the staff report and the findings of order.
Mr. Jonas asked for a copy of the February 28, 2003 letter from Mr. Wheelwright to Scott Weiler, and asked what led to the letter being sent. Ms. Gasparik said she understood that there were letters sent to Mr. Iverson because he did not install the no parking signs, but that issue has since been addressed in several of his developments. Mr. Wheelwright said the letter was in regard to the lack of the street control parking and direction signs in Madison 1 and 2. That condition has now been complied with. The other situation in Madison 2 was that some vinyl fencing had not been installed as yet. Mr. Iverson has been put on notice that he does need to install that fencing as per the final approved plan. Mr. Wheelwright said these issues were not zoning violations.
Ms. Funk asked Ms. Gasparik how many units could be constructed on the parcel if the lots faced Utah Street. Ms. Gasparik said approximately 5 units.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to speak. Mr. DeWayne Iverson, Iverson Homes, 2225 East Murray-Holladay Road, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84121 spoke next. He said he had designed the lots as per the City’s 7,000 square foot requirement in the zone. He asked if he could change the sidewalk that parallels Utah Street. He wished to serpentine the sidewalk in order to save five large trees. If that was not possible, he asked if he could remove the park strip and make the sidewalk an integral part next to the curb and gutter. This request was not shown on the plan presented this evening.
Mr. Jonas asked for an explanation between the proposed right-of-way and the typical or standard right-of-way for the 50 foot road. Ms. Gasparik said the difference was mostly the rolled curb and gutter as opposed to the standard City curb and gutter, because she did not want people driving over it. Also the plan shows a sidewalk of five feet, and City standard is only four feet. The differences are minor. Mr. Jonas asked if a 50 foot right-of-way would not allow parking on both sides of the street. Ms. Gasparik said that was correct.
Mr. Wheelwright said the City would prefer a serpentine sidewalk to avoid tree removal to an integral curb gutter sidewalk section.
Mr. Jonas invited anyone from the Community Council to speak. Ms. Erin Willson, West Salt Lake Community Council Chair, 1303 South Stewart Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104, spoke next. The Community Council understands the need for more homes in the area, but is deeply concerned about the construction quality of all new housing and the quality of life provided by new developments. Ms. Willson said Iverson Homes constructed housing called Madison Estates which have proven to be more of a problem than an enhancement to their community. She said there have been property line disputes, engineering and construction complaints, lack of appropriate parking arrangements, narrow roads with poor emergency access, failure to follow through on promises made by the developer, a decline in property values beyond the decline caused by the current economic recession and the use of predatory lending in selling the homes. Ms. Willson respectfully requested the Planning Commission to demonstrate responsibility by placing the appropriate restrictions and conditions on the nine proposed homes. If a promise is not kept or followed through on, homeowners need a way to pursue this through appropriate venues.
Mr. Jonas assured Ms. Willson that it is a frustration for the Commission as well when conditions on approvals are not met. Ms. Willson appreciated the opportunity to have a hearing on this issue.
Mr. Jonas asked why the petition was before the Commission. Mr. Wheelwright said he knew there was a potential for public comment, so did not hold the administrative hearing and forwarded it to the Planning Commission. There is nothing in the proposal itself that would not meet standards.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the general public. Ms. Linda Morgan, 1258 Prospect Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84104, spoke next. She said she had been before the Commission last summer with some issues regarding her purchase in the Madison Estates. She wanted to readdress the issues tonight. She is the Chairperson for the Glendale Citizen’s Coalition on New Developments. Ms. Morgan said Mr. Iverson was found in violation which took two years for him to resolve in the Madison Estates. She strongly felt that if she had not come to the Commission to voice her concerns, Mr. Iverson would still be in violation. Signs were just barely put up to help alleviate parking. She is working with people from the Mayor’s office to address some of the issues still pertaining to Phase I and II on Madison Estates. Roger Evans, Building Services Director, will draw up a punch list for construction related issues on the homes. Ms. Morgan simply wants a good, quality development in the Glendale area – not quantity.
Mr. Jacob Myers, 1360 South Cheyenne Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104, spoke next. He wished to know if he would have continued access to the alleyway. He also asked what type of fence would be put up. Mr. Iverson said he had been talking with Wasatch Commons about a fence on the north side of their property and paralleling the alley. The alley cannot be blocked. There will be a fence on the east and south side of the project. Wasatch Commons would like a six foot wood fence.
Ms. Naomi Franklin, 1411 Utah Street, #4, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104, spoke next. She is a resident of Wasatch Commons. She wanted to know the acreage of the proposed site. Mr. Jonas said 1.81 acres. She said the surveyor stakes appeared to have the boundary on the south side too close to Wasatch Commons. She has planted a set of trees along the boundary which are now established, and wondered if some of the trees were really now on Mr. Iverson’s property. She asked for an independent surveyor to verify boundary lines. She asked if Mr. Iverson would save her trees should they be found to be on his property.
Mr. Jonas invited Mr. Iverson to come forward to rebut any comments. Mr. Iverson said he had talked to Wasatch Commons about boundary lines and his surveyor had put his survey marks 3.5 feet south of Wasatch Commons’ boundary line. The surveyor has been asked to recheck the boundary line. If the trees become an issue, he said he would save them. Mr. Iverson strongly disagreed with Ms. Morgan’s comments, saying he had asked the City to make signs which took a year and a half to make. He did not know of any residents in Phase I or Phase II in Madison Estates who had come to him with a list of complaints, except for one resident who he had tried to meet with four times. He said there were always issues, but he tries to take care of them.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Ms. Funk said she was troubled with the lack of success in the past with narrow streets. She was concerned about another street where parking could only be on one side. She asked if the Commission was obligated to go with the 50 feet wide or if it could be increased. Mr. Wheelwright said 50 feet is the City standard for a cul-de-sac, so the Commission was obligated to 50 feet on the cul-de-sac. Utah Street is a different situation. As part of the approval of River Glen Phase I, Utah Street was narrowed from 80 feet.
Ms. Funk asked if the plan met all the requirements for a subdivision so that the Commission was obligated to approve it. She liked the idea of five, 50 foot frontage lots off of Utah Street and wanted to know if the Commission had the option to do that. Mr. Wheelwright said the plan does meet the requirements. It is not a reduced width public street, which would trigger a conditional use process. Mr. Pace referred to the page six of the staff report that listed standards for approval of the subdivision. If the evidence presented satisfies the Commission that the plan has met the standards, the Commission was obligated to approve the plan. He said the standard talking about whether it is in the best interest of the City may give the Commission the latitude to deny the petition, should they decide the plan was not in the City’s best interest.
Mr. Jonas was pleased to see a normal subdivision with lots that conform to the zoning.
Ms. Arnold asked if Mr. Iverson would provide a wooden fence for Wasatch Commons. Mr. Iverson said he would prefer a vinyl fence. Ms. Arnold said a wood fence would be in keeping with the Wasatch Commons grounds. Mr. Iverson said he had no problem with doing a wooden fence.
Ms. Seelig asked who makes and installs the no parking signs. Mr. Wheelwright said they were typically made by the City and the developer pays the cost. The developer could have an option to have a private contractor make the signs as long as they met specifications. Ms. Seelig asked how the Commission could make sure conditions of approval are adhered to. Mr. Wheelwright said street infrastructure improvements (utilities, pavement, curb, sidewalks, grating, etc.) are covered under the bond that is posted with the City Engineer. Engineering inspects each phase of development. Site related issues such as fencing and landscaping are followed up by the Planning Staff. The fences would not be bonded by City Engineering, so a separate bond may be done as part of issuing a building permit. Ms. Gasparik said she follows up on her projects that are approved with conditions by taking the minutes and meeting with Scott Weiler, Salt Lake City Engineer. Mr. Weiler prepares the bond and subdivision agreements with the developer. Mr. Weiler will list in the bond agreement the Commission’s conditions of approval. Mr. Weiler lets Ms. Gasparik know if and when conditions are or are not met. If they are not met, Mr. Wheelwright will write to the developer.
Ms. Seelig asked if it would be feasible to specify that conditions of approval be listed in a bond. Ms. Gasparik said yes and recommended that it be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Jonas asked if the Commission could require fencing in a subdivision. Ms. Gasparik and Mr. Wheelwright said that would be done in plan development. There is nothing in subdivision standards that require property boundary fences.
Ms. Scott asked about the 50 foot right-of-way. She wanted to know if the actual street was 30 feet wide and then 10 feet on either side for sidewalk and green space. Mr. Wheelwright said that was generally correct. Ms. Scott asked if that was invariant, and wondered if there was an alternative route so that there could be parking on both sides of the street. Mr. Wheelwright said if the Commission required a wider right-of-way the City would still keep the 10 feet on each side for sidewalks and park strip. The next standard increment for the right-of-way would be 56 feet. The downside to that would be generating more surface area for runoff drainage. The minimum access width required by the Fire Department is 24 feet, which in this case would mean parking could only be on one side. Ms. Scott said there was not much curb space for all the lots, and it would be worth it to widen the right-of-way. Mr. Wheelwright said cul-de-sacs typically did not have enough curb anywhere around the circle to park on the street. The houses will have to park two cars in an approved parking location. There is adequate space to park four cars per house without any reliance on the street.
Mr. Zunguze said, he felt that through this discussion, the Planning Commission was almost administratively trying to figure out how to get things done by, for example, adding conditions to the bond agreements. The Commission’s role is to simply make it loud and clear to Staff and the developer that they want the conditions of approval met – period. Then let Administration and the developer figure out how to get it done, based on the code requirements.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Pace if the Commission had the latitude to impose things like fencing in a subdivision. Mr. Pace said generally that depends on what it is. If putting up a wood fence is the critical factor to the Commission in deciding whether or not it was in the best interests of the City, then they can do that. If such a thing is not necessarily a “break point”, Mr. Pace felt it was inappropriate to attach it as a condition.
Ms. Seelig asked Mr. Zunguze if he did not want the Commission to make specifications or conditions in a bond agreement. Mr. Zunguze said there were administrative things that happen below the Commission level and therefore he could not promise that a fence, for instance, could be accommodated in the bond. He said it was the Planning Division’s responsibility to see that the Commission’s conditions are met through the prescribed administrative parameters.
Motion
Ms. Seelig moved to approve the River Glen Subdivision Phase II based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval 1 through 3 as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Seelig made sure that both the developer and the City’s Administration knew that the Commission was very serious that all conditions of approval are to be met.
Mr. Muir asked that Mr. Iverson’s request for a meandering sidewalk along Utah Street be added as another condition of approval. Ms. Seelig agreed to that.
Ms. Arnold asked if Ms. Seelig would agree to a wooden fence running the length of Wasatch Commons. Ms. Seelig agreed.
Amended Motion
Ms. Seelig moved to approve the River Glen Subdivision Phase II based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval 1 through 3 as outlined in the staff report, with the following two conditions of approval added:
4. The site plan shall be corrected to include a meandering sidewalk along Utah Street in order to save established trees in that area.
5. Wood fencing shall be added along the Wasatch Commons property line.
Mr. Muir seconded the motion.
Ms. Funk expressed concerns about the density surrounding the project. She was disinclined to believe the nine lot subdivision was in the best interest of the City. She was more comfortable with the idea of five lots along Utah Street, and thought the City would be better served by fewer homes in the area. She did not concur with Finding A in the staff report.
Mr. Jonas called for the vote:
Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Scott voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
A. The minor subdivision will be in the best interest of the City;
Findings: Engineered to City standard cross section, this subdivision will be in the best interest of the City.
B. All lots comply with all applicable standards;
Findings: The lots in the proposed subdivision comply with all applicable standards.
C. All necessary dedications will be made;
Findings: All necessary dedication have been required and will be made by the recordation of the final plat.
D. The subdivision otherwise complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
Findings: The proposed subdivision complies with the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and the Site Development Ordinance, in addition to all other applicable City laws and regulations.
If the Planning Commission approves this nine-lot preliminary subdivision, the findings of fact needs to be established from the discussion and testimony at the public hearing and added to the following findings:
E. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan, and the current draft master plan.
F. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
G. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the subdivision design standards of the Site Development Ordinance.
H. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with all Zoning Ordinance requirements of the R-1-7,000 zoning district.
I. All City Departments / Divisions have reviewed the proposed subdivision and have recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in this staff report and attached letters and memorandums.
J. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development is in compliance with all applicable City standards and requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed subdivision has been reviewed and approved with conditions as listed in this staff report and the attached departmental letters. Based on these reviews Planning Staff is also recommending approval, with the following conditions;
Conditions of Approval:
1. Parking will only be allowed on the south side of 1345 South Street, installation of “No Parking” signs is required” with the city standard curb and gutter design utilized.
2. Public Utilities requires a note on the final plat noting the lowest building elevation line.
3. All required easements and streets are dedicated to Salt Lake City.
4. The site plan shall be corrected to include a meandering sidewalk along Utah Street in order to save established trees in that area.
5. Wood fencing shall be added along the Wasatch Commons property line.
This hearing ended at 9:31 p.m.
Petition No. 400-03-12, by Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, requesting to amend the zoning map for the property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from a RB Residential Business district to a R-1-5000 Single Family Residential district.
This hearing began at 9:33 p.m. Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to an aerial site map to show the Commission where the boundaries of the RB and R-1-5000 zoning are in the area. The proposal is to construct a new synagogue at the site. The two current buildings on the lot consist of an old brick office building which acts as a place of worship, and a single-family residential structure that houses the administrative functions for the synagogue. To better serve their congregation, the applicants are proposing to combine the two parcels of land into a single lot of 12,500 square feet and build a new synagogue that would house all of their functions in a single building with a footprint of about 6,000 square feet in size.
The RB zoning district has a maximum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The proposed combined lot would be 12,500 square feet, so a rezoning is necessary. Staff looked at other potential processes besides a rezoning process, specifically the plan development process where the Planning Commission can wave or modify standards of the zoning ordinance. However, the zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for it to be able to go through the plan development process.
The purpose of the new synagogue is not to generate new membership. All the members of the synagogue live within walking distance of the site. Orthodox Judaism does not allow its members to drive cars on the Sabbath. They may have other functions at the site on different nights of the week where driving would be allowed, but those services are generally after hours. There is some concern about traffic and parking in the area, mostly pertaining to other commercial businesses in the area.
A place of worship is a conditional use in both the RB and R-1-5000 zone. R-1-5000 is more restrictive. The 1974 Central Community master plan recommends low density residential on the east side of 1100 East (density of 3.3 units per acre). The plan calls for 5.5 units per acre on the west side of 1100 East. The rezoning request is not considered spot zoning, it is compatible with the master plan, and is contiguous with other R-1-5000 zoning.
The East Central Community Council reviewed the petition and voted in support of it. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the zoning from RB to R-1-5000.
Mr. Jonas mentioned at this point that Commissioner Kathy Scott had seconded the motion to support the petition at the East Central Community Council meeting. She wished to bring that before the Commission in case that raised any concern for potential conflict. Ms. Arnold said if Ms. Scott voted for it in the Community Council meeting, she would not be able to vote against it at this hearing. Mr. Jonas said Ms. Scott could hear new information at the public hearing tonight. Mr. Daniels said he was satisfied that Ms. Scott made such a declaration and brought it before the Commission. If Ms. Scott feels that she can render a fair vote, he was willing to allow her to do so. Ms. Scott believed she could be fair. No other Commission members expressed concern.
Mr. Muir thought it would be helpful for the people in the audience who may not have read the staff report to know that the proposed plan meets the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Paterson said currently the petitioners have six parking stalls behind the facility and they also lease space at Kostas restaurant.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and speak. Rabbi Benny Zippel, Executive Director of Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, 1433 South 1100 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84105, spoke next. His personal residence is at 1140 East Harvard Street. He thanked Mr. Paterson for a good job in explaining their situation within the parameters of Judaism. Chabad Lubavitch of Utah is the Utah branch of the world’s largest Jewish outreach organization. Rabbi Zippel has lived in the community for 11 years. The northern property in question was purchased in 1994. One of the fundamental precepts of the Jewish faith is that members of the Jewish faith not drive on the Sabbath. Many of the congregation have purchased or rented homes in the area for that reason. The congregation has grown and has now outgrown the current facility. The southern property was purchased in 1997 and turned into a Hebrew school. A ritual baptismal font is located in the back of this property. He referred to a wooden model of the proposed site to show the Commission how they plan to combine the lots to build one new and bigger building. He made his request to amend the zoning to R-1-5000 and thanked the Commission for their time.
Ms. Susan Deal, Pace Pollard Architects, 256 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, spoke next. She is the architect for the applicant, and first passed around photographs of the inside of the current facility. Because the applicants do not drive to church, they define sustainable, pedestrian oriented communities. She briefly went over the project for the Commission. Should the zoning amendment pass, the applicant will have to come back for conditional use. The new building is 6,000 square feet, and built with brick and concrete. Half the building will have a roof garden on it. It is well below the height envelop allowed. The building has to face Jerusalem. It is not residential in look, but matches the material pallet and works well along 1100 East.
Mr. Muir asked why the applicant did not couple conditional use with the zoning amendment. Mr. Paterson said the applicant chose to separate the two.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the Community Council wished to speak. Mr. Dennis Guy-Sell, 436 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102, spoke next. He is a past Chair of the East Central Community Council. The Rabbi came to speak to the Council last Fall. He came back in February with the plans, the Community Council listened and endorsed the plans. Mr. Guy-Sell encouraged the Commission to allow Chabad Lubavitch to proceed with the project.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the general public. Mr. Dave Richards, 1126 Browning Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105, spoke next. He has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and has offices within a couple of blocks of his home. He said the synagogue has been a great neighbor. They have not increased the parking issues in the neighborhood. He is in favor of the proposed plan and believed most of the other neighbors had similar feelings.
Mr. Arthur Reilly, representing the Grand Lodge, Free & Accepted Masons of Utah, spoke next. They are in favor of the proposed plan. Any house of worship is an asset to any neighborhood. It complies with the master plan encouraging a walkable community, and gives the Commission an opportunity to make a strong statement regarding tolerance and diversity. Chabad Lubavitch are excellent neighbors.
Mr. Jim Stice, 1094 East Roosevelt Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105, spoke next. He owns a fourplex in the neighborhood. As a landlord, he is happy to see the community growing. In his opinion, parking issues are not a problem, and Chabad Lubavitch is an asset to the neighborhood. He urged the Commission to endorse the plan.
Mr. Nathaniel Hoffelmeyer, a member of the Chabad Lubavitch congregation, spoke next. He recently celebrated his bar mitzvah. There was not enough room in the current synagogue so the event had to be moved to Westminster College. He would appreciate more space to practice his religion.
Ms. Cindy Cromer spoke next. She thinks the most dysfunctional zone to come out of the 1995 zoning ordinance is the RB zone. Chabad Lubavitch’s situation is another example of how the RB zone constrains development that would support residential use. She supports the application for a rezone. She appealed to the Commission to look comprehensively at the RB zone. The purpose of a conditional use is to address potential adverse impacts. She argued that a conditional use is site specific, and the Commission could not make a conditional use finding by looking at a requirement based on square footage in the ordinance. What the ordinance says based on square footage is, in her opinion, irrelevant.
Mr. Jonas invited Rabbi Zippel to rebut any comments. Rabbi Zippel repeated that this project is very important to him and his congregation. Once approval is given to unite the two parcels, they will move forward to pursue an aggressive fund raising endeavor to build the new building.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and a decision. Mr. Wilde clarified for the record that the off-site parking proposed for Kostas is also a conditional use in the RB zone. That will come back to the Commission as a part of the conditional use process.
Mr. Zunguze had a couple of issues to discuss. He said all processes and ordinances are supposed to facilitate good development and uses that add value to the community. He was concerned with the process here in the ordinance with respect to this project. He has talked to Staff and the Deputy City Attorney about it, and will be coming back to the Commission to address it. The project is before the Commission because it does not meet the lot requirement. In his view, it is excessive and overkill to have to make a zoning change simply because of not meeting a lot requirement. He said they needed to find a way to address issues such as this that do not rise to the level of having to invoke the most sacred of processes -- a zoning change. That process should be reserved for those uses that deserve it. This petition will go all the way to City Council which could take six months or so, and then come back to the Planning Commission for conditional use review. Mr. Zunguze felt this was excessive.
Mr. Zunguze then addressed the issues raised by Ms. Cromer. He appreciated that she has issues with the RB zone. However, from a conditional use perspective first and foremost the Commission must find that the application for land use does meet the requirements of City ordinances. Then apply other standards over and above that, as required by the conditional use process.
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-12 to amend the zoning map by changing the zoning designation on 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from RB to R-1-5000, based on the analysis of the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Ms. Seelig seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Scott voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Findings: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Findings: The proposed zoning map amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay zoning district.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Findings: Salt Lake City can provide adequate public services to the Douglas School site.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-12 to amend the zoning map by changing the zoning designation of 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from RB Residential Business to R-1-5000 Single Family Residential.
This hearing ended at 10:00 p.m.
Lori Noda left the meeting at this point.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING: Scott Turville is requesting preliminary subdivision approval for the Carrigan View 2 Subdivision; a redesigned proposal of a 3-lot, single-family residential subdivision located at approximately 1977 South Lakeline Drive (2950 East) in a Foothill Residential “FR-2” Zoning District. No decision will be made at this meeting.
This hearing began at 10:06 p.m. Mr. Wilde stated that he lives in the neighborhood in question, recused himself and left the hearing.
Planner Greg Mikolash presented the petition as written in the staff report. He explained the history of what has happened on this property in the past few years. He referred the Commission to an aerial photograph of the property and explained the areas of annexation, the proposed subdivision, the existing shoreline trail and the proposed trail alignment. The proposed trail will be moved slightly to the north because of the proposed subdivision. Lot 2 would consume a small portion of the existing shoreline trail. Mr. Mikolash showed the Commission where the non-buildable areas are on the map. Those areas have a slope of greater than 30 percent. Lot 1 is a 21,000 square foot area, which barely meets the minimum standard for an FR-2 zone. Lot 2 is a 20,000 square foot buildable area. Lot 3 is the largest with 30,000 square feet. The proposed realignment of the shoreline trail corridor is the biggest concern for this project. The grade in the realigned area could be as high as 9 percent, but at no point does it go over 10 percent (a recommendation from Engineering, Transportation and the Planning Division).
Mr. Mikolash went over the master plan recommendations for Arcadia Heights. It indicates that there be strict application to the 30 percent slope requirement. All three lots comply with that. A condition of approval from the City Council in February of 2002 required that there could not be a gated community. This is also a recommendation in the master plan. One of the master plans does indicate that the trail sections connecting Devonshire to Lakeline Drive should be established and signed as a pathway separate from the existing and/or future travel way of the existing or any public or private road that is constructed in the future. The open space master plan states that any trail portion which falls in major City water lines should be preserved as a trail. There is a 16 inch water main that runs from two water towers and follows the trail at Lakeline Drive. That is a public utility easement right now. The 16 inch water main would have to be moved to follow two driveways in order to develop the three lots.
Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots. They would be allowed in the FR zone. There would have to be a public utility easement granted to the City for the water mains that would follow the driveways.
Another easement would need to be granted where the trail intersects and goes into a portion of Lot 1. The proposal calls for a cross access agreement.
Ms. Funk asked how close the trail would be to the buildable area in Lot 1. Mr. Mikolash said approximately 20 to 25 feet.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Mikolash to go over the conditions the City Council put on the annexation. Mr. Mikolash referred to page five of the staff report, second paragraph. The Planning Commission ultimately forwarded the request to have the previous PUD conditional use go forward with a positive recommendation that they amend the small area master plan for Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock to allow for seven lots at the end of Lakeline Drive. The City Council did not accept that and said the petition would have to follow the recommendation of the existing master plan. They only allowed for 4 lots on the property. The recommendations from the Planning Commission were as follows:
1. Development of the property as single-family residential lots would be compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and master planning for the area. Zoning this property to Foothill Residential (FR-2) and Open Space (OS) is consistent with the master planning goals and objectives for this neighborhood.
2. The physical characteristics of the site proposed for annexation are similar to other properties in the vicinity. Significant, steep slopes will be protected from vegetation change and physical development.
3. Public Services are available to the site and will not be overburdened by the proposed residential density.
4. The proposed annexation satisfies the criteria of existing state law regarding contiguity, consent of majority of property owners, and minimum property value standards.
The final decision of the City Council adopted Ordinance 16 of 2002, which extended the corporate city limits of Salt Lake City to include property located at 1977 South 2800 East, acknowledging the East Bench master plan and Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Plan, and amended the Salt Lake Zoning Map to designate 6.31 acres of property (located just west and north of the cul-de-sac terminus of Lakeline Drive) as Foothill Residential (FR-2), and 54.25 acres of property as Open Space (OS). Adoption of this ordinance by the Council did not, however, support an amendment to the existing master plans or any proposals for a gated community.
Mr. Jonas asked if the Council specifically stated that the proposed area could only be 3 lots. Mr. Mikolash said no. Under the density requirements there could be 4 lots. Mr. Wheelwright said the H-Rock small area plan approved 4 lots at the end of Lakeline Drive. One of the lots was approved for Susie Kontgis. The plan development approval was recommending to the City Council that they modify that area from 4 lots to 7 lots. The City Council rejected that recommendation.
Mr. Jonas asked if a master plan was a guidance document or like an overlay district that supercedes zoning. Mr. Wheelwright said the master plan was very specific as to this particular property.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Pace if a master plan is a guidance document or if in this case it supercedes the zoning and dictates that the Commission can only do 4 lots. Mr. Pace remembered the Planning Commission recommending an amendment to the master plan and implementing zoning consistent with the project. The City Council implemented more restrictive zoning and refused to amend the master plan. If the question is whether within the footprint of the zoning the City Council has imposed the Commission can ignore the recommendation for 4 lots, Mr. Pace believed that would be difficult to do. He said he would research the matter further. Mr. Pace believed that generally speaking the master plan is a guidance tool.
Mr. Wheelwright said the zoning area proposed for the 6 lot area is exactly the same as the proposed 3 lot site.
Mr. Mikolash said he had received a few phone calls from people concerned about the relocation of the trail.
Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Scott Turville, 1535 East 3300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84106, spoke next. He purchased the property many years ago and has been through many Planning Commissions and City Councils. At the time of his purchase, current zoning allowed for 21 lots. He was then put into a moratorium, and then asked to sit through a two year master plan (which he thought was a sham master plan). He then went through several different processes, agreeing to cut down the lots from 17. He felt he was stonewalled. The County Planning Commission eventually unanimously voted for 5 large lots on the front face of the subdivision, leaving several acres to finish up more lots. The Planning Director at the time said if Mr. Turville came back to the City he would guarantee a certain amount of lots. That Planning Director was lost after the subsequent elections, and Mr. Turville’s guarantee was lost as well. He started the process over with a proposal for 6 lots. The City Council kicked it back. Mr. Turville said this proposal was the last he would make. The shoreline trail as proposed is not negotiable to him. He did not believe there had ever been a document that recorded a trail on the property. Therefore the trail was not being moved, it was being placed. The trail is consistent with what many in the Community Council wanted. Whatever he does with the trail he believed there would be opposition, due to the personal desires of many people. He felt that the trail was sufficiently covered by oak to keep any homeowners from knowing that anyone was walking on it.
Mr. Jonas asked if the previous plan for six lots worked for the trail. Mr. Turville explained with the maps where the trail had been planned for the six lot development.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the Community Council wished to speak. Mr. Dave Mortensen, Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Community Council Chair, 2278 Signal Point Circle, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84109, spoke next. He said the issue for the Community Council is the relocation of the trail. If the trail were to be relocated, the southern part of it would be very steep and quite discouraging to a number of walkers, both the young and the old. By not relocating the trail, the pipeline would not need to be relocated either. Lot 2 has a road behind it. Mr. Mortensen suggested that Lot 2 be moved up to that road. This would allow the trail to maintain its current alignment. He wondered why it would be the case, since the developer is not allowed to disturb steep slopes, why the trail could be realigned to disturb those same steep slopes.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the general public. Mr. Christopher Johnson, 1916 East Browning Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108, spoke next. He believed the trail is used by a huge number of people, and it is important that the City keep it sufficiently intact so that people are not discouraged or prevented from using it. He uses the trail himself. He was against the realignment of the trail. He liked the natural condition of the trail around the lots and thought new housing would be disruptive. Changing the route of the water pipeline would disrupt access to the trail for some time.
For the record, Mr. Jonas read a statement from Mr. Jim Byrne, 1966 East 900 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108. He is Co-Chair of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, and Chair of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition. The statement read as follows: The segment of Bonneville Shoreline Trail in question is not a “destination” for Bonneville Shoreline Trail (BST) users in general. Therefore, since the predominant use of this section of the BST is local neighborhood use, the Commission should consider the wishes of the local neighborhood users above the opinions of any carpetbaggers from 900 South!
Mr. Jerry Bergosh, 1961 Scenic Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108, spoke next. He is the Vice Chair of the H-Rock Community Council. He has been dealing with this area since 1986. There is a lot of history. He was on the task force for the small area master plan. He disputed Mr. Turville’s comments that the process for the small area master plan was a sham. He expressed concern about the location of the trail. He was also concerned about the alignment of the present road. The private drive goes almost all the way out to the west property boundary and he urged the Commission to take a look at that because it forces the trail up into a hillside. He was happy with the idea of 3 lots, but felt the plan was not where it should be yet.
For the record, Mr. Jonas read a statement from Ms. Miriam Bugden, 1332 South Devonshire, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108, as follows: I am concerned about the proposed trail realignment as it will eliminate or minimize the amount of people who are able to use the trail. Currently, the trail is used by all ages of Utahans who enjoy this “quality” mountain/city experience. A steep trail will restrict use to hardy, healthy young people and eliminate numerous elderly neighbors who currently enjoy it. In addition, I’m concerned about the potential to advance hillside erosion if the trail is cut deep into a drainage (as proposed). Finally, why do we continue to let the wealthy few erode the quality nature experience for the rest of us? I’d like to preserve walkable access for all.
Ms. Andrea Barrows, 2119 South Lakeline, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84109, spoke next. She was concerned about the trail alignment and the size of the large buildable area on the last flag lot. In 1995 the shoreline trail got signage, meaning it has been established for a while. The trail is supposed to be a walkable, bikeable, child-strollable trail, not hiking. She wants the original alignment of the trail. She clarified with Mr. Mikolash that Lot 3 has 87,584 square feet of buildable area, and that huge size concerned her.
Ms. Hallie Robbins, 1925 South Wasatch Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108, spoke next. She was happy with the 3 lots, but was concerned about the large footprints and doubling of the amount of buildable area. There needs to be some consideration of space issues because this is the last developable hillside on the east bench. She thinks a large house is a visible eyesore. Her house has one of the lower trails on the hillside above the property line, and she deferred with Mr. Turville when he said no one would know when someone was walking on the trail. There is constant, year round traffic on the trail. She was concerned about the extension of the driveways on the flag lots. They are excessively large. She felt the realigned trail would make the grade too steep.
Mr. Steve Klass, 2230 South Belaire Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84109, spoke next. He moved to the neighborhood to have access to the mountains. He can prove, as a facilitator for the process of the entire east bench community council, that they did indeed specify exactly where the trail would go on the existing dirt pipeline road. Their plan for the trail was adopted in 1995. He wants the original alignment of the trail. The neighborhood has already given its share of open space for other developments.
Mr. Don Topham, 2321 Lakeline Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84109, spoke next. He uses the trail once or twice a day. The trail will be severely limited if the plan is approved. He believed there would be severe erosion problems as well. He felt that it was a fantasy to expect people to stay off the private road in their attempts to get to the trail. Moving the trail up the hillside would increase fire dangers. He was disappointed in Mr. Turville’s comments about a sham master plan. Mr. Topham believed Mr. Turville knew there was an existing trail when he bought the property.
Ms. Susie Kontgis, 1858 Lakeline Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84109, spoke next. She supported Mr. Turville’s plan. Living next to a trail is a safety concern. She has put up alarms and surveillance cameras around her property because there is non-stop traffic on the trail. Four wheelers use the trail at all hours of the day and night. She appreciated Mr. Turville’s plan to move the trail back and have a bit of a buffer between the houses and the trail users. If the water line is moved, she believed it was a good thing. The line has failed in the past, and stability is a concern. She has had to post many dollars’ worth of liability insurance to protect against the rupture of that water line.
Mr. Loren Brown, 2457 Scenic Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108, spoke next. He is the past Chair of the Arcadia Heights Neighborhood Council. He wanted to differentiate between the Bonneville Shoreline Trail (BST) and the Trailhead Park. The BST is a bike trail and has to be 8 to 10 feet wide. The path at Trailhead Park is only 4 feet wide. When Mr. Turville goes into the back of the Trailhead Park, it should have an 8 foot bike path down to the street where the path continues down Lakeline. The grade at that point in Mr. Turville’s plan is not sufficient for an 8 foot path.
Mr. Brad Stewart, Public Utilities, spoke next. He said the 16 inch waterline is critical to the City. It is the main feed coming out of Parley’s water treatment plant. It runs high up along the east bench and feeds everything west of it. Public Utilities has an understanding with Mr. Turville to have that line replaced and relocated as necessary to accommodate the developments. Mr. Stewart said it was very important that the water line is kept in a 30 foot easement, and it makes a lot of sense to keep it with the road or trail.
Mr. Mark Neff, spoke next. He did the alignment of the proposed trail and the engineering for Mr. Turville’s project. He has walked over the proposed alignment with Jim Byrnes. Mr. Byrnes said to Mr. Neff that the ideal situation for the BST is that it is above the urban interface, but acknowledged that because of problems in Spring Canyon and the Devonshire area that was not able to be accomplished. The trail could be accommodated in the driveway area, however there would be a fenced corridor for the trail. Mr. Neff felt the realignment was a better idea. He did not believe a 9 percent grade was as steep as other areas people used to access the trail, such as the cul-de-sac near Lakeline Drive. Bicycles can use an existing roadway next to the Trailhead Park to have access into the area.
Mr. Roger Jones, 2720 St. Mary’s Way, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108, spoke next. He uses the trail, and believes it has proved to be an excellent recreational amenity for a large number of people. It is a treasure worth keeping. The proposed area contains a piece of the trail that is actually close to the shoreline and is important as a recreational asset. It should be preserved. He felt the proposed realignment might provide better drainage, but was concerned about bicycle use. He urged the Commission to preserve the trail as much as possible and to keep as much of the trail on the shoreline as possible.
Mr. Jonas invited Mr. Turville to rebut any comments. Mr. Turville said when the pipeline burst it was going to be replaced, but it was not finished because he knew it was going to be moved per his proposed plan. The City agreed to that. Mr. Turville said the master plan twenty years ago contained a plan for 52 lots on the hill. Design changes for the road were necessary when new the new alignments for the three lots were created. Noises from the trail would occur no matter where the trail was placed. He will be extending out fire protection with fire hydrants.
Mr. Daniels’ concern was that if the trail was relocated, he wanted someone to respond to the question of whether the accessibility would change.
This meeting ended at 11:11 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None to discuss.
There being no further business to discuss, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:11 p.m.