SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Kent Nelson. Tim Chambless and Laurie Noda were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright and Planners Melissa Anderson, Doug Dansie, and Ray McCandless. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith was excused.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, May 2, 2002
Prescott Muir referred to the last paragraph on page 9 which states, “Mr. Muir stated that he had a hard time viewing this development in isolation given what they are trying to do on Fourth South.” He requested that the language read, “given what the Planning Commission was trying to do on Fourth South.” He referred to the top paragraph, page 10, last sentence, which reads, “Mr. Muir agreed that there is a lack of supply in a constricted, dense area” and requested that the language read “this constricted, dense area.” He referred to the sentence in the last paragraph on Page 13 which reads, “Mr. Goldsmith stated that he admired the Planning Commission’s assertiveness and collective response to Councilman Buhler.” Mr. Muir recommended that the sentence be stricken from the written minutes because it is not helpful. The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Nelson stated that the intent is to team up with the City Council, and this sentence could do the opposite.
Andrea Barrows referred to the first line of the last paragraph on page 1 and requested that the spelling of her name be corrected to “Barrows.” She referred to the sentence in the middle of page 4 that reads, “Once the demolition was agreed to, the Historic Landmark Commission started design for the proposed parking structure.” She did not think the sentence read correctly and asked for better wording. Mr. Jonas suggested that the word “review” be deleted from the next sentence and moved up so the sentence would read, “Once the demolition was agreed to, the Historic Landmark Commission started the design review for the proposed parking structure.” Mr. Jonas referred to the 5th to last line on the same page and noted that the word “slopping” should be replaced with “sloping.” Ms. Barrows referred to the second paragraph on page 9 that read, “Ms. Barrows observed from the field trip that Orpheum Avenue is not very wide, and there will now be three entrances to the parking garage.” She clarified that she was trying to say that there will be three entrances to parking garages, because there are three parking garages, not three entrances to one parking garage.
Ms. McDonough referred to page 4 and the reference that she abstained from discussing and voting on the matter. She asked that the sentence read that “Peggy McDonough recused herself from participation on this item.” Ms. Barrows felt the minutes should also reflect that Ms. McDonough left the room. Ms. McDonough also felt that, on page 14, the minutes should acknowledge that she came back to the meeting. She referred to the motion on page 12 and the language that she abstained and asked that the minutes reflect that she was not present for the vote. She referred to the middle of the second paragraph which reads, “Ms. McDonough noted that the corner pad site is at the higher elevation, and the trucks currently circulate under the structure.” She clarified that she was making a suggestion and requested that the sentence be changed to read, “Ms. McDonough noted that the corner pad site is at the higher elevation, which would allow the trucks to circulate under the new structure located on a corner pad.” She referred to the last sentence on that page and suggested that the last part of the sentence be changed to read, “and she was not convinced that vehicular circulation internal to the block is key.”
Mr. Jonas referred to page 10, middle paragraph, third to last line, which reads, “He believed one planning goal was to put housing in as many places in the central core of the City as possible, and he thought this was the place.” He requested that the words the place be stricken and the words, “possibly one place that could be done” inserted. Mr. Jonas referred to page 13, middle of the page, and the reference to the Planning Commission being invited to the City Council meeting regarding the downtown master plan. He felt language should be inserted to clarify that Mr. Goldsmith invited members of the Planning Commission to the City Council meeting to discuss downtown and Main Street issues. Mr. Jonas referred to page 17, second paragraph from the bottom, which reads, “Mr. Jonas stated that he did not understand why they could not just make this part of the original approval for the development.” He requested that the words “approval for the” be deleted from the sentence.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Diamond, and Ms. Funk abstained as they did not attend the May 2 meeting. Mr. Chambless and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-587, by Ballet West requesting a conditional use planned development to construct a new school and rehearsal facility at 1201 East Wilmington Avenue, in the Sugar House Business District (C-SHBD) zone.
Planner Melissa Anderson reviewed a vicinity map of the location facing Wilmington Street in the Sugar House Business District. The Sugar House Commons is on the west side, 1300 East runs east of Wilmington, and Hidden Hollow natural area borders the property on the north. She presented a site plan, landscaping plan, and general layout of the new facility. A vehicular and public access way is planned for the east side, with a pedestrian access way on the west side to allow access into and out of Hidden Hollow. The facility comes to the property line on the northwest wall and includes a green space and inner courtyard that is intended to integrate with Hidden Hollow and expand that natural area into the courtyard of the facility. The proposal is being presented to the Planning Commission because it is in the Sugar House Business District Zone which requires a conditional use planned development for any new construction beyond the 25% limit. The property owner is the RDA, and it is planned that the property will be owned by the City and leased to Ballet West. The various properties are being combined into one parcel. Preliminary subdivision approval has been given, and they hope to soon have final subdivision approval to combine all the properties into one.
Ms. Anderson reported that the Sugar House Community Council and key representatives of the Community Council were involved early in the process, and many discussions were held with the Hidden Hollow Management Committee and Utah Open Lands. This proposal includes a conservation easement amendment for a temporary construction easement on the northwest side of the property to build the northwest wall. Because there is a conservation easement on Hidden Hollow, the City must petition and ask Utah Open Lands, which holds the easement, for permission to use that land. The application was presented and submitted to Utah Open Lands only after extensive discussions and negotiations with the developer and the Hidden Hollow Management Committee, an advisory committee to the City. Ms. Anderson noted that process does not require Planning Commission approval. Utah Open Lands approves conservation easement amendments, and they have given preliminary approval. Extensive mitigation measures, a restoration plan, and enhancements that create an overall benefit for the Hollow are required.
Ms. Anderson discussed the uses and noted that dance studios, offices, schools, set production, and storage areas are proposed. Set production and storage areas will be located on the west side of the building. The studios will be on the second floor, with lockers, offices, and administration facilities on the first floor. All the uses are permitted in the Sugar House Business District Zone, but there is a request for a modification to the sign ordinance. The proposed architecture includes graphics, (bus type wrap) applied to the metallic screens, which is not allowed by ordinance. However, through the planned development process, the City is allowed to modify the Zoning Ordinance requirements with conditions, and the Staff recommends approval. Ms. Anderson reported that it is intended that two easement will be recorded against the property. One easement is 6 feet wide on the west side, and a 20-foot-wide easement is proposed for the east side for utilities, maintenance vehicle access to Hidden Hollow, and public access. She noted that the proposed materials for the pathway on the west side corridor are concrete. The applicant proposes concrete to meet ADA accessibility requirements and to complement and match the interior concrete pathway on Hidden Hollow. Ms. Anderson referred to the east pathway and potential user conflicts. Vehicles will access that area to the parking stalls and at times there may be a vehicle, pedestrian, or cyclist crossing. The Staff recommended a design to address alternative building materials for the pathway so pedestrians would know where to go if a car passes. That would also allow the corridor to meet AASHTO standards, which it currently does not.
Ms. Anderson outlined items that make this project unique. The area is an RDA project suitable for new development, and the Staff viewed this as a positive change to eliminate the blight of existing buildings, create new redevelopment in the area, and activate the Hollow with uses throughout the day and evening. Providing two pedestrian accesses would enhance the area and encourage pedestrian use. Another benefit is that the green space and courtyard area would integrate well with the Hollow. Ms. Anderson noted that the wall comes to the property line and makes a hard transition, but the applicant proposes softening that with viewing windows so passers-by can look into the production area and with ivy to mitigate the hard interface. She noted that the inner courtyard and green space will be open to the public. The project also incorporates green building practices, which are generally unique and typically supported by the City. Ms. Anderson noted that underground parking is incorporated into the design of the structure to limit the building height. The building will be two stories high, with underground parking and specifically limiting the impact on Hidden Hollow located to the north. She indicated a stepped back portion of the building after the first floor that would mitigate shadows on the natural area’s vegetation.
Ms. Barrows asked if the Planning Commission will see a plat amendment to take care of the property lines. Ms. Anderson replied that the subdivision will be processed administratively, and preliminary approval has already been given. This petition is only for the conditional use planned development. Ms. Barrows asked if this would be the only maintenance corridor for Hidden Hollow. It was noted that this was the original access. The easement exists but will be moved. Ms. Barrows asked if the Sugar House Business District has a requirement regarding how far a building can be from the property line. Ms. Anderson stated that the building comes right to the property line, and there is no setback requirement other than limiting the shadows on Hidden Hollow.
Jeff Jonas commented on the easements and conflicts and on the east side and asked if the 8-foot common easement that leads to a 12-foot easement for the driveway is adequate. Ms. Anderson replied that it can be at the same surface level with different materials, so if two cars are passing they can use the area. The Staff did not recommend a hard curb with 12 feet of vehicle and 8 feet pedestrian. Mr. Jonas asked if consideration was given to creating a second access point, since the courtyard is intended as a public area, for pedestrians to go through that area as opposed to the surface street. Ms. Anderson replied that consideration was given to recording three separate public easements, one for the center and two for the sides. It was decided that two legal recordings would be adequate on the east and west, and through the planned development process, they would be identified as being intended for public use as a public thoroughfare. The intent of the architect, developers, and Ballet West was to keep the courtyard open for the public and design it in a way to make people feel welcome to pass through that area. Legally, the easements are designated as corridors on the east and west.
Ms. Funk asked if there was a pathway designation through the center. Ms. Anderson replied that it is designated only through building materials, stonework, and the green space.
Ms. McDonough referred to comments in the staff report from the Hidden Hollow Management Committee regarding the public walkway and asked about the intent. Walking through the Hollow on the walkway, the landscaping could be seen, but there is no path to indicate that a person could walk there. Ms. Anderson explained that previous plans showed a paved walkway connecting two pathways. Subsequent plans eliminated that feature to create a balance in terms of creating more hardscape. The design team wanted it to be a permeable surface and green space. Ms. McDonough asked for clarification that it would be green space that people could walk on. Ms. Anderson stated that the Hidden Hollow Management Committee felt that the design and opening into the Hollow was sufficient indication that the area is open and people are welcome. Ms. McDonough recalled that the Hidden Hollow Management Committee recommended that the paving material on the walkway on the public access be permeable material, and now the applicants are proposing concrete. She asked why the Management Committee was suggesting a permeable material. Ms. Anderson replied that the Committee felt it would be better to have less hardscape. Since this was planned to be concrete and hardscaped, it was adequate to provide for vehicle access. Ms. McDonough verified with Ms. Anderson that the staff report recommends concrete on the west side access. Ms. Anderson replied that the Staff supports the design team’s recommendation based on the fact that it matches the interior walkway material and meets ADA standards. She noted that this was a point of interest to the Hidden Hollow Management Committee in their letter.
Mr. Nelson read in the Staff report that there needed to be open windows on the north side toward Hidden Hollow, but the building has no windows. Ms. Anderson replied that there is a 40% non-reflective glass requirement on the street front, which is 40% of the first floor and 40% of the total face. At the time of site plan review, the applicant must meet the minimum first floor 40% requirement unless the Planning Commission waives that requirement.
Ms. Barrows asked if the current site plan with south elevation for the first floor meets the 40% requirement. Ms Anderson replied that it is just over 30%, but at the time of site plan review, the 40% must be met. Ms. Barrows verified with Staff that the site plan being seen this evening must be changed if this petition is approved. She referred to the west easement and questioned whether the concrete sidewalk, with the 6-foot-wide easement, is over the property line. Ms. Anderson replied that the 6-foot concrete path will only be on Ballet West property.
Mr. Muir asked who was responsible for the way-finding signs at Hidden Hollow. Ms. Anderson stated that it is City property and the City’s responsibility. Mr. Muir felt it was important to have sidewalk designations showing that these are public rights-of-way, because they would appear as private property. Ms. Anderson explained that, as part of the agreement for the conservation easement amendment, the developer has agreed to place two signs on Wilmington Avenue directing pedestrians to the public access ways. The developer is proposing to improve the access ways that are currently unimproved.
Ms. Arnold asked about the windows facing north. Ms. Anderson presented an elevation and explained that part of the reason for the sun screens and graphics was to allow people to see into the facility while providing a feeling of privacy for the dancers.
Mike Vela, representing Ballet West, was available to answer questions. Ms. Barrows asked if they had considered any other type of hard surface, explaining that she was concerned about reflection of heat from the concrete. Ms. Vela replied that, in order to mitigate that concern, they are looking at Virginia Creeper or some other material that will crawl over the face of the building. Over time, landscaping should take care of the problem. Ms. Barrows questioned whether the landscaping will grow up a hot wall. Mr. Vela stated that it would be a problem on a south facing wall, but this is north facing, and the plants will climb up the wall to get to the sun.
Mr. Diamond asked if it would be possible to move the sidewalk to Hidden Hollow further west and east to allow for more landscaping between the sidewalk and the building. Mr. Vela stated that Ballet West is amenable to that, but it is not responsible. In conversations with the Community Council and the City Forester, he believed they could bend the sidewalk back and forth, but that design would leave Ballet West property. Mr. Diamond asked about retaining during excavation. Mr. Vela replied that they are laying the soil back at a one to one slope. They will move the existing plants and place additional plants in that area, and when it is done, it should look better than it does now. Mr. Diamond referred to the courtyard and asked if the retention area is depressed. Mr. Vela replied that it is. It is larger than it looks on the plan but will carry the water it needs to. The landscaping was intended to provide seamless landscaping between the Hollow and Ballet West.
Mr. Muir was concerned about using the courtyard as retention, because the area tends to be boggy for considerable periods of the year and would not be conducive to access. He asked if Mr. Vela investigated the possibility of using the roof as detention in lieu of landscaping. Mr. Vela stated that was looked at, but the proposed plan is more cost effective. To keep from bogging the area, the surface will be graded so it can drain. He noted that it is not a hard surface. In terms of storm detention, Mr. Vela explained that they are gaining leed points to mitigate the amount of storm water dumped into the storm system. Mr. Muir asked Mr. Vela if they considered using the northwest corner of the site for those purposes. Mr. Vela replied that it could be done, but the tributary area for the storm water is further to the east.
Mr. Diamond noted that the grade is high at the property line relative to the pathways on Hidden Hollow and asked if it would be graded down to the elevation of the pathway. He indicated the entrance to the building and asked if there was enough room between the stairs and the drop off to physically get by. Mr. Vela replied that the space is approximately 20 feet.
Mr. Jonas commented on the access and inviting from the Hollow into the courtyard. He noted that the previous plan was dated March 5, and the plan in the staff report is dated May 3. He noted that two hard surface connections into the courtyard were eliminated from the March plan. As presented this evening, it does not appear to be an inviting space because there is no connection into the courtyard. Mr. Vela outlined the uses discussed with the Community Council and indicated that they would be an extension of activities that already exist in the Hollow. He believed the pathway would be very inviting, because it will look and feel like the rest of the Hollow.
Mr. Muir referred to the March iteration and asked if masonry was anticipated at one time. Mr. Vela replied that masonry was never considered, and concrete has always been planned because of the budget. The horizontal lines in the March iteration were drawn to relieve the appearance of a tilt-up wall.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Helen Peters, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that she has worked extensively on this project with the Hidden Hollow Management Committee, and the Council believes this is a wonderful gift to their community. They are excited to have this and have been pleased with the process between the Community Council, donors, and Ballet West. She commented that it has been a pleasure to work with them, and they have been sensitive to the community’s issues and made adjustments when necessary. Ms. Peters recommended that the Planning Commission approve this project, including the artistic treatment of the outside signage. Mr. Nelson asked if uses other than Ballet West were presented to the Community Council. Ms. Peters replied that a few years ago they had a proposal for the Fairmont Aquatic Center to be placed on the site, and that has gone into Fairmont Park. She could not recall any other proposed uses. She commented that this is the first piece to be developed that will liven up Wilmington, an area with a lot of asphalt at the street front. The Community Council hoped to talk the developer across the street into creating an artist colony. Mr. Nelson asked if housing was ever proposed for the site. Ms. Peters stated that housing was included in one of the proposals for the Ballet West project, but other than the proposal presented this evening, no other proposal from Ballet West has been officially presented to the Community Council.
Sheila Pryor, representing the Friends of Hidden Hollow, commented on the concerns that organization has with this project and how it will impact Hidden Hollow. She noted that Hidden Hollow was intended to be used for tours to teach children in the area about nature. One problem will be difficulty in maintaining Hidden Hollow, because the building will change the air flow. She clarified that she is not against Ballet West, but they are not considering the impacts it will have on the Hollow. She offered suggestions to help preserve the character of Hidden Hollow and noted that concrete and windows will not preserve the quiet nature that exists today.
Judi Short stated that she was thrilled to have this project in the community. She visualized it as a small library-type feature because it would draw a lot of people and provide a lot of interest. She agreed that it would be the catalyst for redevelopment of Wilmington Street and start a connection to 1300 East and to the Commons. She recalled her sensitivities with Park View II Plaza when the bulldozers came and the rain washed mud into the stream and expressed concern about that happening with this project. She noted that LeRoy Hooton’s June 12 letter spells out in detail the issues involved. The limits of the Hidden Hollow nature preserve must be clearly marked on the plans, and construction must avoid this area to prevent damage, particularly drainage from this site to the preserve. The drainage should be routed with the Wilmington Avenue 18" RCP. Mr. Hooton suggested hay bales and a silt fence as protection. Ms. Short believed an inspection should be done as the job progresses to be sure those requirements are closely adhered to. The Community Council Chair will be available to visit with the contractor and walk the site to prevent any oversight. Regarding the walkway on the west side of the project, Ms. Short requested that it be a permeable material to eliminate heat and drainage problems. She felt this project had been sensitively designed and liked the way it is stepped back on the second floor to avoid casting a large shadow on the Hollow. She noted that there are a lot of plans to include children, and she did not feel this project would impact any school tours or educational activities. Ms. Funk asked Ms. Short if she was troubled by the concrete building versus masonry. She recalled that Ms. Short worked for two years to get the Commons redesigned and asked if Ms. Short thought this would fit in. Ms. Short replied that concrete was all right for this use, and she favored the screens and believed they had a softening effect. Mr. Muir asked if allowing concrete for this building would set a double standard by applying one set of rules to the private sector and another to the City supported projects. Ms. Short replied that she had not studied this proposal in the same detail as she did the Commons, so she could not accurately comment. Ms. McDonough noted that brick was required for the Fairmont pool, and that was not a private project. Ms. Short stated that brick would be her preference, but money is an issue. Mr. Nelson asked Ms. Short if she believed this was the highest and best use for this parcel to fit in with everything else in Sugar House. Ms. Short replied that it is a wonderful use, and she did not believe they could do much better.
Dan Walz, representing the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, stated that he is the project manager, and he was project manager for the Hidden Hollow construction. He noted that RDA has been negotiating with Ballet West for a year and a half and is thrilled to present this project this evening. He encouraged the Planning Commission to give this project a positive recommendation.
Mr. Nelson asked if any other uses were proposed for the site. Mr. Walsh replied that the RDA did not control all the property until Ballet West came with its proposal, so they were not marketing for uses. However, they did meet with developer who proposed a mixed use project on the site consisting of commercial, office, and residential. One problem with that proposal was parking, given how the project needed to activate Wilmington while being considerate of how it would activate Hidden Hollow. The developer could not move forward for economic reasons. When that developer pulled out, Ballet West came forward.
Ms. Barrows asked if Mr. Walsh could see a better way to connect to the Hollow. She recalled that there are big entrances to the Hollow from the Commons, and she was concerned about how to make the south side an entrance. She did not think a 6-foot wide easement would be very inviting. Mr. Walsh replied that RDA and Ballet West went through the master plan process for Hidden Hollow, and this project addresses that master plan to the letter. The Commons tried to get the Hollow to interact with its development, whereas this project will work off the Hollow. He believed the developer had been extremely sensitive and that the open space proposed was more than generous.
Mr. Daniels noted that a number of the Commissioners see a disconnectedness. He stated that he was not interested in adding a lot of walkways and cement but wondered if a footpath leading into and out of the public use area would be appropriate. Mr. Walsh stated that it is important for Hidden Hollow that people not step off the pathway. The more pathways people are given, the more they tend to connect between those crossing into the vegetation and natural area. That is why the paths are placed where they are and connect directly to the existing concrete sidewalk. Mr. Walsh felt that the developer might be willing to add a pathway that connects more directly with the project, but he was hesitant to add too many.
Ms. Barrows asked if there would be any merit to addressing the future and the idea of never having a fence on this parcel. Mr. Walsh explained that RDA has a 50-year ground lease with Ballet West, with four 10-year optional extensions, and they have ongoing design control over the project. A fence would have to be approved by the RDA, and Mr. Walsh offered to look at the language to be sure they are protected.
Mr. Diamond referred to the path adjacent to the north of the open space and suggested bringing that path into the courtyard space and tie it together with stepping stones. Mr. Walsh felt it was worth looking at but thought it might be a tradeoff with hardscape versus landscape. He believed they should minimize hardscaping and maximize landscaping. Mr. Diamond clarified that his suggestion was to move the hardscape in Hidden Hollow south across the property line, which would not add any hardscape. Mr. Walsh was unsure if the benefit would be worth tearing up the Hollow any more than necessary.
Mr. Muir asked how much public money was invested in this project besides the ground lease. Mr. Walsh replied that the only investment is purchase of the remaining property from Ballet West at the price of $550,000. RDA is not investing in the bricks and mortar, and Ballet West is building the underground parking at its expense.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. McDonough stated that she was getting mixed readings as to whether the open space in the middle was really meant to be occupied. She had heard that it would be occupied, but other comments infer that people should stay on the paths and not walk on the natural areas. These mixed answers would lead her to suggest a path of some sort through the courtyard as a condition of approval.
Ms. Barrows believed the history of the Hollow was that the infrastructure should minimize any disturbance and try to maintain what exists. From being on the site, the Commissioners understand that this new open space will have to have a different kind of vegetation. She favored looking at natural-looking pavers to draw people in. They could be danced on, umbrellas could be set up, and it would create a connectedness. She also favored permeable pavers or something other than a concrete sidewalk on the west side. Ms. McDonough agreed, particularly since the west side is needs softening. Ms. Barrows commented on signage and asked for clarification of the screen wraps. Mr. Vela presented a screen sample and explained the two-fold purpose of allowing people to see into the building while providing privacy for the dancers. The screen would be one to three feet from the face of the building and would provide filtered light.
Mr. Muir felt that the architect was being asked to serve too many masters. What is more in the public interest is activating the courtyard, and he supported the idea of pavers even if it meant eliminating the detention pond or moving it to the roof. He felt the Planning Commission should send that challenge to the architect to address the issue and solve the problem. Mr. Muir believed the area as currently designed would be unusable. He believed the project was wonderful, but he was concerned about establishing different criteria for the public sector than they did for the private sector. He noted that the developers of the Commons went to great lengths and additional costs to meet the criteria imposed upon them.
Ms. Funk expressed the same concern. She stated that she watched the Commons develop for two years, and the Planning Commission was steadfast in their determination that the Commons would be a good design. She believed it was a good design and had paid off for the developer, even though they were very resistant for a very long time. Ms. Funk believed the Ballet West facility would be a wonderful addition and understood why the community supported it, but she had difficulty with what she saw as a lower standard for building materials.
Ms. Barrows stated that she was thrilled with the underground parking and could see a difference between an art facility and retail. She stated a preference to see more public expenditure in quality materials, because she was skeptical about aluminum and concrete. This is not the quality she wanted to see in a public building that could stand for a long time.
Mr. Jonas did not share concerns about the building materials because he believed diversity would be interesting. He was uncomfortable with changing the access points to permeable surfaces because they are not conducive to people in wheelchairs and on scooters. He believed the surface on the west side should be cement to make it more accessible for everyone, including those in wheelchairs and others who need that kind of access. He commented on an earlier statement about, traveling from east to west, the visual corridor comes through the courtyard area. If it is a visual corridor, it should also draw to the Hollow. This plan does not do that because there is no connection to the path once you get into the courtyard. He believed this would be the most inviting way to get people into the Hollow and could be done with stepping stones or some other surface. He felt it had the potential of being a bog if it is a detention pond.
Ms. McDonough agreed with Mr. Jonas regarding the materials selection. She also agreed that a diversity should be encouraged and that mandating one material for every structure built within a district may have some appropriateness, but she did not view a diverse material as unfair. She believed any materials could be appropriate if designed and built with quality. She believed they were looking at architectural concrete that would produce a high quality result.
Ms. Barrows asked if there was a way to delineate on the east side where vehicles would go and where a wheelchair could go. Ms. Funk felt this question was addressed with the suggestion of cement on the driveway and pavers on the walkway. Ms. Funk suggested a permeable asphalt on the west side which would still provide the ability to navigate a wheelchair. Mr. Vela discussed the east side and noted that the width was increased to 22 feet by taking four feet from the east side of the building. He would love to have 30 additional feet in the east/west direction so the north/south paths could be a tree-lined path, but everything they need to accomplish this project does not allow that leeway. He explained that they have discussed a broom-finished concrete in a checkerboard pattern for the Wilmington and the north/south paths. Since they have 22 feet, they can change the color to delineate between a vehicle driveway and pedestrian walkway. Mr. Muir suggested that visually they make the east drive a complete pedestrian way and make the cars respect that. Ms. Jonas and Ms. Barrows concurred. Ms. Anderson asked how they would propose making the east side a pedestrian way. Ms. Barrows felt that should be left to the Planning Director and others who have experience to make it appear more appropriate for pedestrians, yet those who need the parking stalls will know they are there.
Motion for Petition No. 410-587
In the matter of Petition No. 410-587, a conditional use permit and planned unit development application to construct a new training and production facility at 1201 East Wilmington Avenue for Ballet West, Jeff Jonas moved to approve based upon the findings of fact, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and with the following modifications:
That the east side right-of-way at 22 feet be designed in conjunction with the Planning Director to make it an inviting walkway into the Hollow. The Planning Commission encourages the Planning Director to try to incorporate a minimum-size roadway as well as landscaping amenities.
That Ballet West incorporate some kind of connection through the courtyard to the hard pavement that now exists in Hidden Hollow.
That the detention pond be modified for a more usable, grassy, landscaped area. If a detention area is required for storm sewer, it should be moved elsewhere.
Ms. McDonough seconded the motion with discussion. Regarding the first modification, she felt they should specifically refer to the paving surface and that it be selected to create a pedestrian environment. Mr. Jonas accepted the modification.
Findings of Fact - Conditional Use
A. A conditional use/planned development is required for this project because all new construction of principal buildings or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by twenty five percent (25%) within the C-SHBD district are subject to planned development review. The purpose of this review is to ensure for compatibility and compliance with the design guidelines of the Sugar House Master Plan.
B. The proposed uses are consistent with the zoning district, and the project is consistent with the community area master plan. A modification to the sign ordinance will be needed to approve the graphics that are proposed for the building. This can be authorized through the planned development process.
C. According to the City’s Transportation Division, the project will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets; the right-of-way along Wilmington Avenue will be able to support a bike lane as planned; and public access in and out of Hidden Hollow will be enhanced and preserved. The western public access corridor meets AASHTO standards; however, the eastern vehicle and multi-use corridor does not.
D. Adequate parking is provided with the on-site parking stalls. On-site circulation does not address multi-use areas adequately. Staff recommends that the eastern corridor is redesigned with the alternatives presented by the Transportation Division, and final landscape plan approval is delegated to the Planning Director.
E. The proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and will conform to the City’s construction standards and policies. A public utility easement along the eastern boundary will be recorded against the property.
F. The project, as proposed, will provide protection to adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
G. The architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the mixed-land use pattern found in the Sugar House Business District. A minimum of 40 percent non-reflective glass must be on the first floor street front and front elevation.
H. The landscaping is appropriate for the scale and location of the development. The urban forester has reviewed the plans, and his comments have been integrated into the landscaping plan.
I. The proposed development preserves Hidden Hollow by limiting the height of the structure. The proposed mitigation measures and restoration plans will minimize the impact that the excavation and re-grading activities will have on the area during the construction period of the project. Hidden Hollow will ultimately benefit from the enhancements proposed in the letter of request to Utah Open Lands.
J. The proposed use and hours of operation will be a positive addition to the mixed land use pattern of the business district. The increased activity will benefit the natural area with more users and natural surveillance throughout the week.
K. The proposed project 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. Compliance with all other applicable codes will be required prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Finding of Fact - Planned Unit Development
The project as proposed meets several of the objectives of the purpose for planned developments.
Conditions of Approval - Conditional Use and Planned Unit Development
1. A six-foot public access easement running north/south along the western boundary will be recorded against the property prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy.
2. A 20-foot public access, vehicle maintenance, and utility easement running north/south along the eastern boundary will be recorded against the property prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy.
3. Public access will be provided through the entrance and inner courtyard area of the development.
4. A development agreement to amend the Hidden Hollow Conservation Easement is complete and signed prior to beginning the site excavation work (6/15/02).
5. A representative for Ballet West will be designated for the duration of the construction period in order to facilitate communication (particularly in the event of an emergency) between Ballet West, the Hidden Hollow Management Committee, Utah Open Lands, and the City.
6. The eastern pedestrian corridor is redesigned to address potential user conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and final landscape plan approval is delegated to the Planning Director.
7. Art graphics applied to the aluminum screen is allowed on the building as an artistic element of the structure. However, words that advertise specific events and information are not allowed nor considered part of the artistic features of the building.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. Funk addressed Mr. Walsh and stated that it would be helpful in future projects if the Planning Commission could be represented in RDA discussions. Oftentimes the Planning Commission may have suggestions that the RDA would not look at in the same light. Mr. Nelson suggested that the Commissioners be notified of all RDA meetings. Ms. Anderson stated that anyone interested could be put on the mailing list.
Arla Funk left the meeting at 7:35 p.m., prior to the following matter.
The Minutes for UTA/UP Freight site were approved on May 30, 2002.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No, 400-01-65, by Linda Cordova, Property Manager for Salt Lake City Corporation, requesting a street closure of Keysor Place, which is located at 445 South from 250 East to 300 East. The requested action will complete the City’s process to consolidate the individual parcels on the MHJ/Library Block (Block 37). The property is located in a Public Lands “PL” zoning district.
Planner Janice Lew asked if the Planning Commission had any questions about the request to close Keysor Place.
Ms. Barrows asked if there was a document identifying the location of the street. Ms. Lew replied that she has a legal description.
Planner Lew stated that the Staff recommends forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council based on the finding of fact and conditions outlined in the staff report.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-01-65
Andrea Barrows moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for Petition 400-01-65 requesting closure of Keysor Place at 445 South from 250 East to 300 East, based on the finding of fact, in the staff report and the recommendation that any existing public utility infrastructure be properly disconnected and removed from the street area and that future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant City standards and ordinances. Prescott Muir seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
1. The street closure is consistent wit the applicable City Master Plans.
2. The City owns all adjacent property to the proposed street closure.
3. The City’s open space plan for redeveloping the area would eliminate the need for the street.
4. The proposed street closure would not have a negative affect on the City’s ability to deliver emergency services.
Conditions
1. The Public Utilities Division requires that any existing infrastructure within the street property be properly disconnected. If this has not already occurred, it will occur as part of the Library Square park development.
2. Future development of this property is subject to compliance with all relevant City standards and ordinances. This portion of the Library Square project will be used as part of the Library Square Park, which is being planned and developed as a City project.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-588, by Zion’s Securities Corp. requesting a Conditional Use for a commercial surface parking lot along the frontage of 100 South (north side of the street) between State Street and 200 East, in the Downtown D-1 zoning district.
Planner Doug Dansie indicated the frontage of 100 South between State Street and 200 East and noted that Zion’s Securities is presently demolishing all the buildings along that street. He noted that the Staff report states that Zion’s Securities does not yet own the Utah Housing Finance Building on the corner of 200 East and 100 South. He was informed this evening that the closing on that property will be Wednesday, May 22. He clarified that Zion’s Securities does have the right to tear down the buildings, and they have obtained demolition permits for all the buildings except Utah Housing. The Planning Commission is being asked to consider whether they want the existing parking lot plus the demolition site, or whether they would prefer that the parking lot be reconfigured with landscaping. Mr. Dansie noted that the reconfiguration would result in 32 additional stalls.
Ms. Barrows asked how they could have an existing demolition with the parking lot as it exists and, if Zion’s Securities demolishes the buildings, whether they would still have the right to use the parking lot even though there is no use. Mr. Dansie replied that not all the parking is committed to existing buildings. Most of the parking has been in existence for so long that he did not have a record of what is committed and what is not. Ms. Barrows stated that it was her position that the petitioner could have a demolition site with no parking or a parking lot that could last indefinitely as a conditional use, but not both. She questioned whether they could have the parking lots working as parking lots once the buildings are demolished. Mr. Wilde explained that a commercial parking lot is a conditional use, and this petition is advertised as a conditional use for commercial parking lots, which means the parking would be re-approved as a commercial parking lot independent of buildings. He explained that, if the existing parking has been assigned to a use as on-premise required parking and the use goes away, technically the parking goes away unless it is reinstated as commercial parking.
Kay (berger) Arnold asked if it is Zion’s Securities’ intent to landscape the areas where the buildings were demolished when it tears down Utah Housing and leave the parking where it exists. Mr. Dansie replied that is one option, but Zion’s Securities would prefer to consolidate the parking in the center with 75 feet of landscaping on each corner and 15 feet along 100 South. Ms. Arnold noted that the Planning Commission agreed two years ago to allow Zion’s Securities to do that on top with no landscaping. Mr. Dansie clarified that this was allowed because it was on top of a structure and noted that the minutes in the staff report reflect that discussion. Ms. Barrows stated that their discussion was not clear in the minutes, but she recalled that it revolved around the number of spaces the Planning Commission was trying to acquire.
Mr. Dansie reported that another buyer has an option to purchase that will play out within the year. If the other buyer does not purchase the property, Zion’s Securities plans to develop it. The site is being cleared because of the option to purchase. Ms. McDonough asked about the time line if the option to purchase is not made.
Mr. Muir noted that the past minutes when this was reviewed by the previous Planning Commission indicated that a directive was made to Staff to investigate the legality of the temporary conditional use. He asked if there was a follow up to that directive. Mr. Wilde explained that time limits are not put on a conditional use even though it may be proposed as an interim use. The intent of the ordinance was that the Planning Commission does not restrict a time frame. He offered to check the ordinance to be sure that provision is still in place. Mr. Dansie recalled that, in conversations with Lynn Pace, they were told that the Planning Commission can either approve or deny the request, but they do not have the ability to place a time limit.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Dansie to address the comment by Ken Brown regarding lots and lot lines in relation to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Dansie replied that, according to the Code, there is buffer landscaping for parking lots, and seven feet of landscaping is required for every property line. This would chop up the parking lot, because every property line would require 14 feet of landscaping around it. Another issue is public utilities. According to the Code, a separate water meter is required for every property, and easements are necessary for cross drainage. Even though they are owned by one owner, they are separate lots and need to be treated as separate property owners. To eliminate that problem, the petitioner will eliminate all property lines. Ms. Barrows asked if eliminating the property lines would create a new plat. Mr. Dansie replied that this is a minor subdivision because these are metes and bounds parcels. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that State law regulates the division of property, but the petitioners can combine existing parcels without Planning Commission approval. The Planning Department forces applicants to combine parcels to avoid these issues, but they are eligible to come back in the future and apply for a subdivision to put in new lot lines.
Hal Killian, representing Zion’s Securities Corporation, was available to answer questions. Ms. McDonough asked about the intent for the sprinkler system and how the landscaped area would be used. Mr. Killian replied that they will not post private property signs, but the intent is to improve the aesthetic appearance of the property. Ms. McDonough asked if the property is meant to be occupied or just admired from the sidewalk. Mr. Killian replied that the intent is for it to be admired from the sidewalk. They investigated the idea of landscaping the entire area and not having parking, but that brought up other issues such as criminal activity.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Killian what Zion’s Securities will do with the property if this request is denied. Mr. Killian stated that they have several options under the ordinance. It could become vacant land. Ms. Barrows asked if landscaping would be required after a period of time if it is left vacant. Mr. Wilde replied that minimal landscaping should have been imposed as part of the demolition permit. Mr. Killian stated that another option would be to leave the existing commercial parking lot and landscape the other areas.
Mr. Muir asked if this parking would take pressure off the need to convert the Promised Valley Playhouse into parking. Mr. Killian replied that this would not affect Promised Valley Playhouse because, historically, parking on the properties has been full all the time. If nothing happens, they will lose stalls which will force monthly parking into areas where they used to have daily parking.
Ms. Arnold asked why the Planning Commission should be concerned about Zion’s Securities’ plan with another purchaser. Mr. Wilde believed the point was that parking will be an interim use. Ms. Arnold felt the Planning Commission should view this as possible parking for five or ten years, because they have no other guarantee. She asked about fencing. Mr. Killian replied that there will be no fencing. They will put in berms to screen the parking from the street and help provide a visual barrier from the parking and backside of other buildings along Social Hall Avenue.
Mr. Nelson asked about zoning. It was noted that the property is in the D-1 zone.
Ms. McDonough asked about sod and landscaping. Mr. Killian stated that the ordinance refers to the number of trees and bushes, setbacks, etc. Sod provides an immediate green space and is easy to install. Due to water shortage concerns, they would not be inclined to put sod over the entire property. Putting parking over a portion of the ground would help save water.
Mr. Nelson asked if Zion’s Securities has a plan for the property beyond parking if the purchase does not go through. Mr. Killian stated that there is not a specific plan at this time. They have tried to identify the highest and best use for the property and have agreed that a parking lot is not the highest and best use. With current market conditions, they are not comfortable moving ahead with a development. Consideration has been given to a residential component on 200 East, but the majority of development will remain commercial.
Ms. Arnold asked if there would be trees or landscaping in the center strip. Mr. Killian replied that no landscaping is planned, and it will all be blacktopped. Ms. Arnold asked how quickly this would be started. Mr. Killian explained that they are currently in the demolition process. The Utah Financing building will be occupied until the end of June, so it may be late August or early September before they can start the parking lot and landscaping. Ms. Arnold asked how many cars could be parked. Mr. Killian replied that he believed there were 166 stalls. Behind the old Snappy’s building are 26 stalls which will be reconfigured to 14 stalls.
Ms. Barrows commented on the amount of parking and pointed out discrepancies between the staff report and Mr. Killian’s answer. Mr. Killlian stated that, without actually counting the stalls, his answer could be incorrect. Mr. Dansie explained that the plan was changed last Friday, and the numbers in the staff report came from a previous plan. Mr. Killian stated that Zion’s Securities was not opposed to reducing the number of stalls to the original number.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barrows stated that she opposed commercial parking lots as conditional uses because they are not temporary. A goal of the downtown master plan is to discourage this type of surface parking. She found fault with Findings D, K, and N and believed this proposal would be an impediment over time in revitalizing the area. She did not favor a conditional use for commercial parking in this zone and location.
Mr. Nelson believed that, with property at that value, this use would be temporary, and he was confident that within three to five years there would be a much better use underway. He did not have a problem with this plan and saw it as an improvement. If the Planning Commission denied the petition, the property would sit idle. A denial might be an incentive for the property owner to do something sooner, but he doubted it.
Mr. Muir stated that it is a sad state of affairs when the absence of a city is more desirable than a city of vacant buildings. He hoped other property owners did not share the same perspective as Zion’s Securities. Downtown would be awful if every vacant building was razed and replaced with parking lot and grass to create a holding position. He stated that, on principle, he could not support this petition.
Motion for Petition No. 410-588
Ms. Barrows moved to deny Petition 410-588 by Zion’s Securities for a commercial parking lot based on the fact that she finds fault with the finding that the proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes of the intent of the title and that, specifically, the downtown master plan discourages the construction of surface parking lots and favors higher density parking structures. She also found that Finding K is not met. The project is not compatible with neighborhood surroundings, and it creates a net cumulative adverse impact on the City as a whole. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonough Mr. Diamond, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Mr. Nelson voted “Nay.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.