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, Andrea Barrows, Tim Chambless, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kent Nelson, and Laurie Noda. Kay (berger) Arnold and Arla Funk were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, and Planners Doug Dansie and Everett Joyce. Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright 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, April 18, 2002.
Jeff Jonas asked why the April 4 minutes were included in the packet. Brent Wilde replied that, because the changes were extensive, they decided to include them for Planning Commission review. These minutes were approved at the last meeting, and no action is required this evening.
Mr. Jonas referred to the minutes of April 18, 2002, last sentence of the first paragraph on Page 2, and suggested that the word “method” be changed to “many,” so the sentence would read, “The findings included compliance with the many conditions that are necessary for a conditional use or planned development.” He referred to the bottom paragraph on Page 13 and asked that the word Gateway be capitalized in the first sentence.
Prescott Muir referred to the motion made by Andrea Barrows on Page 12 of the minutes to deny the Voice Stream Wireless petition based on Finding F, “that appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses.” He believed the sentence should read, “buffering is not provided to protect .to make the intent clear. Ms. Barrows stated that she repeated the finding as written, and the minutes are correct, but she would not have a problem adding the word “not.” Mr. Muir was more comfortable having the wording match the reason for denial to avoid confusion.
Mr. Nelson referred to the top line on Page 13 and asked that “24 foot pole” be changed to read a 13 foot extension to the pole. Ms. Barrows agreed with the correction because the Planning Commission was talking about a much higher pole.
Mr. Muir referred to the last paragraph on Page 17 and felt the second sentence would read better if it were changed to read, “It was presented to the Downtown Alliance.” striking the words, “It was clear that the Downtown Alliance.” He further corrected the sentence by adding the word annually after $100 million. In the following sentence, he requested that the word “they” be replaced with the Central Business District and that the phrase “with less retail space” be replaced with when there was less retail space. The corrected sentence would read, “With Gateway fully on stream, the Central Business District hoped to get back to where they were in 1996 when there was less retail space.” Mr. Muir referred to the last paragraph on Page 2 and suggested that the words “six or eight units” be changed to residential units to clarify the intent. In the second paragraph on Page 23, he asked that the reference to TOD be spelled out to read Transit Oriented Development.
Mr. Nelson referred to the second paragraph on Page 26 and requested that the first sentence be revised to read, “Mr. Nelson pointed out that, as a Planning Commissioner, he had to make good decisions based on planning principles rather than on the politics of his constituents.” He felt this language better clarified his intent.
Peggy McDonough referred to the last sentence of the second paragraph on Page 12 and requested that the word “higher” be changed to “greater.” The corrected sentence would read, “She believed the light would push it into an impact area that may be greater than another pole.” She recalled that her comment referred to the height of the impact, not the height of the pole.
Mr. Muir referred to the reference in the third paragraph of the first page to Mr. Daniels calling the meeting to order and noted that Arla Funk called the meeting to order.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to approve the minutes of April 18 as corrected. Kent Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Ms. Noda abstained from the vote as she did not attend the April 18 meeting. Ms. Arnold and Ms. Funk were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Chair Daniels presented a draft of the response to a letter written by Councilman David Buhler to Earl Harmer. Ms. Barrows stated that she was uncomfortable telling her City Councilman that he gave her a thankless and time-honored responsibility. She was also concerned about sending the message to Councilman Buhler that he was not sustaining the integrity of the process. She asked that they consider what they are really trying to say to Councilman Buhler. Mr. Muir stated that he was the author of the thankless and time honored responsibility comment, and he believed it was appropriate. Mr. Buhler had made the comment that he no longer had confidence in the Planning Commission, and Mr. Muir believed that questioned the deliberative process. Mr. Muir believed that Mr. Buhler had the responsibility as a public official to sustain the process. He does not have to sustain the decision, but he does have to endorse the process. Mr. Muir stated that they cannot expect the public to sustain the process if the elected officials will not. He commented that he did not have a problem with 90% of Councilman Buhler’s letter, but he did have a problem with the last paragraph because at that point he stepped over the line. Ms. McDonough suggested adding language specifically addressing the points in the last paragraph. She felt that, as written, the draft statements could be taken a number of ways and not necessarily as a direct response to what Councilman Buhler wrote. Ms. Barrows stated she would be more comfortable with that approach.
Mr. Jonas stated that he was more comfortable with the word “accept” rather than “sustain,” because the public does not have to sustain, but they do have to accept.
After further discussion, the Commissioners agreed to the following changes:
Add a sentence to the end of paragraph two that reads, “However, we take great umbrage to your threat to the Planning Commission implicit in the first paragraph of the second page of your letter.” Replace the word “sustain” with “accept” in the last two sentences of the third paragraph. Revise the first sentence of the third paragraph to read, “One role of the Planning Commission is to very carefully protect and safeguard the right to due process.” Replace the words “express their opinions” to “express his/her opinion” in the second paragraph.
Stephen Goldsmith stated that these revisions would be made prior to the end of the meeting. He asked the Commissioners to forgive the Staff’s silence on this matter as this is specifically a letter between the Planning Commission and Councilman Buhler.
Tim Chambless was excused from the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-589, By Zion’s Securities requesting a Conditional Use to construct a commercial parking lot without retail on the ground level on a street frontage (Orpheum Avenue) at 132 South State Street in a D-1 Zoning District.
Due to a conflict of interest, Peggy McDonough recused herself from participation on this item by leaving the room.
Planner Doug Dansie provided a brief background. Two years ago, negotiations occurred between Salt Lake County and Zion’s Securities regarding turning the building over to the County and restoring the theater. Those negotiations did not come to fruition, and a year ago Zion’s Securities applied to the Historic Landmark Commission to demolish the theater portion of the site, which is the rear portion. The Historic Landmark Commission had to determine whether to treat this as a major remodel or a demolition. They chose to treat it as a demolition, which moved it into the economic hardship process. Zion’s Securities went through the complete process, and it was determined that there was an economic hardship. Therefore the Historic Landmark Commission concurred with the demolition of the theater portion of the Playhouse. Once the demolition was agreed to, the Historic Landmark Commission started design review for the proposed parking structure. Zion’s Securities is proposing a commercial parking structure on the site. Early on, the parking terrace was proposed as a scissors design, with both sides ramped on the north and south. That created problems with the facade on Orpheum Avenue and meant there would be sloped floors visible to the street. This was a major issue which was resolved with the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Dansie reviewed a site plan showing all the floors along Orpheum Avenue being flat, with all the ramping on the back (south) side. Ramps would not be seen from the street, and the openings would be the proper height to meet Code requirements. One problem is that the site is constricted. Zion’s Securities started with the fundamental premise of preserving the front 30 to 40 feet of the building which created a short floor plate and made it difficult to get the ramping in without sloping. This brings up the issue of retail on the ground level of Orpheum. Mr. Dansie noted that this has happened with other parking terraces, but the problem here is that it has been foreshortened for the ramping, which means there are only two aisle widths as opposed to the Triad Center Parking or the Wells Fargo parking structures which have three aisles. Three aisles allows extra space for retail on the ground level.
Mr. Dansie stated that this request is for a commercial parking lot that is not associated with a specific office building, and the petitioner is asking for a conditional use not to have retail office on Orpheum Avenue. Mr. Dansie pointed out that on State Street, south of the existing façade, there is presently a small open space between the Promised Valley Playhouse and the Zim’s Store. As part of this plan, the petitioner proposes extending the facade of the Promised Valley Playhouse to the south. If that occurs, the space would no longer be visible from State Street. By constructing a three-story addition to the Promised Valley Playhouse, one would not be able to see the north side of the parking structure where the ramps are angled or the internal workings of the parking structure from the sidewalk. Mr. Dansie discussed site issues and noted that the parking terrace is four stories tall so someone across the street on State Street will not be able to see the parking taking place behind the facade. Since the theater portion demolition has been concurred with by the Historic Landmark Commission, the Staff believed the final design would be the best design for the parking terrace and recommended approval. The Historic Landmark Commission has approved this conceptually but want to see it one more time after the Planning Commission takes action on the conditional use.
Mr. Muir asked about the setback on the south side. Mr. Dansie replied that the Zim’s building to the south has no windows on that side, and it would be an empty space. The south side of the parking terrace is open, so a certain amount of space is needed for fire and air circulation. Mr. Muir asked if discussions with the petitioner explored shifting the parking structure over toward Zim’s and possibly entertaining residential on the residual piece along Orpheum. Mr. Dansie replied that the space is only 20 feet deep. One alternative reviewed was to push the parking structure against Zim’s. Another alternative was to create a donut-shaped parking terrace with a chimney in the center. However, pushing the parking terrace directly against the adjacent building would force the petitioner to use mechanical air circulation, which adds greatly to the cost.
Ms. Barrows stated that she assumed there were no parking requirements to the office use. Mr. Dansie replied that the existing portion of the theater is considered an existing building, and a change of use is allowed without upgrading the parking requirement. Because there will be a small addition, the petitioner would have to dedicate a certain number of stalls for that construction. Ms. Barrows asked how many stalls were proposed and how many excess stalls were being created for commercial parking. Mr. Dansie explained that the existing portion of the building is approximately 12,000 square feet, and the addition would be 6,000 square feet. At 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, approximately 18 new stalls would be required for the Promised Valley Site. The petitioner proposes building 456 stalls. Ms. Barrows referred to Finding A in the Staff report which mentions the retail/office requirement. Going through the zoning, she only saw the retail component and asked if there is an office component instead of retail or if they can be interchanged. Mr. Dansie explained that they are used interchangeably, and it is not retail exclusively.
Jeff Jonas asked about the reference to the term “corner” on Page 3 of the staff report. Mr. Dansie replied that the zoning ordinance talks about corners and midwalks. A corner is defined as an intersection of two 132-foot-wide streets. A minor street is not considered a corner site. Therefore, although this appears to be a corner, it is not considered a corner per the zoning ordinance. Mr. Dansie clarified that the definition only applies to the D-1 zoning district.
Kim Hyatt, representing the petitioner, provided additional information about the project. He presented a colored rendering showing the latest revisions. He noted that the drawings submitted with the application indicate that the panels would be architectural pre-cast concrete, but they are now proposing cast-in-place concrete with reveals that can be painted to mimic the pattern of the storefront on the retail portion of the building. Regarding the number of stalls, he believed the number would be closer to 425, not 456. He reviewed design drawings showing why the number had to be reduced.
Ms. Barrows commented on the leased stalls and asked who would potentially use the parking structure. Gary Chasten, representing Zion’s Securities, replied that it is not appropriate for him to specify the clients, but they are currently tenants at other properties managed by Zion’s Securities. These tenants work within a two-block radius of the propose structure. Ms. Barrows commented on the ramping on the tallest level and the steepness of the slope. She asked how the petitioner would handle snow removal in the open air portion. Mr. Chasten replied that the grade is 6%, and he believes it could be worked out with the Transportation Division as they prepare and submit final drawings for a building permit. He explained that they have snow plows that are used on all open air structured parking. He noted that the 6% grade shows up on the back side of the structure, not the front side, and he was unsure that the slope was relevant.
Mr. Jonas asked how seriously they considered putting in residential units. Mr. Chasten replied that residential units were looked at for the main level and front of the building, but residential does not provide the same return as office and retail. There are currently two clients who are interested in the office/retail portion of the building. If someone is willing to utilize the building, it becomes a better use given where it is located. He stated that Zion’s Securities does intend to provide downtown housing, but having residential properties on the street level at that location would not be desirable from a leasing or selling standpoint.
Mr. Nelson noted that the proposed new construction on the front elevation of the structure is similar but not matching. Mr. Hyatt stated that there is an established and accepted historic preservation principle that says new construction should not try to appear old or exactly matched the old construction. Since the old and new are connected, he felt it made sense to have the same kind of rhythm pattern without being exactly alike.
Mr. Muir asked about the trigger for natural ventilated parking versus mechanical. Mr. Hyatt replied that the formula is 40% of the perimeter on at least two opposing sides. Mr. Muir noted that this structure is only open on one side. Mr. Hyatt explained that the south side is fully open, and the north end is open enough to meet the requirement.
Ms. Barrows asked about lighting and wanted to be sure that it would be adequate. Mr. Chasten assured Ms. Barrows that he shares her concern, and the lighting will be adequate and appropriate.
Mr. Muir commented on the need to attract people downtown as built-in shoppers, which means there needs to be housing. People shop where they live, and in order to build support for the downtown malls, it is necessary to build more housing. He asked Mr. Chasten how he believed this could be accomplished. Mr. Chasten stated that it is already being accomplished through the zoning and land uses. What really draws and dictates housing construction is the market, and he would be looking at a different project if there was not already a housing glut downtown. He believed it would take the rest of the year to deal with this saturation. The idea that “if you build housing they will come” is not the solution. It has to be housing for people migrating into the state who need to work and live downtown. Professionals, retired people, and students typically live downtown. Mr. Chasten stated that he has plans for housing, but they are not plans that can be implemented today. He agreed with the intent of bringing more people downtown.
Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Chasten how he sees 400 additional parking spaces contributing to downtown and the building of what they hope to accomplish. Mr. Chasten replied that the contribution is related to future planning which Zion’s Securities is not ready to release to the public. He understood that certain portions of their projects have less than desirable parking that needs to be fixed, and he looked at this as an overall need that would service the present and the future demand.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Owen Richardson stated that he lives downtown and works a few blocks from this property. He is involved with the arts and contributes his spare time to the arts and betterment of the community. He objected strongly to the use of this property. “They tore that building down and turned it into a parking lot,” is the cliche at the end of a cautionary tale. A building like this should be preserved, and he understood they would keep the front facade which keeps the spirit of the theater, but in reality is nothing but a slab of concrete to generate money. He felt the rendering looked pleasant, but it would hide a massive parking structure, creating a scar smack through the middle of the block. He believed owners of a property like this have a responsibility to preserve the spirit. Mr. Richardson stated that he knows it costs money to take care of this City’s culture, and the owners should take care of this building and what it represents. The City has a lot of parking lots, but it does not have many theaters. He stated that he is emotional about this building because it changed his life, and he has a career because of it, but he did not believe his was the only life changed by this building. If at least the spirit were alluded to or taken care of, he was sure he will not be the last.
Elizabeth Giraud, an employee of the Planning Division, stated that she was asked by members of the Historic Landmark Commission to explain their demolition decision. Promised Valley Playhouse is a Landmark Site and is considered to be a significant structure. The ordinance for the Historic Landmark Commission is stringent and states that the only way landmark structures can be demolished is if the owner can prove economic hardship or if the building official condemns the building. Ms. Giraud explained that an economic hardship panel was convened which included Gary Chasten of Zion’s Securities, a person chosen by the Landmark Commission, Bob Springmeyer, who has an economic background in public cultural facilities, and Don Mahoney, an architect who has renovated several theaters throughout the United States. This group found that there was an economic hardship because a pubic entity must maintain, operate, and pay for the costs of a public cultural facility. They asked Mr. Chasten to bring plans for renovating the theater and provide cost figures for a scaled-down renovation that would be less expensive. They also asked him to take plans for keeping the theater to the County Commission in the hope that they would be able to save it. Ms. Giraud explained that in early 2000 the County made overtures to Zion’s Securities about possibly acquiring the theater. That offer was rescinded at the end of 2000 when the demolition application was submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission. The County Commission maintained that they did not have the funding, and an economic hardship was found.
Eleanor Zimmerman Heward, stated that she supports this petition. She has operated Zim’s for 20 years and watched a lot of things happen in the empty spaces in front of the theater. She wondered whether the building could ever be rehabilitated with the sort of things that are across the street. She was concerned about the 20-foot space between the Zim’s building and the parking structure which would be sealed on the State Street side. Zion’s Securities has considered putting a 10-foot wall on the back side (west) with a door in it. If they do, she hoped they would put an iron gate so the 20-foot space would be visible from all sides, because a wall would only encourage homeless people to find a place to sleep in the winter.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barrows observed from the field trip that Orpheum Avenue is not very wide, and there will now be three entrances to the parking garages. She asked if the Transportation Division had provided any information on problems related to three parking structures and ingress and egress issues. Mr. Dansie replied that the Transportation Division believes the street is capable of handling the capacity. Ms. Barrows stated that she was uncomfortable with the letter from the Transportation Division which basically states that the impacts will be no worse than with any other parking structure, so it’s okay. Her concern was whether it could stand on its own merit. Mr. Dansie further explained the Transportation Division’s rationale and why they did not have reservations.
Mr. Muir referred to the Downtown Master Plan and questioned why they imposed housing as a condition in the D-3 zone but not the other Downtown zones on the east side. Mr. Dansie explained that the D-1 zone was mapped from the old C-4 zone which was the downtown central business district zone. The D-3 zone is only mapped in the area around Pioneer Park, and its primary purpose is to facilitate the conversion of warehouse spaces into loft housing. Mr. Dansie noted that, even in the D-3 zone, the first two stories can have no housing, and above two stories it is a 50/50 split. Mr. Muir stated that he had a difficult time viewing this development in isolation given what the Planning Commission was trying to do on Fourth South. He knew the applicant was a committed stakeholder in downtown, and he did not question their long-term commitment and motives, but he believed it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to be fair, because this could be a different applicant with a sole investment downtown. The Planning Commission cannot require something of Zion’s Securities that they would not require for anyone else.
Mr. Goldsmith recalled last week’s public hearing about how downtown will be redefined and its boundaries and uses. Work started in west downtown 15 years ago and has led to an understanding that mixed use is the way to go. They are just now addressing that new trend and understanding its value to downtown. In the meantime, current zoning is what any petitioner has the right to apply under, and that is the issue being addressed this evening. Mr. Goldsmith believed Zion’s Securities made a legitimate attempt to work with the County to find a use for the building. He commented on new facilities downtown, such as the Community College, that have no parking, and in order to feed the life of downtown, parking issues are legitimate. Mr. Muir agreed that there is a lack of supply in this constricted, dense area and that more parking allows for more retail and more intensive use.
Mr. Jonas read portions of Standard B for a conditional use which states that the proposed project should be in harmony with the general purpose and intent and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City. A planning goal of the City is to create mixed use, and while they may not be in complete harmony with the current ordinance and zoning districts, it is an objective and goal that the Planning Commission would like to adhere to. He agreed that there is a lack of parking and that a parking structure would be beneficial. However, in looking at the plans, he saw a 20-foot strip of nothing that would remain dead space in perpetuity with no potential use. He wondered if creating a dead space was consistent with the planning goals and objectives of the City or if a better alternative would be to shift the building over to create a viable use on the streetscape on Orpheum Avenue. Mr. Goldsmith pointed out that D-1 is not considered a mixed use zone. Mr. Jonas suggested separating the zoning issue from the objectives and planning goals of the City. 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 possibly one place that could be done. It may not be incumbent to put housing in the D-1 Zone, but it is consistent with the planning goals.
Chair Daniels felt this was a good petition and was allowable. He stated that he is a strong proponent of affordable housing and housing in general, particularly in the downtown area, but he believed a good-faith effort was made to preserve the property and pay homage to what it used to be. If there is a bad guy, it should be the County for not finding the money to help out.
Ms. Barrows noted that this is a conditional use request which is asking to waive some of the conditions incumbent upon it. She agreed with Mr. Muir that it is difficult to look at this in isolation. She was unsure if keeping to the actual zoning and not allowing the conditional use would be so bad. This would allow the petitioner to come back with a permitted use that may not be as productive economically as a parking garage.
Mr. Jonas felt the petitioner was inconsistent. They said it is not a place where someone would want to live, but they also said the traffic would come from Regent Street. They have to make it a safe and pleasant environment for people walking from Regent Street, so if someone is willing to walk in that area, they would probably be willing to live in that area. Ms. Barrows felt that a pleasant environment to walk to your car is different from an environment to live in.
Mr. Muir asked if they imposed housing on Brooks Arcade. Mr. Goldsmith recalled that housing was offered by the developer. Mr. Dansie pointed out that Brooks Arcade was an RDA project, and City funds were provided.
Mr. Nelson commented that parking enhances the ability for businesses, merchants, offices, and employees to continue to give downtown its life. It pulls at his heart to lose the Promised Valley Playhouse, and that is why he listened closely to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission. In terms of housing, he would not want to live in a place next to other parking lots unless there units were at least five stories high along the parking levels. He believed this part of downtown is committed to parking, and trying to fit a residential unit next to three large parking structures would not be successful.
Motion for Petition 410-589
Jeff Jonas moved to approve Petition 410-589, a request by Zion’s Securities for a conditional use to construct a commercial parking structure without retail on the ground level of a street frontage (Orpheum Avenue) at 132 South State Street in a Downtown D-1 Zoning District, based on the findings of fact and the Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission approve a commercial parking garage at this location without the required retail/office uses on the ground level of Orpheum Avenue. The proposed garage must also meet all design guidelines established by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Findings of Facts
1. The Planning Commission is authorized to allow the proposed land use with the retail/office exception.
2. Orpheum Avenue has traditionally not been a pedestrian street. The project will increase retail/office frontage along State Street, which is the dominant pedestrian street.
3. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has determined that access is adequate.
4. Internal circulation is adequate. The architects/petitioner should resolve the 6% slope issue on the top floor prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Salt Lake City Public Utilities has determined that utilities are adequate.
6. The proposed parking structure is adjacent to similar land uses. The applicant has designed the proposed parking structure to be similar in architecture to the remaining facade of the former Promised Valley Playhouse. Buffering is adequate to protect adjacent uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
7. The architecture and building materials are consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. The Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission has approved the design of the parking garage.
8. Landscaping will be appropriate.
9. The proposed development preserves the most functional portions of the historic use.
10. Operating and business hours are compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
11. The streets adjacent and internal to this block are capable of handling additional traffic. The parking is necessary for the success of many of the adjacent office and retail uses.
12. The proposed parking garage proposal must meet all other City code issues.
Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. McDonough was not present for the vote. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, and Mr. Chambless were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Goldsmith told Mr. Muir that his earlier comments were correct, and he hoped that through this process they could start again on the future of downtown. They can revisit the downtown master plan and create the requirements as they did in the D-3 zone. Mr. Goldsmith commented that, if they are going to see the kind of intensity needed to keep the central core functioning, it may be the first time they will have to do a transfer of development rights. Mr. Muir felt the Planning Commission should be as aggressive as possible, and to some degree they are dependent on Staff to move forward. Mr. Goldsmith felt this could set in motion an opportunity for the Planning Commission to petition the Planning Division to revisit the 1995 Downtown Plan to look at inclusionary zoning, transfer of development rights, or housing obligations in the central core. The Commissioners and Mr. Goldsmith discussed the issues and the Staff’s role in this planning. Chair Daniels felt the Planning Staff does exceptional work and that they are on the cutting edge. As a City, they all have work to do. Mr. Jonas suggested moving with caution and noted that this is a difficult issue, because they have to look at the developers’ point of view to determine transfer rights. The last thing they want to do is make decisions that create non-economically feasible situations. Mr. Nelson commented on the amount of potential housing waiting in the wings and the need to see how current overbuilding is absorbed and how fast it is taken care of. He noted that their decisions need to encourage developers in a way that is best for them and what the Planning Commission hopes to accomplish. He believed that over time the market would come to that conclusion. Mr. Goldsmith stated that he had a hard time allowing the market to dictate the form of the City. If they allow the market to dictate the form, the vision for a city of excellence will gradually be eroded by different motivations. He reiterated that this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to petition the Planning Division to update the 1995 Downtown Plan and housing as a requirement in the D-1 Zone. Mr. Goldsmith invited members of the Planning Commission to the City Council meeting to discuss downtown and Main Street issues. Mr. Jonas believed the entire process was meaningless. He found it offensive to see the City Council do what it does without input from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission on planning issues and referred to last week’s meeting regarding Main Street as an example. Ms. McDonough recalled that the Planning Commission was officially invited to attend that meeting. Mr. Jonas noted that everyone else in the City was officially invited as well. In support of Mr. Jonas’ comment, Mr. Goldsmith noted that, as Planning Director, he was not invited to the City Council’s meeting.
Mr. Nelson addressed his earlier comment and clarified that he is not totally market driven. He believed there was a method in planning that could harness the private for the public good, and that was his intent.
Mr. Goldsmith distributed copies of the corrected letter for their review.
Ms. McDonough rejoined the meeting.
Chair Daniels noted that Kay Arnold is not present this evening. He asked that the record show that Ms. Arnold felt that a response to Councilman Buhler’s letter was inappropriate, if for no other reason than because it was not written to the Planning Commission.
Jeff Jonas recommended that Chair Daniels sign the letter and send it to Councilman Buhler. The Commissioners concurred. Ms. Barrows requested that typographical and punctuation errors be corrected. The Commissioners made the corrections, and the letter was sent back to be typed in final form.
Ms. Barrows acknowledged the patience of the next petitioner and thanked him for waiting for the Planning Commission to discuss these important issues. Chair Daniels suggested that the Planning Commission continue their discussions after the next petition.
Petition No. 410-586, by Total Property Asset Management, requesting a planned development subdivision approval to create a pad lot at 464 South 600 East as part of the Family Center (Fred Meyer) planned development. This is a request to modify the previous planned development (Petition 410-135) to incorporate the McHenry home site and develop an 11, 730 square foot pad site as part of the original planned development for the Family Center. The application includes a planned development subdivision plat to record the existing lots as well as the proposed lot within the Family Center development. This planned development requests modification of zoning ordinance standards consistent with the approval of the original Fred Meyer development. Ordinance modifications are reduction of the front yard landscaping and setback requirements, front yard parking, and a change of grade in excess of two feet at the property line. This property is in a Commercial “CS” Zoning District and in the Central Community Historic Overlay District.
Planner Everett Joyce reviewed the petition for a conditional use planned development to create a pad lot at an existing planned development that was approved in 1994. The pad lot is where the McHenry home site was located. At the time of the original development, the lot could not be purchased, and the development was designed around it. Mr. Joyce noted that this pad lot would be designed to the same features as the originally approved planned development, which included modifications to the zoning ordinance for landscape and setback in the front yard, parking in the front yard, and a grade change. The grade change is where the ramp on the southeast corner of the property comes up and there is a wall within the setback area. The Community Council reviewed this petition through the Historic Landmark Commission in February and looked at it again last night at their council meeting and approved the petition with no issues. The Planning Staff has reviewed the modifications to the ordinance for the front yard, parking, and grade change and finds it consistent with the approved planned development. The project is consistent with the East Downtown Master Plan. The Staff recommended approval of the proposed pad site based on the findings of the staff report with the following conditions of approval:
1. That the developer provides a street tree protection plan and the building permit plans be reviewed and approved by the City’s Urban Forester.
2. That the Planning Director or designee approves the final landscape plan.
3. That the Historic Landmark Commission Staff approves the final site plan.
4. That the final plans meet all applicable City codes except for the ones excluded through this planned development approval that identified the parking, setbacks, and grade change.
5. That the Planning Director be delegated authority to approve the actual design of the future structure on this site.
Mr. Joyce explained that the pad site and related ground development are being proposed. A future building would have to go through the Historic Landmarks Commission because it is in the Historic District. The request is to authorize that this building go back to the Community Council for their input, to the Historic Landmark Commission, and to the administration for their approval without having to come back to the Planning Commission for another planned development.
Ms. Barrows asked about landscaping. Mr Joyce explained that the landscaping relates to landscaping of the site. A required 15-foot landscape setback is being reduced, and that is appropriate based upon approval of the previous development. The landscaping for the building pad only and must be irrigated lawn.
Chair Daniels asked about housing mitigation. Mr. Joyce replied that the home went through the demolition process and was demolished due to economic hardship. Mr. Wilde clarified that this would not qualify for housing mitigation under the requirements of that ordinance.
Mr. Muir stated that he did not understand why the Staff did not propose moving the development pad to the corner to meet the objective of creating a walkable scale to the corner. Mr. Joyce replied that is an objective, but they also have to look at how the original development approval for most of the 10-acre block has a center anchor building with parking on the exterior and reduced landscape setback. It was built and constructed with a grade, ramp, and loading dock in that corner. To ask that it now be moved to the corner would be quite costly. Mr. Muir stated that, if the object of the City is to increase housing and walkable neighborhoods, they will never get there if they abide by PUD’s that were approved 20 years ago with completely different planning objectives. He asked to what degree they are bound by the conditions of the original PUD as they add to it. Mr. Wilde replied that they are not limited. It comes back as a new request.
Ms. McDonough asked about the intent of the master plan for this block and the massing at the corner. Mr. Joyce replied that the use has been identified as a shopping center for this area, but there are no guidelines in the master plan. The master plan for this use is the East Downtown Master Plan which calls for a mixed use shopping center in the area, not just on that block. The shopping center was a key development in that implementation. Mr. Wilde commented on the location of the pad and noted that, when the Fred Meyer Development came in, it was identified as an original pad site if and when the home went. The loading dock and ramping were designed and set at that time, and changing it now would be a major departure from what was originally established.
Ms. Barrows clarified that anytime a conditional use comes to the Planning Commission, they have the opportunity to revisit the original conditional use and modify it. She asked why this was not a plat amendment rather than a planned development subdivision. Mr. Joyce replied that a separate building would be permitted, but for tax reasons, the owners prefer to create a parcel. Creating that lot without a planned development means the City would have no control over the sale of the land. A planned development is a mechanism to insure that it is tied to this development.
Doug Holmberg, representing the petitioner, stated that he has worked in the area for the past 19 years and was instrumental in the East Downtown Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He explained that, in 1992-93, Salt Lake City came to them as owners of that block and asked them to move ahead with this development. They worked with the City for two years to get the project approved. They started acquiring the site in 1961, and the last purchase was made in 1994-95. He noted that what they are asking for is what was originally approved by the City in 1994. At that time, Mr. McHenry’s house was going to be part of the project, but Mr. McHenry later decided that he wanted to stay in the house as long as he had his restaurant. He indicated that he would let them know when he no longer needed the house, and they could take the property. Mr. McHenry and his wife passed away, and they acquired the property in 1995. Mr. Holmberg noted that a building was always planned for the site. One problem they encountered when Mr. McHenry backed out the first time was how to plan so the property could be connected in the future. Mr. Holmberg reviewed a site plan showing how the grade curves up. One reason it was approved was to get more traffic off the street. It brings circulation into the site so people can go from the lower to the upper levels by staying in the block and not going out to the street. He noted that many adjustments had to be made to accomplish that. He indicated the Fred Meyer loading dock and stated that he was unsure how it could be changed at this point. Fred Meyer would not consider moving their loading dock, and it was never intended that there be a building on the corner. From a developer’s standpoint, Mr. Holmberg would love to have a building on the corner because it would rent for more money and the access would be better, but in this case it does not work on the site. He stated that their desire is to put in the landscaping now as it was proposed in 1994, including the asphalt. The area where the building will eventually sit will be brought to grade, covered with soil, and planted in grass with a sprinkling system installed. When they have a lease for the property, they will go back to the Community Council and Historic Landmark Commission for building approval. He reiterated that this has been the plan from the inception of the project.
Mr. Jonas asked how the lot exists now and how it is intended to be changed. Mr. Joyce explained that the existing lot was the McHenry home site. The new lot covers the existing McHenry home site and comes south of that to the original lot line. Mr. Holmberg stated that it extends 12 feet south from the original lot line and squares off. Due to the grade change, Mr. Jonas could not see the purpose for changing the lot. Mr. Joyce replied that it would accommodate the new structure in the back. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not understand why they could not just make this part of the original development. Mr. Joyce replied that the owners would like a separate lot for taxing reasons within the commercial entities on the site. Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Holmberg to explain his relationship to the owner. Mr. Holmberg stated that he was hired by the owner, Total Property Asset Management, to go through the demolition and hardship process and follow through with the conditional use through construction.
Ms. McDonough referred to a copy of the previous conditional use approval and noted that it talks about presenting two different loading dock schemes. One was if the McHenry parcel was purchased, and the other if it was not. It mentions a loading dock ramp in the underground position, and Ms. McDonough asked what that meant. Mr. Holmberg replied that the loading dock for Fred Meyer is already underground. The loading area is underneath the parking on top.
Mr. Jonas asked if creating a lot this size would give the owner something they do not have if it were only the McHenry lot. It appeared to him that the new part of the lot was not usable space, and he wanted to understand why they are expanding the lot. He was not sure why the tax issue was a legitimate reason. Mr. Joyce replied that a new building would go over the lot line, so the lot line needs to be removed and the property expanded. Mr. Holmberg stated that taxation is a valid reason. He could easily record a deed and all the lot lines would go away. If he did that, he would only have to ask for a change in the ordinance for the setbacks, which is consistent with what was approved in 1994, and at that point he could build the building. However, taking those steps would create a problem with Fred Meyer and their lease. Fred Meyer has leased a certain amount of land and is taxed for that land. If he were to combine the parcels, it would be on one tax notice, and Fred Meyer wants its own notice. Whatever is put on the building site will also want a separate tax notice. Mr. Holmberg stated that it could be done the other way, but this makes things simpler and cleaner. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not have a problem with the tax issue, but he did take exception to Mr. Holmberg’s comment that he could build any building he wants at any size. His building would still have to come to the Planning Commission for approval.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Holmberg to explain, using the site plan, how trucks get in an out. Mr. Holmberg indicated how trucks turn in off of 5th South and back in.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Andrea Barrows asked if there was any concern from a planning standpoint that they would have two taxable entities that could potentially be sold to different parties. She asked if they would have two conditional uses; one for the old site and one for the new site. Mr. Wilde explained that the Planning Commission would be creating a new conditional use that will regulate the new site. It only pertains to the new site unless the Planning Commission puts additional conditions on the old site. He stated that the Planning Division has never been concerned with who owns the pad as long as they have control over the physical improvements on the property.
Mr. Jonas remarked that, because so many of the findings are based on the original approval, he believed the approval goes hand in hand.
Ms. McDonough stated that she did not think the Planning Commission was bound by the original approval. She felt it was especially important to make a good decision regarding the future of this parcel. They are deciding whether the parcel will be exactly dimensioned this way and whether that is a good land use for the area. She questioned whether this was the best way to address the corner. She disagreed that keeping vehicular circulation inside the block would be an asset. It is not good land use to have more asphalt and a redundancy of traffic on the street. The streets are meant for traffic.
Mr. Muir agreed with Ms. McDonough. He was not convinced that they should not create an additional curb cut off the docks. He understood that the City was not crazy about having trucks backing up in a driveway, but this is an inner urban environment, and that goes with the territory. To provide full truck maneuvering on site is a luxury that only the suburbs can afford. He felt there was no easy way to reject this petition as presented, and he considered this a good case for tabling the matter and asking Staff to work with the applicant. He recommended that they entertain a proposal that shows moving the pad to corner.
Mr. Nelson questioned the use of another curb cut. He noticed on the field trip that there is a 6'-10' wall drop off where the trucks some in, and another curb cut would prohibit them from getting in and out. 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. Mr. Jonas felt they would have a hard time getting the Transportation Division to sign off on having the trucks out on the street backing up. Mr. Joyce agreed. Mr. Jonas favored tabling this item for further analysis. Mr. Nelson felt that all they would accomplish is getting the building on the corner rather than set back while terminating the internal connectivity with the parking from the top to the bottom so the trucks would have to go out into the street to get around to the other side. Ms. Barrows remarked that the goal would be to get a building closer to the corner.
Ms. McDonough felt that it would be a good idea to table this item because this is a planned development which needs to meet the objectives of the planned development. She did not believe those objectives had been met in terms of creating a more desirable environment. In her opinion it was not more desirable because the parking and the pedestrian environments are at odds with each other. She believed this needed a creative approach. The discussion in the staff report refers to a key circulation element, and she was not convinced that vehicular circulation internal to the block is key.
Motion for Petition 410-586
Jeff Jonas moved to table petition 410-586 to ask the applicant to look at the specific issue of moving the building pad to the corner closer to the street and eliminating the connecting roadway between the two parking lots. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Holmberg asked to make comment. Chair Daniels pointed out that Mr. Holmberg’s comments were out of order, but the Planning Commission would allow him some time. Mr. Holmberg stated that the Planning Commission needs to be aware of the grade differential where the parking lot comes off the street. Putting in another ramp will not work, particularly in the winter. He explained that Total Property Asset Management is precluded in its lease with Fred Meyer from developing that corner, so they cannot do it legally or any other way. What Fred Meyer and East Downtown agreed to were the discussions with the City at that time. What has been approved is what was agreed to, so there is no way to modify a lease or the grade change at the corner.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Planning Commission resumed the discussion regarding the 1995 Downtown Master Plan and transfer of development rights. Mr. Goldsmith explained how transfer of development rights function. For example, if a zoning ordinance in the D-1 zone required housing and the petitioner wanted to build a parking garage and fulfill their housing obligation in a different location, they could transfer that development right to the other location through the proper process. Ms. Barrows asked if the petitioner would be required to own the other parcel. Mr. Goldsmith replied that development rights can be sold to someone else. Ms. Barrows asked how this would be controlled to keep a petitioner from selling the rights to another person who does not follow through. Mr. Goldsmith was unsure whether there was a legal process for that control. Mr. Wilde explained that there is generally an agreement with various means of financial commitments and bonding to see that the obligation is accomplished. Ms. Barrows wanted to see this pursued but did not want the City to be wimpy so that it defeats the purpose of what they are trying to do. Mr. Jonas wanted to know more about it and suggested initiating the Staff to look at the issues and study what other people are doing. Mr. Goldsmith clarified that he was not asking the Planning Commission to petition for transfer of development rights. His suggestion was to look at the downtown master plan to create more comprehensive mixed use guidelines as opposed to segregation of the central core. Ms. Barrows felt this petition could look at new strategies for incorporating housing.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to petition the Planning Division to relook at the Downtown Master Plan and consider applying the mixed use residential component such as exists in D-3 to D-1 and D-2, along with any other mechanisms that might be necessary to accommodate that, with a specific request for more information on transfer of development rights. Andrea Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Wilde felt they could provide information on the transfer development rights fairly soon.
Brent Wilde distributed copies of the final corrected letter to Councilman Buhler.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.