SALT LAKE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Tim Chambless, Chairperson, Laurie Noda, Vice Chairperson, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner, Joel Paterson, Senior Planner, Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, Everett Joyce, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary. Brent Wilde, Deputy Director of the Department of Community Development, was also in attendance.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:45 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 FOR WEDNESDAY, May 11, 2005
(This item was heard at 5:49 P.M.)
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes, as revised. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
(The revisions were reflected in the ratified minutes on Pages 5 and 6.)
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:51 P.M.)
Commissioner Noda reported that she and Commissioner Seelig attended the Planning Division Budget Hearings, which took place at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 24, 2005. She felt that the City Council had a favorable interest in the some of the provisions of the budget. Commissioner Noda believed that it would be in the best interest of the Planning Commission to attend some of the City Council meetings in the future.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:52 P.M.)
Mr. Zunguze introduced Ms. Shirley Jensen as the new Planning Commission Secretary. He stated that the Planning Commission lost the services of Andrea Curtis to another office in the City, and was grateful that Ms. Jensen stepped “up to the plate” to take her place.
Mr. Zunguze thanked the Commissioners who were present during the budget hearings at the City Council meeting. He reported that the support of the Planning Commission had a factor on how the Planning Division’s budget was received.
Mr. Zunguze reported on the following matters:
a. Discussion of the letter sent to the Planning Commission from the City Council relative to future master plans:
(This item was heard at 5:58 P.M.)
Mr. Zunguze referred to his memorandum, which stated that in March, 2005, the Planning Commission and City Council held a joint meeting to discuss the need for establishing a standardized format for community master plans. A copy of the memorandum was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He added that to help facilitate that discussion, the Planning Staff submitted, for review, a proposed standardized format. Mr. Zunguze noted that at the conclusion of the joint meeting, the Planning Commission and the City Council were in agreement to adopt the proposed format from the Planning Staff to be included in all City Planning Documents. He mentioned that the understanding is that the topics noted in the format must be included in all City Master Planning Documents but additional topics may also be included based on the desires of the individual communities for which the plans are being developed.
Given that there is now a meeting of minds on this issue, Mr. Zunguze said that the Planning Staff recommended the Planning Commission to vote on a resolution to formally adopt this standardized format, indicating that all future community plans would be held to this standard.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the second portion of this request is that the Planning Commission would take the lead in helping staff prioritize the master plans that needed to be updated and the frequency of the revision. He said that staff would consult with the community councils and return to the Planning Commission with a list of master plans for review.
Commissioner Seelig asked that the information include “best practices” data in the frequency of review of master plans. Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Commission would be provided with the best professional advice on the frequency and assessment of which master plans needed to be updated.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff.
Commissioner Muir commented that the master plan format did not mention how to accommodate quality growth in the housing section. He believed that quality growth was a fundamental housing issue. Mr. Zunguze said that it was implied and read, “Analysis of housing should include housing characteristics and change over time.”
Commissioner Scott asked that the list would include the current age and status of all master plans, and not just the recommended schedule. Mr. Zunguze said that the data would list or include the age and the status of the master plans, as well as other pertinent issues and analysis for review.
Since there were no additional questions for staff, Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion to standardize a community master plan format:
Commissioner Muir moved that the Planning Commission adopt a standardized community plan format. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for staff to submit a list of community master plans for review:
Commissioner McDonough moved that the Planning Commission request staff to submit a list of master plans and potential master plans including the APA (American Planning Association) standards of frequency, for a review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
b. Discussion with the Commission regarding the City Council’s request for refinement to address issues raised by the City Council related to enlargement, alteration, or intensification of non-conforming uses or non-complying structures:
(This item was heard at 6:00 P.M.)
Mr. Zunguze stated that in April of 2005, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance relating to “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”. He noted that the City Council adopted the amendment which allowed 100 percent reconstruction of nonconforming and noncomplying structures when damaged by fire or other natural causes, but deferred action on the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses portion of the recommended text changes previously forwarded by the Planning Commission. Mr. Zunguze suggested that the Planning Commission should decide and make a recommendation to reopen Petition No. 400-03-34 to include additional information.
Planner Everett Joyce stated that the City Council referred the proposal for enlargement, alteration, or intensification of nonconforming uses back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement of the guidelines and criteria to address neighborhood impacts and concerns, and identified the items that could be included in the ordinance criteria. He referred to his memorandum, noting that the list of identified items was included. A copy of the memorandum was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Joyce explained that the text modifications in red depicted the previously recommended text changes not adopted by the City Council, and the text modifications in blue depicted the changes in response to the City Council’s request for refinement. He said that the new standards related to the intensification of nonconforming structures. Mr. Joyce discussed this matter further.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff.
Commissioner Muir expressed concern that there was a distinction between limitations on development versus projects that have either burned or fallen down. Mr. Joyce said that the distinction was for intensification of an existing nonconforming development. He added that an existing structure could be expanded as long as there would be adequate off-street parking and would meet other City codes.
Mr. Joyce stated that there were over 300 nonconforming properties in the city and several could provide neighborhood community use. He said that the City Council gave an example of intensification of a small grocery store going to a restaurant. Mr. Joyce said that the proposed text changes would allow that to happen if the owner of the property would go through a conditional use process option rather than having to rezone the property for that use.
Commissioner Muir referred to No. C-1 on Page 3 of the text changes (Damage or Partial Destruction of Noncomplying Structures). He inquired why the material distinction between one who voluntarily razes a building to the extent of 75 percent, then replaces it, and someone in good faith deciding to restore a building and finding out that the building might be full of dry rot and termites, and built with unreinforced masonry, and ultimately rebuilding 95 percent of the structure. Commissioner Muir believed that the distinction would discourage people from restoring buildings. Mr. Joyce responded by saying that the current text reads 100 percent. He noted that it had always been 75 percent for fire damage and natural disaster and never a voluntary demolition. Mr. Joyce said that 75 percent threshold was always interpreted as a means to determine when demolition actually happened to a structure. He added that if it was at 100 percent, there would be no control over demolitions. Mr. Joyce said that Commissioner Muir made a good point, that cases could exceed 75 percent. He commented that the Building Services Division had recommended 75 percent.
Chairperson Chambless inquired if there were any additional questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
A short discussion took place among some of the Commissioners relating to the matter at hand.
Motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-34, nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures.
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission accept Petition No. 400-03-34, as is. The motion died for lack of a second.
The discussion continued regarding the acceptance of the original draft or to reopen the petition and have a public hearing on the matter.
Second and final motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-34, nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission reopen Petition No. 400-03-34 for the benefit of a public hearing. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
c. Review the definition of “Automobile” in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:
(This item was heard at 6:10 P.M.)
Mr. Zunguze referred to the memorandum from the Mayor requesting that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to review the definition of “automobile” found in Section 21A.62.060 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically considering the removal of the words “motor scooters” and “motorized bicycles” from the existing definition. He said that the way automobiles are currently defined is creating problems and need to be revised.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions of staff. After a short discussion, Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion to initiation a petition to determine the definition of “automobile” in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to review the definition of “automobile” in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
f. Review regulations pertaining to tents:
(This item was heard at 6:12 P.M.)
Mr. Zunguze referred to the memorandum from the Mayor requesting that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to comprehensively review all applicable regulations in the Zoning Ordinance that address the permitting of tents in both residential and commercial districts across the city.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions of staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion for the creation of a petition to review regulations pertaining to tents:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to review regulations pertaining to the permitting of tents in residential and commercial districts. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
g. Initiate a petition directing the Planning and Transportation Divisions to amend the 1996 Transportation Master Plan and the Major Street Plan:
(This item was heard at 6:13 P.M.)
Mr. Zunguze referred to a memorandum authored by Deputy Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, requesting that the Planning Commission initiate a petition, directing the Planning and Transportation Divisions to amend the 1996 Transportation Master Plan and the Major Street Plan.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion to initiate a petition to amend the Master Plan and Major Street Plan:
Commissioner Diamond moved to initiate a petition to amend the 1996 Transportation Master Plan and the Major Street Plan. It was seconded by Commissioner Noda. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
h. Discussion regarding the transmittal of Petition No. 400-02-12 to vacate a parcel of land at 500 West near 200 South:
(This item was heard at 6:15 P.M.)
Mr. Zunguze reported that the Planning Commission acted upon Petition No. 400-02-12 in 2002 and when considering the request to reopen the case, the Planning Commission asked staff that substantial information be provided. He noted that there have been subcommittee meetings held and many discussions with the Boyer Company and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) who are both major players in this matter. Mr. Zunguze suggested that the Planning Commission give an opportunity to the representatives from the Boyer Company and the RDA to say a few words in support of their respective positions. He noted that the question was whether the Planning Commission would stand by its previous decision or reopen the discussion and take into account the new information that is on the table at this time.
Chairperson Chambless pointed out that this matter was before the Planning Commission on April 8, 2005 where a recommendation was made and asked what changes had taken place. In response, Mr. Zunguze said that the changes were in the packet of information, as well as what the petitioners may share with the Commissioners at this meeting. In the interest of time, Commissioner Muir asked that the petitioner and staff contain their remarks to any new information.
Planner Doug Dansie stated that it was his understanding, from that April meeting, that the Planning Commission needed to have more time to study the issues before a decision was rendered. He referred to his memorandum, as well as the packet of information. Mr. Dansie pointed out the letter from Mr. Jake Boyer of the Boyer Company outlining his issues and the drawings of the proposed development for the larger sites, which the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee had reviewed, but the full Commission had not.
Mr. Dansie used a briefing board to describe the project. The following is a brief outline of the matter at hand: 500 West would become the Grand Boulevard, as outlined in the original master plan for the Gateway area. The street right-of-way was increased. RDA owns the property facing 200 South and the Boyer Company owns the surrounding land. Utah Power and Light (UP&L) has a substation on 500 West. Right now the power substation protrudes into the street. The land north of the RDA parcel would be swapped with the land on which the power substation is located. If the land is not swapped, a small section of 500 West between 400 South and North Temple would remain where private land pokes out into the right-of-way.
Mr. Dansie stated that the argument for selling is that the power substation has already been constructed and would be too expensive to revamp so the “parkway” is not a viable alternative any more. He said that the land was more viable for a grocery store.
Mr. Dansie said that the argument for not selling is that eventually something would be done with the power lines because those big transmission lines would have to be buried if a tall building was constructed next to them. He indicated that the parcel owned by the RDA is still large enough to build on. Mr. Dansie pointed out that selling the parcel would require an amendment to the master plan.
The discussion continued. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as consideration of underground cables, which would be technically possible but very costly, the reconfiguration of the substation, and the fact that the RDA no longer depended on the sale of the two properties to develop two blocks to the south.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Zunguze to enlighten the Commission as to the conversations with the RDA and UP&L. Mr. Zunguze said that the conversations have centered on cost issues and the numbers keep escalating.
In answer to a question, Mr. Dansie said that technology could advance and transformers could become smaller in the future, but the flip side of that is as development occurs the need for more energy would be greater.
Commissioner Diamond inquired if it was possible for the City to grant an easement, which would allow UP&L to build a vault or something below grade, and then the master plan would not have to be amended. Mr. Dansie said that could be possible but if vaults were built underneath the sidewalks, it would be difficult to plant trees along the boulevard.
Commissioner McDonough stated that she believed upholding the master plan is part of the responsibility of the Planning Commission and she was not willing to gamble on the likelihood of that scenario happening.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion regarding the transmittal of Petition No. 400-02-12 to vacate a parcel of land at 500 West near 200 South:
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission forward the original transmittal of Petition 400-02-12, of April 8, 2005 that is recommending denial to the City Council. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Chairperson Chambless indicated that all the reported items by the Planning Director were not listed on the agenda for this meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA - Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters.
Chairperson Chambless said that there were five matters on the Public Notice Agenda and called the Commissioner’s attention to matters No. b. and c. A copy of “Property Conveyance Matters” was filed with the minute of this meeting.
b. Stephen M. Rosenberg and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department - Mr. Rosenberg is requesting the approval of an equal area exchange to relocate by approximately 20 feet, the City’s existing easement for the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal, which bisects the old Dairy Queen restaurant property at 1247 South 1100 East. The actual canal pipe will remain in its current location, with just the easement being shifted in location to facilitate the redevelopment of the property, which is zoned Neighborhood Commercial CN. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the re-configuration of the easement; and
c. Rebecca McConnell and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department - Ms. McConnell is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard revocable permit to allow her to landscape and use as part of her yard, a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property, located at 6776 South 700 East Street in Midvale City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the revocable permit.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the correspondence from the Mayor’s Open Space Committee recommending that the Planning Commission not take action on these two items of property conveyance matters without further review. He noted that the matter will return to the Planning Commission after a logical solution is determined.
Chairperson Chambless said that a motion was not required for Public Conveyance Matter on the Public Notice Agenda. He inquired if there were any objections to the removal of Nos. b and c.
Commissioner Scott said that she had no objections but she asked if persons who enter into some type of a revocable permit agreement using acreage, such as the Salt Lake City Canal property, have to file the agreement with the Recorder’s office so it would not become a “messy” legal issue.
Chairperson Chambless invited a representative from the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department to address this issue.
Ms. Karryn Greenleaf from the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department stated that the City has a process that everyone who signs the agreement has the agreement recorded on the title against the property at the Salt Lake County Recorders Office.
Chairperson Chambless inquired if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak on these matters. Seeing none, Commissioner Chambless asked if there were additional questions of staff. There was none.
Mr. Zunguze excused himself and left the meeting at 6:35 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Petition No. 490-05-14 - Ivory Development Ltd requesting preliminary subdivision amendment approval to reconfigure a portion of the Fairmont Subdivision, Lots 6-12, and the west 21’ of Lot 13, Block II, of Fairmont Subdivision, at 2311 and 2327 E. Country Club Drive, into two residential lots for future construction of two single-family homes in an R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential Zoning District. (NOTE: This petition was tabled from the April 27, 2005, Planning Commission meeting and has been modified by the petitioner).
(This item was heart at 6:36 P.M.)
Planner Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Giraud stated that the applicant initially requested preliminary approval from the Planning Commission to reconfigure Lots 6 through 12 and the west 21 feet of Lot 13, Block II of the Fairmont Subdivision, from two residential lots into three, with the intention of developing the lots for three, single-family dwellings. She said that due to an omission in the staff report, the Planning Commission tabled the petition at its April 27, 2005 hearing.
Ms. Giraud indicated that in the meantime, the applicant revised his proposal, so that the existing two parcels would be reconfigured and to adjust the lot sizes, but no additional lots would be created. She added that the existing right-of-way in the current proposal will not change.
Ms. Giraud said that she inadvertently left out a section in her previous staff report,
Which states: “The amendment does not materially injure the public or any person and there is good cause for the amendment. The proposed subdivision amendment adheres to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Sugar House Master Plan. The proposed subdivision will not substantially change the character of the existing lot layout, the density of the neighborhood, or the character of the neighborhood in terms of subdivision layout. The existing right-of-way will be preserved and will be enjoyed by adjacent residents as a buffer from Country Club traffic. The revisions of the subdivision amendment address the concerns of the neighborhood. It thus does not materially injure the public or any person, and the proposal’s minor redistribution of lot size provides good cause for the amendment.”
Ms. Giraud used a briefing board which reflected the analysis of lot sizes in the community. She said that west of 2300 East, the lots are fairly large and consistent and on the other side of the street there is a greater disparity in lot sizes. Ms. Giraud indicated that all of the houses west of 2300 East were not constructed at the same time but it was platted as one subdivision, Country Club Acres. She pointed out that the lot sizes to the east reflect the different development patterns that were a bit more random and occurred at different times through different subdivision creations.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff.
Commissioner McDonough asked about the delineation of the color keys. Ms. Giraud pointed out the four colored sections. She said that the sections ranged from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet west of 2300 East. On the east side of 2300 East, Ms. Giraud pointed out the few lots at 7,000 square feet; most lots ranged from 9,000 to 12,000 square feet; and several are greater than 12,000 square feet.
Since there were no additional questions for staff, Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner to address the Commission.
Mr. Colin Wright of Ivory Development Ltd, stated that it was mentioned in the last meeting that Ivory had one buyer for two big lots and a few days after the meeting someone else contacted the office who would purchase the two large lots. Mr. Wright said that this minor subdivision amendment was to make both lots more equal in size and present the maximum flexibility for the future owners of those lots.
Chairperson Chambless asked if the Commission had any questions for the petitioner.
Commissioner De Lay asked how many square feet the houses would have that would be constructed on the two lots. Mr. Wright said it was too preliminary and was not certain to the exact size, but they would be in the range of 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. He added that they would be nice big homes and probably will take six months for the architectural design.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments at this time for the petitioner, Chairperson Chambless opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. He invited the representative from the community council to speak first.
Ms. Helen Peters, representing the Sugar House Community Council, spoke about the impact the proposed subdivision of the property would have on the neighborhood. However, she said that this matter was not the big issue in the community. Ms. Peters said that the real issue was the demolition of older smaller homes and being replaced by the large homes which is having a negative impact on the neighborhood. She indicated that the Sugar House Community Council does not support, in terms of buildings being allowable in the limits of the lot and in that respect, the subdivision for the two lots seems reasonable, and seems in context with the other lots in the neighborhood. Ms. Peters said that the Sugar House Community Council plans to present something to the Planning Commission requesting that restrictions on the size of homes being replaced by demolished homes.
Commissioner Galli asked Ms. Peters to explain what specific impact she was talking about. Ms. Peters said that it had been brought to her attention by a number of people who say that homes are going up for sale; they are being purchased; they are being demolished; and the format of the new homes or the designs of the new homes are not compatible with the surrounding homes. Commissioner Galli asked what authority Ms. Peters thought the Planning Commission had that would give the Commissioners the jurisdiction to look into those elements given the current Zoning Ordinances. Ms. Peters said that the proposal would be something like the Yalecrest Infill Ordinance, which was reviewed under the purview of the Planning Commission for design and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Scott said that she was curious why a representative of the Sugar House Community did not attend the meeting when this petition was first discussed. She said by having no one there, it was implied that the community council was in favor of the proposal. Ms. Peters apologized and said there was a scheduling issue. She said that she receives many calls regarding people who are speculative buying in the Sugar House Planning District.
Chairperson Chambless invited anyone from the public who wished to address the Commission to come forward.
Mr. Will Connolly said that he lives directly across the street from the subject property and he expressed his appreciation to the Ivory Company for the plans modification. He encouraged the right kinds of investment and renovation in the neighborhood. Mr. Connolly also talked about the speculative buying of properties in neighborhoods throughout the city. He believed the City needed a more precise tool to protect the communities. Commissioner Galli asked if Mr. Connolly had reviewed the Yalecrest Infill Ordinance and if he thought that would be a positive solution. Mr. Connolly said that he had not read the specifics of that ordinance. However, he said that the speculations he heard was that the Yalecrest area may be choosing to “overreach” and “too aggressively freezing the neighborhood”, leaving no room for change.
Mr. Tom Ellison, a resident of the neighborhood, said that he appreciated the gesture of the Ivory Company to take the lot split element out and limit this proposal. He said that Ms. Giraud in addressing the “good cause” requirement did insert some language that is quite important about maintaining the character of the community. Mr. Ellison talked about the potential change in the neighborhood. He believed the “good cause” standard was an important issue on which the Planning Commission should be focusing. Mr. Ellison discussed some of the issues regarding minor subdivision standards.
Mr. Ellison presented the Commissioners with copies of the analysis he had completed showing the discrepancies in the Zoning Ordinance and his proposal to rezone lots in the neighborhood. A copy of the report was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Ellison requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition regarding the zoning process. Commissioner Galli asked if the Planning Commission should include “maintaining the character of the neighborhood” clause. Mr. Ellison believed the character of the neighborhood clause was critical as it relates to the subdivision of lots. He said that his concern at this meeting was the character of zoning conforming more to actual lot size and then having the character be considered as an express requirement. He also said that if the issue is a lot split case, this is already incorporated through minor subdivision process. This discussion continued. In conclusion, Mr. Ellison said that he believed other petitions would be forthcoming, and encouraged staff and the members of the Planning Commission to look at his proposal.
Since there were no additional questions from the public, Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing. Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
There was some discussion regarding Mr. Ellison’s proposal.
Mr. Wheelwright said that there are two different standards separated by whether there had been a prior subdivision plat or not, so any change to a prior subdivision plat is by definition an amendment to that plat. He said that there is a set of standards for the “good cause” that is different than the approval criteria for minor subdivisions and is in a different section of the subdivision regulation. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that because there was a new lot, the result of the proposed amendment last time was an additional building area. He said that it is very clear that this was part of an old plat so it has to go through an amendment process and not through the initial subdivision process. Mr. Wheelwright noted that there is a difference in the noticing requirement. He said that the interests are different than in the initial subdivision activity.
Commissioner De Lay reminded the Commission that the Commissioners have to review the petition according to the current standards in the ordinance. She realized that the public was providing input into issues of valid concern. Commissioner De Lay said that there are neighborhoods that are improving economically from change. She encouraged the Commission to listen to the people in the communities to try and determine a resolution.
Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 490-05-14:
Commissioner Galli moved that the Planning Commission grant Petition No. 490-05-14 based on the findings of fact and recommendation included in the staff report. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Commissioner Galli said that he found Mr. Ellison’s presentation interesting and recommended that staff carefully evaluate the proposal and report back to the Commission.
Chairperson Chambless inquired if a formal motion was necessary.
Mr. Wilde said that the Planning Commission could initiate a petition for staff evaluation. He said that the issue is if the zoning in his area is appropriate. Mr. Wilde said that staff could evaluate his proposal, as well as other options, and report back to the Commission.
Commissioner Muir said that he again wanted to bring up the necessity of a growth accommodations format under housing issues in the master plans. He stated that the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council has the responsibility to accommodate growth in every neighborhood.
Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion to initiate a petition to evaluate Mr. Ellison’s proposal:
Commissioner Galli moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to direct staff to consider Mr. Ellison’s proposal in terms of potential implementation. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Commissioner Seelig excused herself and left the meeting at 7:04 P.M.
b. Petition No. 410-737 – Sortech LLC requesting planned development approval to build multiple buildings on a single lot and modify landscaping requirements for an industrial park at approximately 3550 West California Avenue in a Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning district.
(This item was heard at 7:05 P.M.)
Planner Janice Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation. A copy of which was filed with the minutes. This petition is in conjunction with the next petition, so there is only one staff report.
Ms. Lew said that the petitioner was requesting planned development approval to allow multiple buildings on a single lot and to modify landscaping requirements for a proposed industrial park along California Avenue. She said that the proposal also included a preliminary subdivision amendment requesting to reconfigure a portion of Sorenson Technology Park Subdivision Plat I into five developable lots known as Sortech North. Ms. Lew stated that staff recommended approval based on the analysis and findings of fact, and the conditions included in the staff report.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Brian Watson, of Soretch LLC., thanked Ms. Lew for the accurate staff report. He said that she described the project proposal very well. Mr. Watson said that he did not have anything further to report other than he was looking forward to starting a new project in Salt Lake City. He said that the structures would be tenant buildings, leasing out the spaces. Mr. Watson said that the buildings would be warehouse distribution facilities similar to other warehouse facilities in the area.
Since there were no questions for the petitioner, Chairperson Chambless asked if there was anyone representing the community council who wished to speak. Hearing none, he asked if there was anyone in the public who wished to speak. There was none so the Chair closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-737:
Based on staff’s analysis, findings of fact, and recommendation, Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission approve the proposed planned development as requested in Petition No. 410-737, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Planning Commission waives the requirements for perimeter parking lot landscaping on the interior lot lines of the development;
2) That the Planning Commission allows two buildings on Lot 2;
3) That the approval is conditioned upon compliance with departmental comments as outlined in the staff report; and
4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final site plan and landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director or designee.
Commissioner Muir seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay abstained. Commissioner Seelig was not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
c. Petition No. 490-05-13 – Sortech LLC requesting preliminary subdivision approval to reconfigure a portion of Sorenson Technology Park Subdivision Plat 1, Lot 4 (approximately 1235 South 3600 West), Lot 5 (approximately 1232 Gladiola Street), Lot 6 (approximately 3550 West California Avenue) and Lot 7 (approximately 3450 West California Avenue) into five developable lots in a Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning district.
(This item was heard at 7:11 P.M.)
Planner Janice Lew stated that she did not have any other comments other than Staff recommended approval based on the analysis and findings of fact, and the conditions included in the staff report.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff. Hearing none, he inquired if the petitioner wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Brian Watson again came forward to address the Commission. He said that he would answer any questions the Commissioners might have.
Since there were no questions for the petitioner, Chairperson Chambless asked if there was anyone representing the community council who wished to speak. Hearing none, he asked if there was anyone in the public who wished to speak. There was none so the Chair closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Chambless said that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 490-05-13:
Commissioner Noda moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 490-05-13 for Sortech LLC requesting preliminary subdivision approval to reconfigure a portion of Sorenson Technology Park Subdivision Plat 1. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner Seelig was not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
d Petition 410-741, by Salt Lake County, requesting conditional use approval to allow exceptions to the maximum five (5) foot front and corner side yard setback requirement and the Minimum First Floor Glass requirement for the proposed new construction of the Salt Palace meeting space to be located on the southeast corner of 200 West and South Temple at approximately 151 West South Temple. This area is zoned D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District. Under this proposal, the existing meeting rooms and lobby fronting on South Temple will be demolished. The new construction will bring the building closer to the property line on South Temple and retain the existing setback along 200 West.
(This item was heard at 7:16 P.M.)
Planner Joel Paterson presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation. A copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Paterson stated that the proposal before the Planning Commission at this meeting was to construct a new meeting hall space for the Salt Palace, which is the next part of the expansion program. He said that when the Planning Commission first heard the petition to add the additional exhibition hall space on 100 South and 300 West Streets, the building was originally significantly taller and had some meeting space on the upper level. Mr. Paterson said that the plan was modified and the meeting space was moved out of that portion and an additional 50,000 square feet of meeting space is proposed to be built on the southeast corner of South Temple and 200 West Streets.
Mr. Paterson pointed out that the existing facility, which is set back about 80 feet from the South Temple right-of-way, would be demolished. He said that a new structure would be constructed which would be brought out to the South Temple property line. Mr. Paterson added that the new building would maintain the existing setback from 200 West Street. He said that the new construction would replace the exact same functions that currently exist with the intent to upgrade the facility to current industry standards. Mr. Paterson stated that the petition proposes modifications of the D-4 Urban Design Standards. He said that the Zoning Ordinance provisions allow the Planning Commission to modify or waive those standards through a conditional use process. Mr. Paterson used a briefing board to further describe the project.
Mr. Paterson stated that the petitioner is requesting to modify the maximum allowable front and corner side yard setbacks on South Temple and 200 West Streets and to waive the first floor glass requirement on 200 West Street. He said that there would be glass along the frontage of the two-story structure on South Temple. Mr. Paterson pointed to the portion of the proposed South Temple facade that would be set back approximately 7 feet from the front property line to allow some architectural detailing to break up that long facade. Mr. Paterson said that 60 percent of the South Temple facade would be located at the property line, and the remaining portion of the facade is proposed to exceed the maximum setback by approximately two feet. Mr. Paterson noted that the petitioner is requesting to maintain the corner side yard setback of the existing meeting space. He said that a retaining wall and a planter are proposed along 200 West facade.
Mr. Paterson offered to the Planning Commission staff’s recommendation granting the modification of front and corner side yard maximum five-foot setback to allow approximately 7-foot setback off South Temple and a setback of between 24 and 42 feet on 200 West, and also to waiving the 40 percent minimum first floor glass requirement on 200 West Street, subject to the conditions included in the staff report.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff.
Answering Commissioner Scott’s question about the seven-foot setback and if the overhang came out into the public right-of-way, Mr. Paterson said that the overhang of the awning does encroach into the public right-of-way and will require an encroachment permit and a lease from the City’s Property Management Division, which would be handled administratively. He also said that the setback for 40 percent of the facade is an additional two feet beyond the five-foot maximum. Commissioner Scott asked for a description of the proposed planter on the west elevation. Mr. Paterson referred to the site plan that accompanied the staff report.
Chairperson Chambless invited those who were representing the petitioner to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Burke Cartwright of EDA Architects and Mr. Ken Ament of Construction Control Corporation, project manager for Salt Lake County, were in attendance representing the petitioner. Mr. Cartwright said that he could describe the planters and how they would function. He said that the planters would be on the exterior plaza. Mr. Cartwright pointed out that the intention was to let the landscaping fall over and drop down over the high concrete walls. Mr. Paterson said that there were street trees along the sidewalk dropping down on 200 West Street.
Commissioner Muir indicated that it seemed to him when looking at the site plan all those doors emptying onto that west plaza would be exit doors. He said that he would guess that would be the required width for exiting a building and if those are all required Commissioner Muir asked how the width could drop from a 42-foot width down to a 24-foot width as a conveyance out to the public right-of-way. Mr. Cartwright responded by saying that was an existing requirement at the widest portion. He said that the smallest dimension would meet the standard because of the additional exiting on the east side. Commissioner Muir commented that was not a Planning Commission issue, but a safety issue.
Chairperson Chambless inquired if there would be skylights on the roof. Mr. Cartwright said there would not be skylights because the intent is not to have windows in the meeting rooms. Mr. Ament stated that windows were added on the second level for articulation of that streetscape and that was a big topic of discussion.
Commissioner McDonough referring to the 40 percent glazing modification said that because the meeting rooms would be isolated within the bigger envelope, it would seem logical that windows could be put on the 200 West side. Responding to Commissioner McDonough’s question, Mr. Cartwright said that the 200 West wall would be primarily the required exiting and adding windows would affect the structure of the wall. Commissioner McDonough believed that smaller windows could be added like the ones under the lower canopy, which would help the pedestrian turn the corner and see activity in the building. She said that the underpass on 200 West is very threatening to a pedestrian, so she would hesitate relinquishing that wall entirely to no glass.
Commissioner Muir believed there needed to be some relief to the west wall. He suggested taking the first tier of the concrete screening wall down to plaza level and adding an open railing, which would visually help that corner. Mr. Cartwright said that it would break up the retaining wall as well.
Commissioner Diamond said that there was an opportunity to break up that concrete wall even if a couple of windows were punched in the three stairwells to delineate those exit doors and introduce landscaping on the west side.
In defense of the west elevation, Mr. Cartwright stated that a local architect who he admires once told him, “There isn’t anything quite as beautiful as a well-proportioned blank wall.”
The discussion continued focusing on the site plan and elevation renderings.
Chairperson Chambless asked about the future of the mature trees existing on the site. Mr. Ament said that the intent is to transplant those trees. He mentioned that the trees were planted after the 1996 expansion so they are still young enough to be moved to other locations in Salt Lake County.
Since there were no additional questions, Chairperson Chambless asked if there was a member of the community council or a member of the public who wished to address the Commission.
Ms. Bonnie Mangold, an interested citizen, stated that she is a trustee in the Capitol Hill Community Council. She expressed her concern that reducing the setback on South Temple could hide, what view is left, of Abravanel Hall. Ms. Mangold said that she believed that Abravanel Hall is a landmark and one of the most beautiful buildings in Salt Lake City. Commissioner De Lay mentioned that one of the plans for the proposed development is that this would become an arena for art. Mr. Ament said that a plaza would be developed between the proposed expansion of the Salt Palace and Abravanel Hall.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were additional comments from the public or questions of staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless closed this portion of the meeting with no further discussion. Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion.
First motion for Petition No. 410-741:
Regarding Petition No. 410-741, Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission grant a conditional use approval for the proposed exceptions, as outlined on Page 11 of the staff report dated May 25, 2005. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
After a discussion relating to the matters at hand, Commissioner Scott accepted an amendment to her motion.
Second and amended final motion for Petition No. 410-741:
Regarding Petition No. 410-741, Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission grant a conditional use approval for the proposed modifications of the D-4 Zoning District Urban Design Guidelines to accommodate the construction of the Salt Palace meeting rooms as presented, based on staff’s findings of fact and recommendation. This approval grants the following modifications to the following D-4 Urban Design Guidelines:
Front and corner side yard setback:
a. South Temple: A setback of approximately seven feet shall be allowed for the western forty percent (40%) of the building facade, as shown on the site plan.
b. 200 West Street: The setback for this facade varies from approximately twenty-four (24) to forty-two (42) feet, as shown on the site plan.
Minimum first floor glass:
a. 200 West Street: Waive the minimum first floor glass requirement for the 200 West facade, as shown on the site plan.
This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan and elevation drawings shall be approved by the Planning Director;
2. The petitioner shall address all departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation ordinance standards;
3. The petitioner shall coordinate with the Salt Lake City Urban Forester on the design and planting materials of the proposed planter along the 200 West property line.
Further, that the Planning Commission strongly recommends that glazed openings be added to the 200 West wall to add to the pedestrian scale of the street, lowering the retaining wall and adding an open railing, and the addition of landscaping on the west elevation. Also that all recommendations by the Planning Commission be coordinated and approved by the Planning Director, at his discretion.
Commissioner Noda’s second still stood. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay abstained. Commissioner Seelig was not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
(It is noted that a discussion regarding the west façade took place after the motion was made.)
Commissioner Scott said that she wanted to thank Ms. Mangold for making those observations.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(These items were heard at 7:53 P.M.)
A discussion developed regarding Petition No. 400-02-12, which was heard earlier at this meeting. Commissioner Muir stated that he appreciated the fact that the Planning Commission conveyed the seriousness about preserving the 500 West park blocks and would like to send a message to the RDA that the Planning Commission realized that they are sitting on a piece of ground that may never be an appropriate reconfiguration for UP&L’s substation and encouraged representatives from the RDA and the UP&L to meet to try to find a resolution.
Commissioner Galli said that he thought the same thing and then it occurred to him that the solution is incumbent on the Boyer Company. He said that he agreed with the initial settlement.
Commissioner Scott observed that the Planning Commission made its initial decision less than a month ago for a good reason. She said that the real issue is that they are not happy with the decision that the Planning Commission rendered.
Commissioner Noda noted that in order for a petitioner to bring a request back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration there would have to be new and substantial evidence submitted that might warrant a reversal.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was further discussion.
There being no further business, Chairperson Chambless adjourned the meeting at
8:00 P.M.