SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Cindy Cromer, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Ann Roberts and Gilbert Iker. Ralph Becker, Ralph Neilson, Lynn Beckstead, Jim McRea and Kimball Young were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Val Halford, Everett Joyce, Cheri Coffey, Elizabeth Egleston, Alex Beseris and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Howa. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. 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
Ms. Kirk moved to approve the minutes of April 20, 1995 as presented. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-170 by Willis Boyd reguesting a conditional use for an Industrial Planned Development for the proposed Evergreen Business Park consisting of four buildings arranged on a 7.75 acre site at 4130 West 2037 South in the Industrial “M-1 " zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes
Ms. Cromer pointed out that this parcel did not meet the ten acre requirement by more than two acres.
Ms. Pahl said the staff intended to reevaluate whether the ten acre requirement was too restrictive.
Mr. Willis Boyd, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-170 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-13 by Gerald E. Nielson requesting the property located east of Redwood Road on the south side of California Avenue be declared surplus.
Mr. Alex Beseris presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Beseris stated that an additional approval condition had been added by the Property Management Division that the petitioner obtain an appraisal of the property at his own expense.
Ms. Cromer asked if there were any contamination issues connected to this property.
Mr. Beseris stated that there were none to his knowledge and added that the Property Management Division would probably obtain an environmental evaluation on the property.
Ms. Cromer suggested that it would be a good idea to have one done on the property.
Mr. Gerald Nielson, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to recommend, to the City Council, approval of Petition No. 400-95-13 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report as well as the additional condition imposed by the Property Management Division that an appraisal be obtained by the petitioner at his expense. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-174 by Dave Ramos requesting a conditional use for a restaurant in an existing commercial building at 1 394 South West Temple in a Residential Business IIRB" Zoning District.
Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Dave Ramos, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Ramos stated that the conditions of approval had already been incorporated into the plans for the project and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Ms. Cromer asked how he intended to handle graffiti problems.
Mr. Ramos explained that the fence would be constructed of cedar which could be cleaned with a high pressure steam cleaning process.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-17 4 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and that the restaurant be allowed to remain open later on game nights. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-168 by Rod Brown requesting a conditional use for a group home at 2487 South 700 East in a Residential “RMF-30" zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Wilde stated that a there were several different categories of group homes but explained that they did not allow persons who had been diagnosed with substance abuse problems or who were staying in the home as a result of criminal offenses.
Mr. Rod Brown, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Brown stated that this program was designed to reintegrate youths who had been disenfranchised back into the community and added that this type of service was desperately needed in Salt Lake. Mr. Brown stated that the youths in this program would be very closely supervised and the facility would offer 24 hour management. He explained that the temporary residents would attend public schools and that they offered programs to help them develop the kinds of skills necessary to exist successfully in society.
Ms. Cromer asked who the sponsoring entity was for the project.
Mr. Brown responded that they were a nonprofit Utah corporation that had been operating under the State of Utah for several years.
Ms. Cromer asked if they would be in a custody position with the children. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative and added that State case workers would be assigned to each of the children.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Roger Atkinson, a resident of the area, stated that he was concerned that there were too many group homes in this neighborhood. He explained that there were already at least five other group home facilities within four blocks of this proposed project. Mr. Atkinson stated that he believed this area was becoming inundated with facilities of this nature.
Ms. Tawna Merrill, a resident of the area, expressed concern that the goals of the organization would change in the future after this matter was approved.
Ms. Merrill stated that she had several questions such as a turn-over rate and what Mr. Brown's definition of substance abuse included. Ms. Merrill stated that she was concerned relative to the safety of the children in the neighborhood as well as the influence on them.
Mr. Milt Fulmer, a resident of the area, stated that he was opposed to this project at this location and added that he believed it would devalue his property.
Ms. Yvonne Jones, a resident of the area, stated that they had had a lot of gang problems in their neighborhood and added that she was concerned about the supervision of these youths and that they might be allowed to run free at night.
Mr. Howa asked if she had been invited to any of the previous meetings relating to this project.
Ms. Jones responded in the negative stating that she had not been aware of any of them.
Mr. Robert Surridge, a proctor parent for this organization, stated that they had taken several children from Youth Corrections and the Division of Family Services into their home on different occasions. Mr. Surridge said he understood the concerns of the residents in the area who were not familiar with this project but added that he and his wife had a nine year old and a 17 year old of their own and had never experienced any problems with these youths. He stated that he was in favor of this project and added that the community needed services of this type. He added that these youths would be under extensive supervision at all times.
Ms. Shirley Kumik, a resident of the area, stated that she recognized the need for facilities of this nature but added that she did not think it was fair to subject the elderly people in the neighborhood to have to live in fear of what these youths might do.
Mr. Robert Norwood, a resident of the area, stated that the neighborhood was working diligently to clean up their neighborhood and he believed they had already “done their part" relative to hosting facilities such as this.
Mr. W.W. Richmond, a resident of the area, stated that several of the homes in this area had been broken into several times and he and several of his neighbors were opposed to this project. Mr. Richmond said their neighborhood did not need any additional problems.
Ms. Afton Kyriopoulos, a resident of the area, expressed concern that property values would decrease, that this area already had too many of these types of facilities and added that she was also concerned about how long this particular sponsorship would last and if the supervision of the youths mentioned would exist in reality.
Ms. Sharon Cow dry, a concerned citizen, stated that it was community support that allowed these kinds of organizations to succeed. She stated that she lived closer to the Sugar House area and added that they had battled a break-in problem in her neighborhood as well. Ms. Cowdry stated that crime existed all over the City She added that she felt the people attending this meeting were condemning the youths of this project without giving the project a chance.
Mr. Mark Weisbender, a clinical staff member who had worked with the mentally ill, stated that he understood the neighborhood's concerns but added that those concerns were seldom realized. Mr. Weisbender stated that he had worked with a group of “hard core" youths who were worse off than the youths who would be staying at this site and added that they had never experienced the youths causing problems for the neighborhood. He stated that the level of supervision and structure would be very high.
Ms. Ann Allen, a resident of the area, stated that they lived immediately behind this site, that they had eight children and they were very concerned about this proposal. She added that this neighborhood already had plenty of these facilities and requested the Planning Commission think hard before approving this request.
Mr. Rawlins Young, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that they hoped the Planning Commission would postpone their decision on this matter until the neighborhood had had an opportunity to meet with the petitioners in order to become more informed about this project and the impacts it would have on the neighborhood. Mr. Young said he believed the City needed to be able to keep track of where these kinds of facilities were located.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Howa asked Mr. Brown why this matter had not been presented to the Sugar House Community Council.
Mr. Brown explained that they had met with the community council's land use subcommittee and stated that the next meeting of the community council had been held the night before this meeting. Mr. Brown stated that there had only been one dissenting point of view from the land use committee and support from everyone else on the land use committee. Mr. Brown stated that they had made their presentation to the Sugar House Community Council the previous evening.
Ms. Cromer asked Mr. Brown about their staffing ratios.
Mr. Brown responded that they operated under the standards of care as imposed by the State of Utah.
Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Joyce if there had been any discussions with the Police Department relative to impacts of these kinds of facilities on the neighborhoods in which they reside.
Mr. Joyce responded that they had never discussed the spacing of these projects with the Police Department.
Ms. Short moved to table this matter until the petitioner had had the opportunity to present this project to the neighborhood in more detail and allay some of their fears and concerns relative to how this project would be operated and the impact it would have on them. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
It was agreed this matter would be brought back to the Planning Commission for their review at the June 1, 1995 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-169 by Glen Lambert representing Odyssey House of Utah requesting a conditional use for a residential substance abuse treatment home to be located in the former Moose Lodge at 607 East 200 South in a Residential "RMF-45" zoning district.
Mr. Val Halford presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Glen Lambert, Executive Director of Odyssey House, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lambert stated that they needed to relocate since their existing facility on 200 East was not big enough for their needs. He stated that they would not be increasing their general population, only their square footage. Mr. Lambert explained their program, the quality of their projects and the high success ratios of their clients after leaving Odyssey House. Mr. Lambert stated that they took great pride in their facilities and their community and they worked hard to be good neighbors and to improve their community. He stated that there had never been neighborhood crimes committed that had involved any of their clients and that the level of supervision for their residents was high. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. George Fergus, a resident of the area, stated that he believed everybody realized the needed service Odyssey House provided to the community. Mr. Fergus said he believed the greatest issues needing to be considered were the long term planning issues such as: 1) approval of this project would create five substance abuse treatment centers in this neighborhood within a two-to-five block radius; and 2) possible impacts relative to attracting home owners for this area.
Ms. Sue Neider, a resident of Markea Avenue, stated that she was one of three people who had attended the April 24th Moose Lodge meeting to discuss this matter. Ms. Neider stated that there was not one person who lived on Markea Avenue who was not in support of this project. She said they looked forward to working with the group at Odyssey House and welcomed them to the neighborhood.
Reese, a two year graduate of the adolescent program at Odyssey House, stated that she had lived the Odyssey House program for nine months and it had turned her life around. She stated that the graduates of the Odyssey House program were free of drug abuse and were sober and added that approval of this request would help them offer better services to their residents. She added that residents of Odyssey House were good neighbors who were willing to help others out in any way that they could.
Mr. Dave Billeter, a resident of the area, stated that his main concern had been a lack of notice of this project. He stated that none of the tenants in the condominium he lived in had received notice with the exception of one person who had posted the notice on the bulletin board. Mr. Billeter stated that they had not been informed of the meeting at the Moose Lodge and he did not know if the tenants of this building were even concerned or not but added that they should have been notified on the chance that they were. He asked what kind of
guarantees they had that the petitioners would not increase their population. Mr. Billeter said he was concerned about the number of these kinds of facilities in their neighborhood and added that he would like to see them spread out among the other communities in the City.
Ms. Suzanne Gustin-Fergus, a resident of the area, expressed concern about the number of these projects in their neighborhood and the possibility that their property values would decrease because of them. She requested the Planning Commission delay taking any action on this matter until they had had the chance to review it in greater detail and added that they had not received adequate notification of this project.
Officer Phil Kirk, representing the Salt Lake City Police Department, stated that he had worked closely with the Odyssey House for the past three years. He stated that Odyssey House had received an award for their community service for their contributions to Block 18. Officer Kirk stated that none of the crime in the neighborhood had involved the Odyssey House other than a few of their clients who had run away.
Ms. Sherlynn Pearson, a resident of the area, stated that she had just received notice of this meeting at 5:00 p.m. this evening. She requested they be allowed to have more time to review this matter before any decisions were made. She stated that she did not feel safe around the Odyssey Houses because they were not as organized as they claimed.
Mr. Allen Behunin, Executive Director of Tree Utah, stated that they had worked with Odyssey House for approximately five years to plant trees around the City. Mr. Behunin stated that he had found the clients and organization of Odyssey House to be everything Mr. Lambert claimed. He stated that his experience with this group was that they were a plus to the community and very dependable.
Mr. Mohammed Mackey, a resident of Block 18, stated that he was in favor of this project and added that the Odyssey House project was an asset to any neighborhood. Mr. Mackey stated that the residents of Odyssey House had helped him do repairs at his home and had proved to be very good neighbors.
Mr. Jim Allred, a property owner in the area, stated that neither he nor his tenants had received notification of this project. He stated that he was not necessarily opposed to this project but added that he felt it should be postponed due to lack of notification.
Mr. Halford stated that the notice had been mailed to the property owner of record with the County.
Mr. Allred stated that he had purchased the property on contract.
Mr. Wright explained that the City was responsible to mailing notices to property owners of record since there was no way to determine which properties in the City had been sold on a contract basis. Mr. Halford also stated that notice of this meeting had been mailed to the Prescott Home Owners Association.
Ms. Dionne Stevensen, a resident of Block 18, stated that she had lived in this neighborhood for about 40 years and they had never had a “Clean" neighborhood until Odyssey House moved in and cleaned everything up.
Mr. Dave Pearson, a resident of the area, stated that he was in support of all of the comments about a lack of notification. Mr. Pearson stated that his wife had failed to mention when she addressed the Planning Commission that she was on the Prescott Condominium Board. He stated that he did not think the issue was whether or not Odyssey House would make a good neighbor but rather, how it might impact property values.
Ms. Dolly Rauh, a resident of the area, stated that she would like to welcome Odyssey House to the neighborhood and added that the Moose Club had offered nothing but problems to the neighborhood. She stated that she felt the major issue of consideration was whether or not this project would be an asset to the neighborhood which she believed it would be. Ms. Rauh pointed out that a notice had been posted in front of the Moose Club and if the condominium residents had bothered to read it they would have known about this meeting.
Ms. Lois Brown, Chair of the Central City Neighborhood Council, stated that they were in support of this project. She stated that Odyssey House had been an excellent neighbor and an asset to Block 18. Ms. Brown stated that to leave the Moose Lodge vacant would be very damaging to the property values so many people seemed concerned about.
Mr. Steven Hutchinson, a member of the Odyssey House Board of Directors, stated that they were committed to this neighborhood and would be making an investment in the neighborhood in the vicinity of $1 million. Mr. Hutchinson said they had a long term commitment to the community and the adolescents they would be
working with. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Cromer said she felt the City needed to examine the spacing requirements and locations of these kinds of facilities.
Mr. Iker stated that he did not believe the density issue applied in this case because one facility would be closing and another opening.
Ms. Cromer pointed out that this facility was moving closer toward other similar facilities and therefore, the density was increasing for the area this facility was moving to, even though the density for the entire community council area would not change.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-1 69, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-172 by Joseph & Yvonne Supjnger requesting a conditional use for a bed and breakfast establishment at 941 East 500 South in a Landmark Site. the Aaron Keyser-Matthew Cullen House, in a Residential "RME-35" zoning district.
Ms. Elizabeth Egleston presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Cromer stated that the Polk Directory listing the building as vacant since 1987 were not accurate, and stated that she had been in the building while it was occupied between 1987 and 1992.
Mr. Lynn Morgan, the project architect, and Mr. David Supinger, representing the petitioners, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Supinger stated that his family would be seeking placement on the national register for this building, not just the City's register of cultural resources. He added that they would be doing extensive renovations to bring the building up to the state where it should be. Mr. Supinger said he believed this would be very compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and added that he did not believe the building would ever be restored to a single family dwelling. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request. Mr. Supinger stated that the biggest complaint they had received had been relative to the fact that his parents would not be living on the site.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address
the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Alan Hardman stated that he supported the use of this structure for a bed and breakfast establishment. Councilmember Hardman stated that the petitioner's option had run out and another person had an option on the building who was willing to renovate the site as a single family dwelling. He added that his number one preference was for a single family dwelling, but if that was not possible, he was in support of the bed and breakfast.
Mr. Supinger stated that it was true that their option had expired but added that he had spoken with the property owner earlier that day who had encouraged him to proceed with the necessary bed and breakfast approvals.
Ms. Beverly Andreason, an adjoining property owner, stated that they would prefer the building become a single family dwelling but added that they were in support of the bed and breakfast. Ms. Andreason gave a brief history of this property and the problems that had existed in connection with it.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Cromer expressed concern that the building was not threatened with demolition. Ms. Cromer stated that since this facility was located in a residential area, there should be a resident manager on site. Ms. Cromer moved to adopt the staff findings and approve the request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with additional conditions that fencing be installed to buffer noise, lights and visual impacts between this project and the abutting property, and that there be a consistent resident manager on site. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Kirk asked why Ms. Cromer felt a resident manager was necessary.
Ms. Cromer responded that it would lend stability to a street consisting largely of rental properties to have a resident manager at this site and since this was a residential neighborhood, this facility should have more of a residential character than a commercial one.
A discussion followed on whether the Planning Commission could legally require a resident manager for this project and not require the same for every other bed and breakfast establishment in the City and the advantages and disadvantages of a resident manager. Several members of the Commission expressed concern that it would be discriminatory to require a resident manager at one facility and not at others.
Mr. Howa called for a vote on the motion. Ms. Cromer voted “Aye”; Ms. Short,
Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker voted “Nay"; Ms. Roberts abstained from the vote. Mr.
Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present.
Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Mr. Iker moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-1 7 2 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion subject to the motion including the increase in the number of rooms from ten to 12 as proposed by the petitioner. Mr. Iker agreed to the amendment to the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker voted "Aye"; Ms. Cromer voted “Nay". Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Historical Landmark Case No. 007-95 by Bill and Tom Heers. represented by Burke Cartwright. requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources by designating the Salt Lake Brewing Company building at 460 South 1 000 East as a Landmark Site: and Ms. Elizabeth Egleston presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Bill Heers and Mr. Tom Heers, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bill Heers requested they be given some time to remove the billboards on the building since they were still under lease.
Mr. Tom Heers stated that they were familiar with the staff recommendation and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wright stated that the staff would support at least three months for the removal of the billboards and that a request for additional time could be filed if the three month period was not adequate.
Ms. Cromer moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council on the request to place this building on the historical register of cultural resources. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-171 by Bill and Tom Heers. represented by Burke Cartwright. requesting a conditional use for a bed and breakfast establishment at 460 South 1000 East in a Commercial “CN" zoning district.
Ms. Elizabeth Egleston presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Egleston handed out a letter from Mr. Norman B. Andreason, and adjoining property owner who requested a fence be constructed between their properties to buffer the noise, lights and visual impacts. A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Cromer asked if the City had an inventory of preservation easements.
Mr. Wright responded that the process was to convey the easement to the Utah Heritage Foundation and responded that the City had not retained any preservation easements.
Mr. Tom Heers, the petitioner, gave a brief presentation on their plans for the bed and breakfast and explained their plans of operation. He stated that this facility would be similar to their existing Anniversary Inn and would mostly cater to local married couples.
Mr. Burke Cartwright, the architect for the project, stated that several recommendations had been made by the Historic Landmark Commission which would be incorporated into the plans. Mr. Cartwright used a briefing board to demonstrate the project's site plan. He stated that they desired to upgrade the existing parking structure.
Ms. Roberts asked what would happen when leases for the Salt City Jail and Hairmasters expired.
Mr. Heers stated that they were both interested in renewing their leases so they would probably be extended.
Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Heers if the project would work if the number of rooms was reduced from 32 to 30.
Mr. Heers responded that they could survive with 30 rooms but expressed preference for 32.
Mr. George Daines, an attorney representing the Heers, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that
Mr. Heers had asked him to find the legal definition of a bed and breakfast.
Mr. Daines stated that the term was a general term subject to different interpretations and that no precise legal definition existed. Mr. Daines stated that the general term implied 50 or less units and was often confused with the term “Home Stays” which generally referred to someone who lived in the home and had people stay at their home in different bedrooms. Mr. Daines stated that approval of this request would produce a win/win situation, that the City Ordinance requirements would be met, the building would be enhanced and the neighborhood would benefit. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Alan Hardman stated that he believed this was probably the best use for this building when considering all of the possible uses that might exist in the building, but questioned when a bed and breakfast became a hotel.
Councilmember Hardman said he believed this project ran counter to the image of what most people had of a bed and breakfast. He stated that for an institution to be admitted to the Utah Bed and Breakfast Association they had to be limited to 18 units. Councilmember Hardman stated that without defining limits on size and considering how many large mansions existed in the City, if they were all turned into small luxury hotels it would create a problem. He recommended the Planning Commission more clearly define bed and breakfast establishments for future reference. He asked the Planning Commission when the line would be crossed between a bed and breakfast and a hotel.
Ms. Nancy Pace, a concerned citizen and bed and breakfast owner, stated that she was more concerned with the way the ordinance was written than with a particular application. Ms. Pace suggested the City work to refine its definition of a bed and breakfast. She stated that they had been very deliberate in establishing their bed and breakfast to not have it be owner occupied. Ms. Pace stated that she felt it was vital that the employees be able to get away from their place of employment and it had been important to their image to not have the managers live on site.
Mr. Keith Lewis, a concerned citizen and bed and breakfast owner, stated that he did not agree with calling a 32 unit facility a bed and breakfast. Mr. Lewis stated that his clientele was specific in not wanting to stay in a hotel facility which was why they chose a bed and breakfast to stay in. Mr. Lewis turned in a statement signed by five other bed and breakfast establishment owners opposing the approval of a bed and breakfast containing 34 + rooms. A copy of this statement is filed with the minutes. Ms. Kirk asked Mr. Lewis if he lived on site. Mr. Lewis responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Michael Hughes, a concerned citizen, stated that he disagreed with Councilmember Hardman that a lot of small luxury hotels would be a problem.
Mr. Hughes stated that they were preferable to many commercial uses and better for residential neighborhoods than most commercial uses. He stated that he was in support of this project, that he believed it would be an asset to this neighborhood and made a lot of sense and it didn't matter what it was called. Mr. Hughes stated that anyone willing to invest the kind of money the Heers would be investing in this project would make sure it was well maintained and properly operated.
Mr. Tim Anchor, the real estate agent who assisted the Heers with purchasing this building, stated that they had canvassed the immediate neighborhood to determine how the neighbors would feel about a bed and breakfast establishment in this building. He handed out a copy of the names and addresses of the immediate neighbors who were in support of this project. He pointed out that the community council had voted 18/6 in favor of this project and requested the Planning Commission not lose site of what the community desired. A copy of that list is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Kirk asked if they had informed the neighbors that the bed and breakfast would contain 32 rooms.
Mr. Anchor responded that they had been very specific in making sure everyone understood the size of the project. Mr. Anchor handed out a letter from Mr. Glen Roberts, a neighbor in support of this project who had not been able to attend this meeting, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Jane Levan Johnson, a concerned citizen and owner of a bed and breakfast in the County, expressed great concern about the damage a project of this size might have on the bed and breakfast industry. She stated that they had worked hard over the years to create the image of a bed and breakfast as being an intimate, wonderful experience for their clients and they did not want that image destroyed. Ms. Johnson said they lived on the site and their clients got to know the whole family and she did not want to be compared to a “quickie" overnight establishment.
Mr. Michael Haar, a concerned citizen and a freelance residential innkeeper, stated that he contracted out for a one year period and lived on the site. Mr. Haar stated that “AAA" defined a bed and breakfast as being a smaller establishment emphasizing personal attention with individually decorated guest rooms providing an “at home" feeling. He stated that the “AAA" guidelines listed beds and breakfasts as having no less than four rooms and no more than 25 rooms and in the past three years they had not approved an establishment with more than 23 rooms. He stated that he believed the developer was using a loop hole in the zoning regulations to develop a hotel in a residential neighborhood and strongly urged the Planning Commission to deny this request.
Ms. Nancy Saxton, a concerned citizen and owner of a bed and breakfast, stated that they had worked hard for many years to establish the bed and breakfast industry. Ms. Saxton stated that it was not true that there was little or no definition of a bed and breakfast, that the industry associations had defined all kinds of establishments including beds and breakfasts. She pointed out information on industry standards had been included in the Planning Commission's packets for this meeting. Ms. Saxton stated that the American Bed and Breakfast Association had informed her that the Anniversary Inn had been refused membership in their organization because they would not qualify as a bed and breakfast. She stated that the question before the Planning Commission was not whether or not these were nice people proposing a nice use for this property, but rather, that a hotel was not allowed in the Commercial “CN" zoning district. She added that if it walked like a duck and it quacked like a duck, you could call it a mouse but it was still a duck. She stated that nothing in the nation was allowed in any of the industry associations with more than 30 units. Ms. Saxton stated that the establishments in Louisiana existed as conglomerations of buildings under more than one roof. She said there was not one project of this size in 33 state associations and two national associations with more than 25 rooms under one roof. She said it was clear that a hotel was a hotel and not allowed in the Commercial “CN" zone.
Ms. Saxton stated that the question before the Planning Commission was not whether or not this was a good use for this building, but rather, that the zoning for this area precludes a hotel.
Ms. Beverly Andreason, a resident of the area, stated that as a next door neighbor, she and her husband were in favor of this project and believed it was the perfect use for the building.
Mr. Jan Bartlett, a concerned citizen and owner of a bed and breakfast, stated that they had worked hard for many years to establish the bed and breakfast industry and added that beds and breakfasts were a unique industry. Mr. Bartlett stated that the petitioner had stated at the previous night's community council meeting that they were not a bed and breakfast, that they didn't care what they were called but that they just wanted to get approval for their project. Mr. Bartlett requested the Planning Commission table this request. He stated that for those in the industry who had worked so hard to obtain their licenses, to build their businesses and satisfy their guests with quality service, they did not want someone using their name to get a hotel approved. Mr. Bartlett said he deeply resented the lack of integrity demonstrated by the petitioners to use their name and reputation when they were in actuality, a hotel. He stated that honesty about their proposal had been requested of them and should be requested of these petitioners as well. Mr. Bartlett stated that it was his understanding that between the time the Zoning Ordinance had been approved by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council, the definition of bed and breakfast had been changed. Mr. Bartlett stated that the definition had been changed without notification to beds and breakfasts or notification to the City Council. He stated that the intent of the rewrite project had been to obtain citizen and community participation to arrive at clear designations and definitions for the City and he added that the Planning Commission's vote on this matter needed to reinforce that lengthy and important process. He stated that if the petitioners truly wanted to develop a bed and breakfast they would know that their plan is not consistent with thousands of beds and breakfasts across the nation. He suggested this matter be tabled out of respect to the other innkeepers who were so concerned about the impact approval of this matter would have on them. Mr. Bartlett stated that the petitioners' refusal to acknowledge the concerns of fellow business owners had convinced him that they were using the hard earned reputation of bed and breakfast owners to get what they wanted regardless of the impact to the rest of the industry. He stated that if the Planning Commission approved this request they would increase the speed of movement in this industry but in the wrong direction. Mr. Bartlett stated that a member of the Planning Staff had attended the meeting the previous evening and had made a statement that to table this would lengthen the process the petitioner would have to go through. Mr. Bartlett stated that when he had been obtaining approvals for his business, no one had ever extended preferential treatment like that and added that he had been astounded that a City representative would make such a statement in a public meeting as if the issues being raised were of no importance and the only thing that mattered was a speedy approval for the petitioner. He requested the Planning Commission honor the other bed and breakfast establishments by recognizing that the proposal was outside of the state and national definitions of a bed and breakfast and that they were being used to build a hotel in a residential district. Mr. Bartlett stated that some people seemed to think it did not matter what the establishment was called but he said they vehemently disagreed. He stated that they worked diligently day in and day out to maintain the quality associated with a bed and breakfast and to them, it mattered greatly, what this proposed business would be called. Mr. Bartlett stated that they did not want their name to be misrepresented. He explained that after explaining to the petitioners what a bed and breakfast was, they did not seem to care and were only interested in getting what they wanted. Mr. Bartlett stated that he was insulted by this petition and he resented the petitioners making light of him and their industry. He urged that if the Planning Commission felt they could not deny this petition, to at least table the matter for additional work and review on the definition of bed and breakfast.
Ms. Nancy Saxton stated that the County Health Department held anything in excess of 15 units to hotel guidelines for safety and health.
Ms. Nicole Merrill, an employee of the Anniversary Inn, stated that the atmosphere the bed and breakfast brought to the neighborhood was wonderful. She stated that the claims of the Anniversary Inn not being as intimate as other beds and breakfasts was simply not true. She stated that their setting was very intimate and she believed the new inn, if approved, would be a great asset to the community.
Mr. Wright stated that Ms. Nancy Saxton had made a proposal to the Redevelopment Agency for the Brooks Arcade building and his memory was that that proposal had been for a bed and breakfast. Ms. Saxton stated that the proposal had been for a boutique hotel. Mr. Wright asked how many rooms had been proposed.
Ms. Saxton responded that the proposal had consisted of 30 rooms.
Mr. Wright asked her if they would have registered that business as a bed and breakfast.
Ms. Saxton said it would not be eligible for membership in Bed and Breakfast Inns of Utah and added that they could only qualify for membership in national organizations as a boutique hotel. Ms. Saxton said she did not mean to mislead anyone and explained that anyone could belong to Professional Innkeepers International, but added that country inns, boutique hotels and bed and breakfast inns could not be included in their listing of beds and breakfasts.
Mr. Daines stated that there was enthusiastic neighborhood support for this project who saw this as a less troublesome use than other uses. He stated that the neighbors saw this as an asset to their neighborhood. Mr. Daines quoted from The Professional Association of Innkeepers International. "Since the very beginning of state association there has been and continues to be rampant diversification about how to define bed and breakfast, bed and breakfast country inn. In researching 37 state association bylaws there exist 37 different clarifications, explanations, evaluations, pontifications and definitions." He stated that we were dealing with a term without much content and he believed his clients met the definition of a bed and breakfast. Mr. Daines said this would be a quality enterprise and said he thought the Planning Commission should be concerned with doing something that worked in terms of long range use for this neighborhood. He stated that most the opposition to this project came from people who did not live in the area and were concerned competitively about their own situation. Mr. Daines encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this request.
Ms. Nancy Pace asked what kind of a precedent would be set if this were approved.
Mr. Wright explained that only beds and breakfasts that were allowed in “CN" and “CB" zones were those in historical structures under the conditional use process with Planning Commission review. Mr. Wright added that no new construction for beds and breakfasts would be allowed in those zone. He added that the Planning Office had hired an intern to research the “CN" and “CB" zones and potential historical properties. Mr. Wright explained that the word “residence" had gone through several revisions and ended up as “building" during the editing process of the Zoning Rewrite Project. He stated that most of the existing beds and breakfasts had not been converted from residential uses but from commercial uses, and therefore, they had determined that building was a more suitable word than residence for the definition in the Ordinance. Mr. Wilde stated that the Planning Commission had been provided a history of the definition process so that they could track that change if they so desired. Mr. Wright stated that a comment had been made that the definition had been changed without knowledge on the part of the Planning Commission and stated that that statement was not true. Mr. Wright explained that the that change had been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission meeting at their February 16, 1995 meeting.
Ms. Nancy Pace suggested the Planning Commission review the issue of spacing and impacts to neighborhoods similar to the spacing requirements for group homes.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Cromer stated that they had not discussed the definition of bed and breakfast within the area where all of the local beds and breakfasts were located. She stated that all of them were located in the buildings that had been created as single family dwellings and all of them were less than or equal to 13 rooms. Mr. Cromer stated that there existed a definition in the neighborhood of what constituted a bed and breakfast which was a single family dwelling. She stated that she would like to address this petition as a hotel under the ordinance. Ms. Cromer stated that this was a hotel and she did not have a problem having a hotel in a historic structure in the Commercial "CN" zone. She expressed concern for the potential number of structures that could be converted to beds and breakfasts in the future. Ms. Cromer stated that her residence was surrounded by beds and breakfasts and added that this area of the City had enough of them. She stated that the problem she had with this was that it was a hotel, not a bed and breakfast. She said she didn't have a problem with calling it a hotel. Mr. Howa stated that the ordinance did not allow a hotel in this zone. Ms. Cromer said she wanted to be able to support this petition but she wanted to be able to do something the Planning Commission could live with long term.
Mr. Howa asked if she could live with this being a hotel with 32 rooms, a restaurant and a hair salon.
Ms. Cromer responded in the affirmative and stated that that was exactly what it was. She stated that this needed to be addressed within the framework of the ordinance and that it was the ordinance that needed to be adjusted in this case. Ms. Cromer stated that she could not vote to approve a 32 room bed and breakfast.
Ms. Roberts stated that she agreed with Cindy, that this was not a bed and breakfast and to approve it as such would open the door to mayhem with the Olympics coming. Ms. Roberts stated that it would be like building a store the size of an Albertsons in the "CN" zone where an Albertsons would not be allowed and calling it a convenience store so that it could be approved.
Ms. Kirk stated that she supported approving up to 30 rooms based on the information provided to them, that she felt approving this would be the right thing to do, and that every one of these issues would have to come before the Planning Commission for their review. Ms. Kirk stated that each future case could be evaluated on its own merits and she felt this was the right use for the building. Ms. Roberts said that it might be the right use for the building but it was not being called by the right name because this was not a bed and breakfast. Ms. Kirk suggested it be called a bed and breakfast inn. Ms. Roberts stated that she had stayed in a lot of beds and breakfasts and none of them had had more than 5-7 rooms.
Mr. Iker stated that evidence had been provided stating that this would be good for the community, that it was supported by the community and the Planning Commission needed to consider what might happen to the building and the impacts to the community if this matter were denied.
A discussion followed on industry standards, the definition in the Zoning Ordinance and the need to review that definition, the changes made to the definition during the rewrite project, the best use of the building, the staff analysis of the issues involved, the desires of the community, the number of rooms involved, and the right of the Planning Commission to approve the request but to limit the number of rooms allowed.
Ms. Cromer asked how the Commission would feel about approving 18 rooms, consistent with the Utah Bed and Breakfast Association's definition, plus a recommendation to the City Council to amend the ordinance and address the issues of hotel versus bed and breakfast. Ms. Cromer stated that then the petitioner could come back without any new filing fees to increase the number of units and in the meantime, the petitioner would have the option of additional commercial use in the building.
Ms. Kirk stated that the national statistics supported 30 units.
Ms. Cromer stated that the name would then have to be bed and breakfast inn, as was used nationally. Ms. Cromer stated that this was not a problem with the staff report or the proposal, but rather, with the ordinance.
Mr. Wright asked if the Planning Commission felt the problem could be fixed by amending the ordinance and defining a bed and breakfast as consisting of 4 to 15 rooms and utilizing another name such as boutique inn to allow 15 to 50 units. Mr. Wright stated that the process would be the same but projects would have different names.
Ms. Roberts and Ms. Cromer said they believed that would fix the problem.
Ms. Short suggested they make that recommendation to the City Council rather than assign the number allowed at the Planning Commission level.
Ms. Cromer asked how that would affect this proposal.
Mr. Wright explained that this proposal was allowed under the existing definition. Mr. Wright stated that the new definitions would be for adaptive reuses, not for new construction.
Mr. Howa stated that whatever decision the Planning Commission made, they needed to give reasons for that decision.
Ms. Cromer stated that the last time the Planning Commission had heard a request for a bed and breakfast she had suggested that there was a density problem that needed to be addressed. Ms. Cromer stated that the Planning Commission was now hearing two requests which were separated only by a single family dwelling and the density issue still needed to be addressed. Ms. Cromer stated that there were also some ordinance problems and now the ordinance was less restrictive than it used to be.
Mr. Wright informed Ms. Cromer that that was not true, that the old ordinance was not more restrictive.
Ms. Cromer proposed that, not to affect the petitions on tonight's agenda, but starting tomorrow, a moratorium be placed on beds and breakfasts in the area from 600 East to University Street and South Temple to 900 South. Ms. Cromer stated that these facilities were inordinately congregated in this part of town and it was at the point where it was affecting residential character and she did not believe this was consistent with the master plan. She stated that if they could establish a moratorium and resolve the ordinance issues, she would feel more comfortable acting on this petition. Mr. Howa asked if she was willing to support this petition for 30 units if a moratorium was initiated against additional beds and breakfasts. Ms. Cromer responded that she felt this was a density issue.
Mr. Iker said it was a definition issue and he felt uncomfortable skating around the hotel issue since there were County Health regulatory issues for hotels that did not apply to beds and breakfasts.
Mr. Howa asked Ms. Cromer if she was willing to make two motions, one to approve this petition and one to recommend a moratorium on beds and breakfasts in this area and amend the definition. Ms. Cromer said her frustration was that she did not like to vote against something or table something that was consistent with the ordinance.
Ms. Cromer stated that the staff report indicated that this proposal was consistent with the ordinance and she did not disagree with that particular issue, that she believed there was a problem with the ordinance, but added that that was not a problem of the petitioners'. She stated that she just wanted to find a way to fix the problem.
Mr. Howa stated that the Planning Commission's job was to make their decisions in terms of the ordinance, not what might be or based on an emotional response. Mr. Howa stated that if she supported this petition, he would accept a motion on that basis; if she did not think this was a suitable petition, he would accept a motion on that basis; if she wanted to make an additional motion relative to moratoriums and density, that motion could then be made.
Mr. Iker moved to approve Petition No. 410-171, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the added condition of dumpster placement and fencing issues being resolved as discussed in the staff report presentation. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Short voted “Aye"; Ms. Cromer voted “Nay" and stated that it was not the project she was opposed to;
Ms. Roberts abstained from the vote and stated that she approved of the project but could not support it as a bed and breakfast.
Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present.
Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Kirk asked if there was any way to study the density issue other than through a moratorium.
Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to initiate a moratorium but added that they did have the authority to amend the ordinance. Mr. Wright stated that by initiating a petition to amend the ordinance the City would not accept any additional applications for beds and breakfasts until that petition had been processed.
Ms. Cromer moved amend the Zoning Ordinance relative to the definition of bed and breakfast and added that a distinction needed to be made between small buildings providing accommodations in commercial districts and buildings providing accommodations in residential districts in terms of management, size and labeling. Ms. Cromer said she felt the density issues of location/distribution as well as the number of rooms allowed needed to be examined.
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Wright stated that several Planning Commissioners were needed to serve on the Design Review Committee.
Ms. Cromer stated that she had been startled when the City Council had determined the Planning Commission should fill the need for a Design Review Committee and added that they would have to rely heavily on staff expertise in making their decisions.
Mr. Wright stated that two vacancies on the Commission would be opening up the first of July and that need for expertise could be part of the criteria when considering replacements. Mr. Wright explained that the first case needing review would the American Stores project on Block 57. It was agreed that Ralph Becker, Diana Kirk and Gil Iker would serve on the Design Review Committee relative to the Block 57 issues.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.