SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission was Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Arla Funk, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Gregory DeMille, Gilbert Iker and Vice-Chairperson Max Smith were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff was Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Director Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Margaret Pahl, Doug Dansie, Robert Glessner and Doug Wheelwright.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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
Mr. Steed moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, April 15, 1999. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-340 by Sprint PCS requesting a conditional use for wall mounted telecommunication antennas to be installed on the Hale Bakery located at 1298 South 900 East in a Neighborhood Commercial “CN” zoning district.
Ms. Short noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-343 by U.S. West Wireless requesting a conditional use for roof mounted telecommunication antennas to be installed on the U.S. West Telecommunications building located at 781 East 2100 South in a Commercial Corridor “CC” zoning district.
Ms. Short noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-339 by U.S. West Wireless requesting a conditional use to allow roof mounted cellular telecommunication antennas located at 615 Arapeen Way in a Research Park “RP” zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. McCandless noted that the staff report's Condition #2 of the recommendation reads "No horizontal cross bracing be used to minimize visual impacts." U.S. West has a cabinet box that they use to relay their signals from site to site, which is 33" high and is setback from the parapet. Therefore, Mr. McCandless stated that he feels that the wording for Condition #2 could be changed to allow horizontal cross bracing below the cabinet box.
Mr. Glen Nelson, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-339:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-339 to allow roof mounted cellular telecommunications antennas at 615 Arapeen Way subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with one change as noted:
1. Painting all antennas to match the building as discussed in the staff report.
2. To minimize visual impacts, there be no horizontal cross bracing above the cabinet box. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
3. All requirements of the various city departments be met.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-333 by the Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division requesting preliminary subdivision approval of a seven lot residential subdivision located at 550 West 200 North in a Special Residential “SR-1” zoning district. Conditional use approval is also requested for a reduced width public street.
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.
Mr. Steed asked if the recently adopted Reduced Street Ordinance describes what parking, if any, is allowed on 550 West. Ms. Pahl stated that the Ordinance allows the Planning Commission, with input from transportation and fire, to determine the parking particulars. In this case, the Transportation Division has recommended that parking be allowed on one side of the street and prohibited in the cul-de-sac. Ms. Pahl then stated that each reduced street case will be individually analyzed.
Mr. Steed stated that he feels that it will be difficult to control parking on only one side of the street. Ms. Pahl then stated that there is plenty of off-street parking on 200 North, therefore, the Planning Commission could decide to prohibit parking on both sides of the street.
Mr. Judd Parr, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-333:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-333 to allow the reduced width public street and grant preliminary subdivision approval subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff with two additions as noted:
1. That there be compliance with departmental requirements.
2. That the rezoning ordinance, by the City Council, be adopted.
3. That there be no parking allowed on the reduced street and cul-de-sac. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
4. That there be a sidewalk on both sides of the reduced street. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
5. That final plat approval be delegated to the Planning Director.
6. That the Planning Director have final approval of the design of the houses.
Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Funk excused herself from the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING –Case No. 410-346 by Hotel Associates requesting a conditional use to demolish buildings at 218-230 South Main Street for a parking lot within 75 feet of the Main Street retail core in a Downtown “D-1” zoning district.
Mr. Doug Dansie 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. Dansie stated that the petitioner is proposing to demolish several buildings along Main Street and reconstruct a surface parking lot and retail space. The retail space will occupy the street frontage, separating the parking lot from street view. Conditional use approval is required because the retail space will have a 50-foot wide opening providing pedestrian access from Main Street to the parking lot. Parking lots are prohibited within 75 feet of the street frontage on Main Street unless separated by a structure.
Mr. Jim Whelan, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Whelan then stated that the site for the proposed surface parking lot should be comprehensibly planned, designed and developed at the right time. In looking at the long-term plan for this site, it has not been determined when the time will be right to engage in a national scale development that this site deserves. Until the time is right, a parking lot is being proposed which we realize is not the best use of the property economically.
Mr. Whelan and Mr. John Branson, architect for the project, then addressed the details of the plans for the proposed surface parking lot and retail buildings. Mr. Whelan explained that the pedestrian opening is being proposed for a 50-foot wide landscaped opening because it will not only create a feeling of a passageway, but it also provides a sense of security for those who would be unfamiliar with the area.
Mr. Mariger asked Mr. Whelan if he would agree to a time restriction (approximately 10 years) put on the parking lot. Mr. Whelan responded in the affirmative. Mr. Mariger then stated that he is concerned that the 50-foot opening is too wide. He then proposed that the opening be smaller and then, on the backside of the opening, replace about 4 or 5 stalls with additional landscaping. The landscaping on the backside will
become an integral part of the landscaping on the front of the opening that is already being proposed. With the additional landscaping, anyone who was to glance at the opening would see a landscaped area as opposed to cars in a parking lot.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that he does not feel that the Planning Commission should restrict the use for a certain amount of time. He then stated that instead of putting a time limit on the use, the Planning Commission could ask to reevaluate the use some time in the future because maybe the proposed retail structures will be a success.
Ms. Barrows stated that she too is concerned that the 50-foot opening is too wide.
Mr. Whelan then stated that if there is a wide enough opening into the parking lot, even though the landscaping is hiding the parking lot, if a building is not seen behind the landscaping then your mind tells you this may be a parking lot.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that he does not think that there will be a problem of people discovering that there is parking. He then stated that he is concerned about narrowing the opening to the point that it becomes some sort of a tunnel that people will be afraid to enter.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Samantha Francis, Chair of the People’s Freeway Community Council, stated that the community council voted unanimously to support this proposal and feel that it will be wonderful for the community. The community council especially loved the idea that the opening is as wide as it is and they also loved the retail shops and the homey feeling they will give to the downtown.
Ms. Ruth Reese, on the Board of Trustees at American Towers, stated that she is opposed to having the parking so close to the sidewalk. She then asked why underground parking was not required for the hotel that is being built by the petitioner on the corner of the same block.
Mr. Wright stated that in the city's Zoning Ordinance and planning policies for the downtown area, existing buildings are allowed to be converted to other uses without providing parking. If the city did not allow that, there would be a lot of vacant buildings in the downtown because many of the buildings were built before there was a need for an automobile and a parking space. When a new building is constructed, like American Towers, the required parking will have to be provided.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk stated that she agrees with the 50-foot opening if it becomes more of a plaza with tables and landscaping rather than just a large opening. Ms. Kirk then stated that
the Planning Commission could consider having the Planning Director give final approval, being very sensitive to the Planning Commissioners concerns.
Mr. Steed stated that he feels that the 50-foot opening is too large and perhaps it should be cut back to about 30 feet.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that he is not sure that 30 feet will not work anymore than he is sure that 50 feet will work because he is not the one doing the design. The people who are doing the design need an opportunity to develop something that they feel will work for them. Mr. Snelgrove then stated that he feels that the Planning Commission should approve the petition with the condition that the Planning Director have final approval of the design.
Motion for Case No. 410-346:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on Planning Commission discussion, to table Case No. 410-346 and have the petitioner work with Staff to create a site plan showing the pedestrian access narrowed to approximately 30 feet and adding landscaping on the backside of the opening and then have the site plan brought back to the Planning Commission for final approval. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Snelgrove voted "Nay". Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Report on Subdivision Administrative Hearings during the last year.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright distributed a summary report of the Subdivision Approvals for 1998, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He then stated that the last time the regulations were changed, Staff committed to report annually to the Planning Commission on the progress, volume and scope of the subdivision projects that were being approved. Mr. Wheelwright noted that approximately 75% of all subdivision approvals were handled administratively. Mr. Wheelwright then stated that as changes continue to be made in the subdivision processes, the Planning Commission will only be involved in disputed administrative approvals or plat amendments that involve streets or foothills. Mr. Wheelwright continued by stating that Staff is pleased with the changes that have been made to the ordinances and the processes that have evolved over time.
Update on the Conservation Overlay District.
Mr. Brent Wilde and Mr. Robert Glessner led the discussion. Mr. Wilde stated that the last time that the Planning Commission discussed the Conservation Overlay Zone in the East Central Neighborhood, the decision was made that Staff should hold an open house to get a sense from area residents as to how they would respond to issues such as building height, building scale, the location of the garage, the treatment of the front porch and parkway tree provisions. Since then, Staff has continued to struggle with how to deal with the area north of 900 South, realizing that the proposal was to regulate single family homes and duplexes only. In the area north of 900 South, there is a significant potential for apartment development. Therefore, if the proposal is not to regulate apartments, a comprehensive conservation approach is not being accomplished. Mr. Wilde then stated that for the purpose of the open house, an area south of 900 South was selected because there is no apartment zoning. The area selected was Lake Street. Notices were sent to 120 residents and approximately 6 people attended the open house. Mr. Wilde continued by stating that he was surprised that there was not a bigger turn out.
Mr. Glessner summarized the comments made at the open house in a memorandum addressed to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Glessner then addressed four items of concern that seemed to be consistent with the neighbors. The four items are as follows: (1) Did not want to get neighboring property owners approval to sign off on room additions; (2) If an original structure was burnt down, can the new structure be built as it was constructed originally if it did not meet the standards of the conservation district; (3) Building height limitations; and (4) Building footprint limitations.
Mr. Wilde stated that although there were just a few people in attendance at the open house, everyone thought that the ordinance was generally a good idea. However, most of them had some kind of concern.
Mr. Glessner then stated that Ms. Barrows attended a conservation district workshop at the American Planning Association (APA) Conference in Seattle a few weeks ago. She brought back some information that Staff has been reviewing. The information addresses how other communities are approaching conservation district zoning and how they seem to be doing. Ms. Barrows stated that the workshop also addressed the fact that most communities and planning commissioners are struggling with the idea of conservation districts.
Mr. Glessner summarized the information from the APA workshop. He stated that there are approximately 11 concepts that were consistent throughout the document. A few of which are to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to allow design flexibility that is not as restrictive as a historic district, and to provide an opportunity to maintain affordable housing within a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Wilde stated that Staff has found that the majority of the city’s that have conservation districts have general standards with some kind of discretionary review process. Our approach has been to come up with an ordinance that can be addressed over the counter with some very specific standards. Staff is now looking for further direction from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wright stated that he anticipates that more and more neighborhoods in our communities are going to be seeking some kind of conservation zoning so that the character of the neighborhoods will be protected. Mr. Wright then stated that the difficult part will be to define and/or quantify what the “character” is of each neighborhood.
A discussion followed between Staff and the Planning Commissioners. After which, it was decided that Staff and the Planning Commission should continue to move forward with their study of conservation districts.
Motion for Conservation Overlay District
Ms. Funk moved that the study of conservation districts should continue and that the Planning Commission should adopt a plan in one small trial area in the East Central Neighborhood with the idea of studying it further and consider increasing the ramifications that are involved. Ms. Funk further moved to have Staff get some direction from the City Council as to how great their interest is. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.