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 Chair Jeff Jonas, Vice-Chair Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs Delay, John Diamond, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner Greg Mikolash, Senior Planner Joel Paterson; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:48 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 the minutes from Wednesday, October 22, 2003
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as stated are reflected in the October 22, 2003 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Muir made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
Chair Jonas stated that the focus of the last Planning Commission and City Council Chair and Vice-Chair meeting was the item scheduled for a public hearing this evening which requests to amend the zoning ordinance to redefine the term “department stores”. Chair Jonas stated that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission requested direction from the City Council regarding this petition. Chair Jonas stated that he would elaborate on that point during that public hearing.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze referred to the Planning Commission Chair elections and asked if the Commission would consider that item during the unfinished business at the end of the meeting. The Commission agreed to take a vote during that time.
SALT LAKE CITY PROPERTY CONVEYANCE MATTERS:
a. Salt Lake City Property Management Division – requesting that a City owned warehouse and office building, located at 410-450 North Wright Brothers Drive (4800 West) be leased for private use as part of a transportation related business entity. The property is located in the Industrial “M-1” zoning district at the east edge of the Salt Lake International Center Industrial Park.
b. Qwest Communications and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Qwest Communications is requesting a standard utility crossing permit for two buried communications conduits to cross the Jordan and Salt Lake City canal at 1580 East Vine Street (6100 South) in unincorporated Salt Lake County.
c. Qwest Communications and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Qwest Communications is requesting a standard utility crossing permit for two buried communications conduits to cross the Jordan and Salt Lake City canal at 12650 South 95 West in Draper City.
d. Federal Reserve Bank and Salt Lake City Property Management Division Request by the Federal Reserve Bank to install improvements and to encroach into the public way on 100 South Street and State Street, to install security barriers to prevent vehicle assaults on the Bank Building. The location is 120 South State Street, which is located in the Downtown “D-1” Zoning District. The lease term is proposed for 10 years.
Commissioner Diamond referred to a specific utility permit that was presented to the Planning Commission at a previous meeting. He asked Ms. Karen Greenleaf of the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, if they could provide the Planning Commission with a list of information that has been reviewed when someone applies for a utility permit, to ensure that the vegetation that is disturbed is restored.
Ms. Greenleaf answered that generally the applicant of the permit is required to restore the vegetation which is disturbed through the process of installing a utility permit. She added that the Planning Commission will be presented with a copy of a standard utility permit application.
Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the items on the consent agenda. Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-647, by Dr. Nancy C. Larsen requesting a conditional use permit to utilize an existing unit of the Vintage Square retail building, located at 1760 South 1100 East Street, for the operation of veterinary clinic that specializes in feline health. The property is zoned RB Residential Business. Veterinary Clinics may be allowed as a conditional use in this zone.
This hearing began at 5:59 p.m.
Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the petition as written in the staff report. She said that she expected the Applicant would be attending the meeting this evening and did not receive notice that the Applicant would be absent. Ms. Lewis said that she assumed that the Applicant may have had an emergency at the animal clinic which kept her from attending.
Commissioner Chambless asked Ms. Lewis if there is a size limit with respect to the felines which would receive care at the proposed veterinary clinic. He was specifically concerned with cats which are larger that the average domestic cat. Ms. Lewis answered that she did not believe that the Applicant’s intent is to treat cats that are not domesticated.
The Applicant Dr. Nancy Larsen entered the meeting.
Commissioner Chambless redirected his question to the Applicant. Dr. Larsen answered that she did not anticipate treating non-domesticated cats. She added that if she were given the opportunity to treat a non-domesticated cat, she would do so at the Zoo.
Commissioner Scott asked the Applicant if she would be treating other animals. Dr. Larsen answered that her emphasis is on cats; however, she practices alternative medicine such as acupuncture and she occasionally receives referrals from other veterinarians for dogs. She added that the treatment of dogs would be after regular business hours and would be minimal.
Commissioner Scott was specifically concerned with the noise that may result from a dog spending the night at the clinic and asked Dr. Larsen if she anticipated that problem. Dr. Larsen answered no; dogs would be treated as out patients.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Ms. Mimi Levine a neighboring resident of the proposed veterinary clinic addressed the Commission. She asked if this approval would allow another veterinary clinic which may service other animals to locate at this site in the future. Ms. Levine also mentioned concerns with additional traffic and noise.
Mr. Wilde clarified that if the proposed veterinary clinic were approved and then changed hands, the new clinic would have to fit into the specification of feline care. He said that this conditional use would follow the property. Mr. Wilde added that if a new veterinary clinic, which treated a broader range of animals were to locate at the proposed site, it would have to come back to the Commission for a new conditional use approval.
Commissioner Daniels asked Dr. Larsen how many vehicles from members of her staff and clients she expected per day. Dr. Larsen answered that once the clinic is fully functioning, there would be about two or three members of staff and 10-12 clients per day.
Commissioner Daniels clarified that the traffic impact would be minimal.
Commissioner Diamond asked Dr. Larsen if she had read and understood the boarding condition in the staff report. Dr. Larsen said that she accepted that condition.
Ms. Levine addressed the Commission again to ask Dr. Larsen if animals will be euthanized at the clinic and what is to be done with the remains. Dr. Larsen answered that animals will be occasionally euthanized. In that event, a company based in Utah County is notified which would collect and cremate the remains.
Commissioner Scott asked Dr. Larsen if a member of her staff or herself would be staying the night at the clinic to watch over an ill animal. Dr. Larsen answered that no one would be spending the night at the clinic; it would not be open 24 hours.
Commissioner Scott referred to the future use of the clinic if Dr. Larsen was to retire or sell the clinic to another veterinarian. She asked if the equipment is tailored to smaller animals. Dr. Larsen answered that the equipment is for smaller animals and it would not be feasible for another veterinarian to use the same equipment for larger animals.
Commissioner Chambless asked Dr. Larsen if she is planning to sell animal products at the clinic. Dr. Larsen answered that they will be selling cat food, shampoo and products of that nature.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion
Commissioner DeLay made a motion, based upon the findings of fact as listed in the staff report to approve the conditional use request which is in keeping with the goal of providing services in established business areas to the residents of the Sugar House community, with the following condition:
1. The boarding (keeping) of more than two dogs and/or two cats, more than six months old, is considered a kennel use. Kennels are not allowed in the RB zoning district. Therefore, the clinic is limited to keeping only two healthy animals for overnight stays on a non-treatment basis. This does not apply to those sick or injured animals that are kept for continuous care.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
Geoff Smart is requesting preliminary condominium approval for the Parley’s Corporate Center Condominiums; the proposed conversion of an eight (8) unit, retail/office use to condominium ownership located at 2545 East Parleys Way (2235 South) in a Community Business “CB” Zoning District. No decision will be made by the Planning Commission at this meeting.
This issues only hearing began at 6:36 p.m.
Principal Planner Greg Mikolash presented the petition as written in the staff report. He welcomed questions regarding the staff report.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Mikolash if the owner gave reason why he did not want to subdivide the lot. Mr. Mikolash replied that he would rather have the Applicant respond to that. Mr. Mikolash said that at a development review meeting the suggestion was made to subdivide the lot. Staff feels that subdividing the property would eliminate maintenance issues and more evenly distribute association costs affiliated with the condominium. Mr. Mikolash stated that with a Subdivision Application, the Applicant would be required to go through a public hearing process, and a landscape buffer would need to be provided, being at least seven feet on either side of the new lot line.
Chair Jonas referred to the common area of the condominium plat and wondered why private parking is not delineated.
Commissioner Scott wondered if the common area which is essentially single ownership, could conceivably become storage for all of the property. Mr. Mikolash answered that that is possible; however, zoning dictates where dumpsters and storage facilities may be located. He noted that the condominium covenants must declare all maintenance issues related to the site, and must meet the zoning standards.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Mikolash if the placement of the building had been discussed. Mr. Mikolash answered that his involvement began about one and a half years into the project. At that time the building had already been constructed. He said that he received information from the Salt Lake City Building Permits Office as to what happened prior to construction, and why the property was originally subdivided, then un-subdivided, which ultimately landed the building in its current location on the lot. He said that structure placement was the original controversial matter, although the structure is legally placed on the lot.
Mr. Geoff Smart addressed the Commission as a managing member of the Parley’s Investments L.L.C. He gave a history of the property and said that they have done more than the Zoning Ordinance requires in regard to landscaping. He said that the property has been one parcel since the Parley’s Investment acquired it and has been since. He said that Parley’s Investment L.L.C chose not to subdivide the property due to a contract they have with Bally’s Fitness. The contract requires a certain amount of parking which subdividing the lot would eliminate. Mr. Smart indicated that he thought this is what the Planning Staff wanted to see. He added that no one informed him that there were issues related to the condominium proposal.
Chair Jonas asked the Applicant what they are trying to accomplish by going through the condominium conversion process. Mr. Smart answered that they would prefer to sell units rather than lease units.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Smart if they would be willing to convert both structures into condominiums. Mr. Smart said that the goal is to sell units in one building and lease units in the others.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that the Applicant review the entrances for units 6, 7 and 8 or clarify what entrances are designated for those units.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Ms. Barbra Halgren, a resident of 2574 Sage Way addressed the Commission. She asked why the City allowed this structure to be constructed. She said that the view from her home is now compromised due to this building. Chair Jonas stated that the Commission did not review the plans for the structure to be built. The project is now before the Commission to review the conversion of the building to condominiums.
Mr. Leon Halgren, a resident of 2574 Sage Way addressed the Commission. He asked why the Applicant is requesting a condominium conversion. His main concern was that the City would have little or no control over maintenance of the condominiums.
Ms. Janet Jenson, a resident of 2577 Sage way addressed the Commission. She was concerned with the single access onto Sage Way. She felt that the danger is increased with the one access for all of the condominium tenants. She was thankful for the opportunity to give public input. She also mentioned concerns that the quality of the neighborhood be maintained.
Mr. Smart clarified that the proposal is to convert the existing structure into the condominiums.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Wheelwright clarified that the Applicant received input from several people within the City. The Applicant met with Mr. Rodger Evans, Mr. Mikolash, and the Development Review Team which meets in the afternoons. Mr. Wheelwright said that he had not spoken with the Applicant for several years. He noted that the Applicant was leaving the Commission with the impression that he had many conversations with Planning Staff only which was not the case.
Mr. Mikolash added that most of the conversations regarding this project took place during the development review process. He said that the condominium application and the requirements for that were discussed. He said that it was made clear to the Applicant that each building on the parcel would have to be converted to condominiums. Mr. Mikolash noted that Mr. Van Wagner, who is the Engineer for this project argued from the beginning to only convert eight units into condominiums. Mr. Mikolash said that he was stern in the position that if all of the property were not converted the only other alternative would be to subdivide the lot. He said that maintenance of the property and how funds are allocated are Staff’s main concerns.
Commissioner Diamond commented that it would be interesting to analyze what the implications would be if the eight-unit building remained and the others were demolished. Mr. Mikolash said that that has never been discussed. If that were the case, the plat would have to be amended which would require another public hearing.
Mr. Wheelwright said that as a hearing officer, he declined to review this project administratively due to the controversial nature of the project. He felt that the issues were not straightforward. He added that that was conveyed to the Applicant as well as the fact that the hearing this evening was an Issues Only Hearing.
Commissioner Scott referred to the issue of no private parking. She suggested that Staff discuss the implication of the parking agreement that the Applicant referred to with Bally’s Fitness. She felt that parking was a very important issue which should be dealt with.
Mr. Smart said that he will work with Staff to deal with the issues discussed this evening.
Chair Jonas closed the hearing and said that the Commission would expect to see this proposal once the issues are worked out.
Petition No. 400-03-23, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to consider amendments to:
1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions;
2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050) by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses;
3. Create a Downtown Core Overlay zoning district under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and
4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding the Downtown Core Overlay in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street.
This hearing began at 7:26 p.m.
Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that in October 2003, the City Council considered a petition by the Gateway Associates requesting that department stores such as Nordstrom and Target be allowed to locate in the Gateway Mixed-Use “G-MU” zoning district. The City Council clearly stated that large-scale high fashion department stores should remain on Main Street. The City Council also suggested that there is potential for certain types of large-scale retailers to locate at the Gateway, and remain consistent with the City Council policy statement regarding the future economic development of Downtown. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission review and recommend new department store definitions to the City Council, which would be in accordance with industry standards. He stated that Staff is presenting seven new department store definitions to the Planning Commission. Staff is also suggesting that the Planning Commission support amendments to the Central Business District or “D-1” and the Gateway Mixed-Use or “G-MU” zoning districts, to allow certain types of department stores in those zones. Staff is recommending an amendment to the governing zoning map to create a “Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District” which would define where certain large-scale high fashion department stores would be allowed along Main Street. Staff will come back to the Commission with a subsequent petition to consider where else in the City department stores should be allowed and what other Master Plan amendments are required to promote consistency with the City Council policies and the Master Plans.
Mr. Zunguze added that Staff decided to take a two staged approach because there is a sense of urgency from the Gateway Associates and Property Reserve Inc. to receive clarity from the City, and move on with their projects. He said that the current proposal, which is phase one of this two staged approach, is intended to apply specifically to the Gateway and Main Street areas. As Mr. Paterson noted Staff will be coming back shortly to the Planning Commission to address phase two of this work.
Mr. Paterson continued to say that Staff has received input from many stakeholders during this process and they came to an agreement with the exception of the May Company who believes that conventional department stores should be allowed as conditional use rather than permitted use. Mr. Paterson said that during this process the Staff focus has been on the current City land use policies and the City Council policies regarding the revitalization of Downtown. Mr. Paterson outlined the proposed definitions of department stores and offered examples of specific department stores. He also summarized the proposed amendments and described the area included in the current proposal. Staff is recommending based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition 400-03-23 to:
1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions;
2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050) by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses;
3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and
4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street.
Chair Jonas noted that Mr. Paterson mentioned Sears as an example of a conventional department store and asked why it is not listed in the staff report.
Mr. Paterson answered that Sears was removed from the list because Sears is currently morphing into a smaller scale department store and there are divergent examples within the Salt Lake metro area.
Chair Jonas clarified that the proposed amendments will only affect the “D-1” and G-MU zoning district. Mr. Paterson said that that is correct.
Mr. Zunguze added that currently any projects proposed for Gateway go through a two step reviewing process, a planned development and a conditional use review. Staff is proposing to remove the conditional use element of this process; however, the Commission would still review projects through the planned development process. The reason for doing this is the need to streamline the review process, for projects that are consistent with the Master Plan and table of uses envisioned for the Gateway District.
Mr. Pace clarified that the area outside of the Central Business District will not be affected by this proposal.
Commissioner DeLay agreed with Commissioner McDonough’s written comments that suggest that there should be a more definitive line drawn to prohibit conventional department stores in the Gateway zoning district.
Commissioner Muir suggested that Main Street and Gateway are both a part of the Downtown District and should be referred to as such, or the reference of Downtown should be eliminated. Commissioner Muir noted that the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay Map as shown in the staff report has different boundaries than the current Master Plan Map. Commissioner Muir asked Staff why they did not refer to the current Master Plan Map for those boundaries.
Mr. Doug Dansie answered that the map in the staff report was intended to focus on Main Street. It is consistent with the retail core outlined in the Downtown Master Plan.
Chair Jonas added that the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay map is in concurrence with the City Council directive in reviewing this petition.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matthew Stark spoke to the Commission representing the May Company. He stated that the May Company generally agrees with the petition presented this evening with the exception of a few items. The first is that there is a great deal of overlap between the definitions of a conventional department store and a fashion oriented department store. He referred to Mervyn’s and Kohl’s and stated that they both would easily fit into the conventional and fashion department store categories. He referred to the City Council policy statement regarding this petition and said that Main Street retail is not to be impeded by retail at Gateway. He summarize by saying that the May Company believes that there is ambiguity that needs to be clarified in regard to the proposed definitions of conventional and fashion oriented department stores. The May Company also believes that conventional department stores should be allowed in the “G-MU” zoning district as a conditional rather than a permitted use to ensure that the Planning Commission retain flexibility in reviewing proposals.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Stark if the statement that all of the parties involved agree on the proposal is untrue. Mr. Stark answered that the two items that he mentioned are the issues that the May Company does not agree with.
Mr. David Gee an Attorney representing the Gateway Associates spoke to the Commission to say that they are in complete support of the Staff proposal. He urged the Planning Commission to adopt the proposal as is.
Chair Jonas reminded the Commission that the directive from the City Council is that the size limitation that defines department stores in the zoning ordinance should be removed.
Mr. Rodger Boyer representing the Boyer Company spoke to the Commission to say that the Boyer Company fully supports the proposal. He said that he thought all of the stakeholders were in agreement with the proposal, and is surprised to hear that the May Company disagrees.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Boyer what department stores are envisioned for Gateway. He also asked what Mr. Boyer hopes will go into Gateway. Mr. Boyer referred to Kohl’s as a possibility for Gateway, and he added that the Boyer Company is not currently in negotiations with any conventional department store. He worried that restriction would be attached to the Gateway which may make future development difficult.
Mr. Alan Sullivan spoke to the Commission representing Property Reserve Inc. He stated that they support the current proposal with one minor caveat. They support the proposed definitions; however, he suggested that the Planning Commission allow mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in both “D-1” and the “G-MU” zoning districts. They feel that the “Target type stores” would compliment the core of the Downtown retail on Main Street.
Mr. Douglas Cotant, a resident of 400 South and Main Street asked if the Kohl’s Department store is not going to locate in the Downtown area because they are not interested. Chair Jonas clarified that the reference to the Kohl’s department store was to say that they do not generally locate in the Downtown area of a city. They are usually in the suburbs.
Commissioner Muir asked if a representative from the Boyer Company would respond to Mr. Sullivan’s suggestion.
Mr. Rodger Boyer stated that they would support Mr. Sullivan’s request.
Mr. Gee stated that it would be somewhat an anomaly to allow mass merchandisers on Main Street and deny a store like Kohl’s to go into Gateway. He said that because this proposal is a continuum, it is fair to allow mass merchandisers on Main Street and allow a store like Kohl’s to go to Gateway. He said that that would allow Downtown Salt Lake to compete with the suburbs.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas thanked Staff for their hard work. Commissioner DeLay agreed that Staff has done well developing the definitions.
Commissioner Daniels complimented Staff as well and said that the item that helped clarify the definitions for him was the suggested names of stores as examples for the numerous department store categories.
Motion
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding petition number 400-03-23 based on the analysis and findings of fact in the staff report based also on Staff recommendation, Staff comment, and public comment this evening to forward a positive recommendation to the City council to:
1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions;
2. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and
3. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street.
4. Amend the table of permitted and conditional uses to allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown District (21A.30.050) as set forth in the staff report.
5. Amend the table of permitted uses to allow only mass merchandising, specialty store, super store, hypermarket department stores in the Gateway “G-MU” district (21A.31.050).
Based on analysis and comment particularly pertaining to 21A 50.050 standards for general amendment and particularly to where Standard A notes that the amendment be consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the Salt Lake City plans, in this case the Gateway specific plan policy 1.2 which reads “Strengthen Main Street as the primary retail core with the Gateway District as a secondary retail area having different appeal and character.” Allowing conventional department stores in the Gateway area and Main Street would not do this. In light of the document “Creating an Urban Neighborhood” page 6 the paragraph on commercial development which reads” Larger-scale uses such as retail uses that are a part of the center or complex, an example is a moderately sized neighborhood center with a supermarket, hardware and garden store.” A conventional department store does not fall into this category either.
Chair Jonas clarified that the motion excludes conventional department store as a permitted use in the Gateway Mixed use. He asked Commissioner Scott if she is adding mass merchandising as a permitted use in the Downtown Core district. Commissioner Scott replied no.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Chair Jonas felt that the motion was unfair based on the work and attempts that Staff and the stakeholders have made to reach a compromise.
Commissioner Noda explained that the she acknowledged efforts by Staff and said that she appreciates the work that Staff has done. She said that when she saw Commissioner McDonough’s comments she was persuaded that drawing a more definitive line by not allowing conventional department stores in the “G-MU” zoning district makes sense. She felt that it is a possibility that the two areas of the City, Gateway and Main Street could raid each other and she did not want to see that happen. Commissioner Noda was unsure if allowing a mass merchandising department store like “Target” on Main Street would have a positive affect. She said that she would agree to allow a store like “Target” to go into the Gateway as a conditional use. She added that she would be persuaded to allow conventional department stores as a conditional use at the Gateway.
Chair Jonas stated that he is persuaded that the Staff recommendation is the best solution. He added that it is difficult for the developers on both sides of this issue to accomplish either project. He felt that they need all of the flexibility possible. He said that for the Planning Commission to impose additional restrictions on both Property Reserve Inc. and The Boyer Company, by eliminating mass merchandising department stores and eliminating conventional department stores will make their projects more difficult if not impossible. He said that the Planning Commission should not be obstruction for developers and push many of them to the suburbs where they can carry out projects.
Commissioner Diamond asked Chair Jonas if allowing conventional department stores as a conditional use at the Gateway would allow flexibility.
Chair Jonas felt that that would create more issues. The parties are in agreement and they can coexist under the Staff recommendation.
Commissioner Diamond felt that the benefit of the conditional use process is that it requires those involved in the approval process to think about what is appropriate for the area. A conditional use for conventional department stores at Gateway may deter the issue of raiding Main Street.
Chair Jonas felt that under that rationale the conventional department stores should be conditional uses at both the Gateway and on Main Street. The City Council directive is to attract people to the Downtown area.
Commissioner Diamond asked the Commission if a conventional department store rather than Nordstrom were proposed for Gateway during the August 27, 2003 Planning Commission meeting would that have changed how the Commission voted.
Commissioner Scott stated that reviewing the public comment from the August 27, 2003 Planning Commission minutes is what swayed her. She noted that the resident’s comments were clear in their need for a place to shop for everyday needs. The concept of Gateway was to be an urban neighborhood that entailed retail, residential and entertainment. She is not convinced that a conventional department store would attract more residents to that area. She is confident that a “Target type store” which would be a mass merchandising store would achieve the City Council objective and is something wanted by the people who live there.
Commissioner Muir stated that no one on the Planning Commission was a part of the delicate negotiations which took place to reach an agreement between inherent competing entities. He said that he would defer to the wisdom of Staff and respect the process that the Planning Commission asked those parties to go through. He disagreed with allowing conventional department stores as a conditional use because the governing Master Plan is vague in giving the Planning Commission guidance in dealing with conditional use petitions. He said that he would vote against the motion.
Chair Jonas said that there are constant comments that Gateway has morphed into something that it was never intended to be. He said that the only thing that has changed from the original concept of Gateway was that a hotel was never built because there is no market for a hotel. The Gateway is what it was projected to be when the development began.
Mr. Zunguze stated that as Staff was reviewing this task they noted that the Gateway Master Plan references large-scale retail uses, in addition to the small-scale retail uses. Staff could not reconcile these two references by excluding all potential large-scale retail uses out of the Gateway District unless one took the position that the large-scale retail uses meant an agglomeration or an aggregation of small-scale retail uses. Staff does not believe that there is any competition between conventional department stores and the high fashion end department stores because they are distinct entities. As such, Staff does not believe that allowing conventional department stores at Gateway will jeopardize Main Street. To that end, he said that Staff does not see contradiction between City Council policies and the proposed amendments. Mr. Zunguze reminded the Commission that they as a Commission had asked Staff to define and indicate what department stores would be appropriate in the Gateway to implement the term “large-scale uses.” From Staff’s perspective having conventional department stores and other large-scale retail uses in the Gateway District is both a logical interpretation of the Master Plan and supports the City Council’s policy to allow certain types of large-scale retailers to locate in the Gateway District so as to add to the vitality of the entire Downtown.
Chair Jonas referred to the concept of allowing mass merchandising department stores on Main Street, noting that according to the Property Reserve Inc. there will be more housing along the Downtown Core. The argument of needing a mass merchandising department store in Gateway now may be a similar argument in the future for Main Street. Only the market will tell and Property Reserve Inc. should have the same allowances as Gateway to attract such department stores.
Chair Jonas called for the question.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Seelig voted “Nay”. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted against, three Commissioners voted in favor and, therefore the motion failed.
Motion
Commissioner DeLay made a motion based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report and discussion this evening, that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition 400-03-23 to:
1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions;
2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050) by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses;
3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and
4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street.
5. And add mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core to the table of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Muir seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner Muir voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”.
Chair Jonas asked Commissioner Seelig if she is opposed to the motion. Commissioner Seelig asked if the Commission could discuss the motion. She was concerned with the portion that allows mass merchandising department stores to be a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core area.
Commissioner Seelig vote “Nay”.
Chair Jonas stated that the vote is four Commissioners in favor and four Commissioners against. Chair Jonas said that he would vote to break the tie.
Commissioner DeLay offered to amend the motion to remove the mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core area.
Commissioner Delay’s amendment failed for lack of a second.
Chair Jonas voted in favor of the motion. The motion carried.
Chair Jonas commended Staff and all of the parties involved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
This item was heard at 6:13 p.m.
Commissioner Muir referred to his position as the Chair of the Downtown Alliance and his position on the Planning Commission Downtown Master Plan Subcommittee. He did not feel that he had a conflict of interest; however, he deferred to the judgment of the Commission. Chair Jonas said that he did not feel that Commissioner Muir had a conflict and the Commission agreed.
Commissioner Scott referred to the zoning ordinance and read section 21A.06.020.D. which states “The Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair may not be elected to serve consecutive terms in the same office.” She felt that there is ambiguity between the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures. She asked if Chair Jonas is eligible for nomination for the Chair position.
Commissioner Seelig read a portion from the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures which states ”The Planning Commission, at its first regular meeting in September of each year, shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair, who will serve for a term of one year each.”
Mr. Pace said that the Planning Commission may adopt their own Policies and Procedures; however, those Policies and Procedures may not supersede the Zoning Ordinance. He said that to the extent that the Zoning Ordinance sets a specific guideline, even if the Policies and Procedures contradict that guideline it is meaningless. To the extent that the Zoning Ordinance does not address a specific issue and the Policies and Procedures do address the issue, the Policies and Procedures will govern. He said that it would appear in this case that the Zoning Ordinance is more specific than the Policies and Procedures.
Commissioner Scott clarified that the Chair Jonas is not eligible to be reelected as Chair. Commissioner Scott nominated Commissioner Chambless for the Planning Commission Chair.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to close the nominations for the Planning Commission Chair with the said two nominations of Prescott Muir and Tim Chambless.
Commissioner Diamond felt that the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures should be reexamined to avoid issues like this in the future. Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig agreed.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
The Planning Commission voted by secret ballot. Prescott Muir received five votes and Tim Chambless received four votes, which leaves the Vice-Chair position vacant.
Chair Jonas asked the Commission for volunteers to be a part of a Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Subcommittee. Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Seelig volunteered to serve on that Subcommittee. Commissioner McDonough was nominated to serve; however she was not in attendance to accept the nomination.
Chair Jonas asked for nominations for the Planning Commission Vice-Chair.
Commissioner Diamond nominated Jeff Jonas for Vice-Chair.
Commissioner Scott nominated Tim Chambless for Vice-Chair.
Commissioner Muir nominated Peggy McDonough for Vice-Chair.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to close the nominations for the Planning Commission Vice-Chair with the said three nominations of Tim Chambless, Jeff Jonas and Peggy McDonough.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
The Planning Commission voted by secret ballot. Tim Chambless received five votes and Jeff Jonas received four votes.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Long Range Planning Issues Meeting
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Tuesday, November 18, 2003, 5:30 p.m.
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Prescott Muir, Robert “Bip” Daniels, Babs DeLay, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Craig Galli and Jeff Jonas were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey, and Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Long Range Planning Issues Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. 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 THE MINUTES FROM October 28, 2003
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Peggy McDonough abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Six Commissioners voted in favor, one Commissioner abstained and therefore the motion was approved.
Chair Muir stated that as the Planning Commission Chair he would have a different method of running the Planning Commission meetings. He asked that the Commission make efforts to work through discussions and respect their peers. He referred to the public comment presented at meetings and asked that motions be made after sincere and intense listening. Chair Muir also asked that the Commission respect the nature of the group outside of the body and respect the difference of opinions.
Mr. Zunguze added that it is the intent of Staff to prepare information for the Commission to initiate dialogue rather than create disagreement. He suggested that the Chair leave the discussion open until every Commissioner has the opportunity to speak on an issue or give them the option to decline to comment.
Chair Muir agreed and referred to the forum used at the City Council meetings in that all of the City Council Members speak on an issue or decline the opportunity to comment. He felt that the Commission should follow in that direction.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the vehicle used for Planning Commission fieldtrips. She said that she did not think it is always necessary for the Planning Commission to attend fieldtrips.
Commissioner Daniels added that he avoids the rear of the vehicle because it is difficult the hear Staff comment regarding sites.
Mr. Wilde stated that Staff originally sought after a shuttle bus for the Planning Commission site visits; however, funds were not available at that time. Staff is now exploring the option of an internal PA system to help with the sound difficulty.
Commissioner McDonough inquired what the Planning Commission’s policy is regarding a Commissioner submitting comments in their absence of a public meeting.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Chair should read the comments submitted by a Commissioner as part of the public record, and have them discussed along with the other comments made by other Commissioners.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze referred to the letter addressed to the Planning Commission from the City Council Chair regarding Open Space. He stated that this matter will be a topic scheduled for discussion during the next Long Range Planning Issues meeting.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
Report and discussion of issues covered by the City Wide Planning Issues Sub-committee.
This item was heard at 6:02 p.m.
Commissioner Scott reported the progress of the City Wide Sub-Committee. She said that they are working to outline themes and challenges which are relevant to City Wide development in order to develop a City Wide Comprehensive Master Plan.
Chair Muir noted the importance of citizen input throughout the process of developing a City Wide Comprehensive Master Plan.
Commissioner Seelig requested that Staff define the boundaries for the Downtown District.
Commissioner Noda reported the progress of the Downtown Master Plan Subcommittee. She stated that they are having difficulty defining the Downtown District. She said that Staff has agreed to bring aerial maps of the Downtown area to the next Subcommittee meeting, which will allow the Subcommittee to identifying the Downtown District.
Discussion regarding City Council’s request for the Planning Commission input on the City’s Housing Initiative.
This item was heard at 6:18 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the letter from the City Council Office regarding housing issues. He said that the City Council has requested that City boards identify opportunities for improvement of the housing market in Salt Lake City. Mr. Zunguze said that there are elements in the current City regulations that affect the cost of a development and deter certain housing developments from taking place. Mr. Zunguze also referred to community attitude and stated that community acceptability has a huge impact on the sort of housing developments that take place. He also noted that banking community attitude has an effect on housing development, as well. He felt that the banking community is not well tuned for financing mixed-use developments.
Commissioner Daniels agreed with Mr. Zunguze’s comment regarding the banking community. Commissioner Daniels wondered where in the country mixed-use developments have been accomplished successfully and suggested that Salt Lake City mimic those developments. He referred to “Santana Road” in San Jose as an example of a mixed-use development. He explained that on the ground level there are businesses ranging from “mom and pap” stores to Gucci, and the second level is residential. He said that for that project, the developer had to guarantee a certain amount of parking within walking distance of the residences because the street is for pedestrians only.
Commissioner DeLay commented that as a resident of the only building zoned for a live-work space in the City, it took her over two years to refinance her business live-work space. She felt that the community is not aware that Wells Fargo is proactive in mixed-use developments. Commissioner DeLay stated that the issue of housing in the City has come up recently because it is being targeted by appraisers since the City downzoned certain areas. She referred to a nonconforming income property such as a duplex, and said that persons owning such properties can not qualify to refinance any longer. She wondered what the incentive is for people to live in the City if they want income property. Commissioner DeLay stated that she is concerned that the Redevelopment Agency is not willing to work with realtors to get people into housing within the City. She felt that the Neighborhood Housing Authority is a great example of a housing advocate. She stated that some towns are offering tax breaks to people who buy older homes as primary residences. She said that there have been grant programs available, but this is the first she has heard of tax breaks.
Chair Muir said that the notion of employers offering real-estate reducements is a great idea. He added that it might be appropriate for the City to set that example.
Commissioner DeLay added that housing is very high priced and a person with the average salary would qualify for very little property.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the Housing and Urban Development program which allows school teachers and police officers to purchase property for half price.
Commissioner Delay replied that the Housing and Urban Development program is still active; however, it is impossible for people to find livable, affordable housing because Housing and Urban Development does not improve the properties. She added that Housing and Urban Development has a new policy where an applicant must go through a 90-day waiting period to ensure that the title is clear. She felt that Housing and Urban Development is not helpful at this time.
Mr. Wilde referred to Commissioner De Lay’s comment regarding the nonconforming uses. He said that there is a provision in the Zoning Ordnance for duplexes. The term “legal conforming status” was created to enable the property owner to rebuild that unit if it suffered loss. Staff has initiated a petition that would extend the legal complying status to units higher than duplexes. Mr. Wilde added that the City has liberalized the regulations for housing substantially in Downtown and near Downtown areas. He wondered why the development community is not taking advantage of the liberalized regulations. He added that the City Wide Comprehensive Master Plan should identify opportunities for a higher density in terms of affordability.
Chair Muir said that the City should be cautious with respect to down-zoning. He added that part of the problem is creating a vision for the community of what it is like living in a higher density.
Commissioner Seelig agreed with Chair Muir and felt that the community fears the possibility of high density housing leaving a bad impression on their neighborhoods. She said that may be why a lot of people are against high density because there have been substandard projects which have brought down their quality of life.
Chair Muir asked if it would make sense to team up with the Redevelopment Agency to target a small district and create a mixed-use zone.
Commissioner McDonough suggested a pilot project as an example. She suggested possibly the Planning Office, Redevelopment Agency and another private entity could team up to work on such a project. She felt a local example that is well articulated would be very effective, rather than referring to other communities as examples of successful mixed-use projects.
Commissioner Noda agreed and added that a public/private partnership has been the way that other cities have developed high density projects. She added that the development and financial communities need to be involved. She felt that the banking community’s unwillingness to cooperate to create a mixed-use development would be a significant barrier. She added that housing is expensive in the City and a large number of families are moving to other cities in the Salt Lake Valley because they are getting more property for their money.
Commissioner De Lay stated that as a real-estate professional, she felt that the Redevelopment Agency process is a tremendous barrier which should be reevaluated. She added that the complaints from other professionals who work with the Redevelopment Agency are enormous in regard to the Redevelopment Agency process. She said that their vision is difficult to see as a citizen.
Commissioner Daniels suggested that a liaison position be developed to coordinate efforts of the Housing and Neighborhood Development, Redevelopment Agency and the real-estate community. He felt that this position may improve the housing situation in Salt Lake City.
Chair Muir agreed that a housing advocate, as part of City Staff, is a good idea.
Commissioner Scott said that a lot of people live in the Downtown area because they want to rent, and finding quality rentals is a challenge. She felt that there is a lack of enforcement in a lot of the rentals in the City. She added that it would make Downtown more livable if these enforcement issues were addressed. Commissioner Scott said that the renters are afraid to complain against their landlords for fear of retaliation.
Chair Muir suggested that representatives from the banking community meet with the Planning Commission. He said that Wells Fargo and Zions Bank are active in the mixed-use and affordable housing market.
Mr. Zunguze noted that there are issues the Planning Commission and Planning Division have control over which need to be identified. He said that those issues need to be articulated to the City Council. Mr. Zunguze indicated that he had requested one of the local developers to come to this meeting and provide a perspective from the development community.
Mr. Russ Watts of Watts Enterprises was invited to speak to the Commission regarding the challenges he faces as a developer in Salt Lake City. He said that he is very concerned with the vacant housing situations in Salt Cake City. He felt that the commercial development is what drives the economy and once the commercial market is prospering, the housing market will follow. He said that the two major housing barriers in Salt Lake City are land prices and parking. He said to have affordable housing, developers have to be creative in how parking is worked out. He felt that Salt Lake City is in an odd position in which millions of dollars have been spent on Trax; however, planning regulations require two parking stalls per unit.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Watts if the difficulty with parking is the requirement of multiple stalls per unit or is it the fact that the market demands that.
Mr. Watts referred to The Club Condominiums located on 150 South 300 East and said that because of the particular zoning, they were able to design one parking stall per 2-3 bedroom unit. Mr. Watts said that that was a successful development of a very high end project. He felt that shared parking is a good solution in a mixed-use development and referred to Denver as an example. He said that in developing mixed-use projects, they combine development funds and develop shared parking and open space. Mr. Watts stated that as a developer, he is very frustrated with the Redevelopment Agency’s process. Mr. Watts discussed the different housing projects that he has been a part of in Salt Lake City and said that if the density of a housing project requires a parking structure, then it will never work; parking structures only work in a commercial setting.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Watts if a parking structure would work in a remote location if certain blocks were targeted to be used as community parking structures. Mr. Watts answered that he has seen that work and as a developer, he would be willing to take the risk. He offered the idea of tandem parking which is one car parked behind another. He said that this may be a creative way to solve the parking problem and has been used in other cities.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Watts if he had an idea of the ratio of people who are attached to their cars. He felt that a lot of people do not realize the convenience of public transportation. Mr. Watts answered that other cities have naturally progressed to the point where a parking stall is a separate cost from purchasing a unit. He added that a majority of people in those cities use subways, buses and taxies as an alternative. He added that Salt Lake City may progress in that direction in the future.
Mr. Wilde referred to the East Downtown area where there is a reduction of parking to one-half parking stall per unit. He said that Staff has been surprised that the development community has not been more responsive to those lenient regulations and he asked Mr. Watts if it is the property value which has been the deterrent.
Mr. Watts said that “9-11” has taken the air out of a lot of development groups and financing entities. He said that another concern has been the state that Main Street has been in; it is unclear if housing is going away or coming back. He added that a lot of the development community is unaware that that zoning had been changed. He said that he was unaware until this meeting.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Watts if there is a risk of too much affordable housing in the City, which may drive off market rate development. Mr. Watts referred to the Club Condominiums which is a high end development which is located in-between affordable housing. He said that he did not think that is a risk.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Watts if he would see tax incentives as an encouragement to build more. Mr. Watts replied that tax incentives work well with government funded projects.
Mr. Watts thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak and he said that there are a lot of developers in the Salt Lake Community that are committed to getting people back into the City.
Mr. Zunguze added that it may be beneficial for the Commission to invite representatives from the banking industry to speak to the Commission and help identify specific problems.
Chair Muir referred to a committee of people from the community called the “Humanitarian Task Force” and felt it would be beneficial for a representative from that group to speak to the Commission as well. He said that they are studying a test case that New York has put into place due to the amount of homelessness there. He said they realized that they were spending more money per head to deal with the homeless situation than they would if they provided housing for them. He said that the Humanitarian Task Force is seriously studying the New York model. He mentioned a risk of creating the zoning to accommodate all of the supportable housing, which may ghettoize portions of the City. He said that it is a challenge and the Commission should see the perspective of those people working on homeless issue.
Commissioner Daniels suggested that the Commission invite a real-estate professional who works with commercial and residential properties, who would have a good sense of all the housing programs available in the City. He said that a city like Salt Lake is run by the service industry and this class of people needs to have opportunities to rent and purchase affordable housing.
Commissioner De Lay stated that she is a Real Estate Professional who specializes in affordable housing, which is nearly impossible to find. She said that it would be difficult to find a realtor who specializes in low-income housing and million dollar property housing. They are individual specialties.
Commissioner Seelig suggested that the City communicate with federal and other governing agencies to find out if those bodies are willing to be a part of the changes. She said that communication would reveal if different efforts need to be taken with elected officials. She added that in many cases, the elected officials may not know of the issues or impacts.
Commissioner McDonough wondered how great the need is for live-work space. She felt that live-work space would be a draw and asked how the Commission would obtain information regarding requests for such space.
Commissioner DeLay answered that the lending groups could inform the Commission as to how many request they receive for live-work space. She added that the problem is that there is so little zoning for the live-work space in Salt Lake City. She said that her office receives several phone calls a day for live-work space.
Chair Muir suggested that a representative of the Salt Lake Housing Authority be invited to come speak to the Commission.
Mr. Wilde stated that the Staff could provide the Commission with an overview of the zoning potential in Downtown. He said that some areas of the City are very lenient and it seems that the development community is not aware of the development potential.
Chair Muir asked if that could be accomplished in time for the next meeting and then some of the guests mentioned could be invited to speak to the Commission at the following meeting.
Mr. Wilde clarified that the notice going out regarding the City Wide Master Plan, and asked if the Commission would agree to Staff brain storming to identify business organizations that would appreciate the information. The Commission agreed to that.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Long Range Planning Issues Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m.