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, Tim Chambless; Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Prescott Muir, Peggy McDonough, and Laurie Noda were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Principal Planner Wayne Mills; 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 Chambless 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.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
This item was heard at 5:48 p.m.
Chair Chambless stated that the Chair and Vice Chair had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:49 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the Harper project which was discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting. He noted that Councilmember Christensen requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to proceed with the change in the zoning of properties on the west side of Redwood Road from “M1” Light Industrial to “BP” Business Park in conformance with the Rose Park Master Plan. Mr. Zunguze asked if the Commission is so inclined to initiate the said petition.
Commissioner Diamond so initiated.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Zunguze stated that there will be a Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair meeting at the end of November or beginning of December.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he is trying to arrange a fieldtrip for the Planning Commission to visit the Gateway housing project on December 15, 2004.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
This item was heard at 5:51 p.m.
Chair Chambless referred to item C of the Consent Agenda noting that an appeal has been submitted to the Board of Adjustment regarding this matter. He referred to item D of the Consent Agenda saying that during the field trip he noticed that the requested wheelchair access was already built. Chair Chambless stated that items C and D shall be pulled from the agenda this evening until the associated issues are sorted out.
a. Smith-Scott Properties, Inc. and Salt Lake City Property Management – Request by Smith-Scott Properties to be allowed to continue to encroach upon the City street right-of-way along 1100 East street with a non-complying on-premise pole sign which overhangs the public sidewalk by 6 feet. The property is located at 2005 South 1100 East, in the Sugar House Planning Community, and is zoned Sugar House Business “C-SHBD”. A lease agreement is being required by property management Staff, who recommended that the encroachment lease be approved.
b. Armand Johansen, representing McClelland Retail Partners and Salt Lake City Property Management – McClelland Retail Partners is requesting that property management issue a lease to allow aerial encroachments for four canopies/awnings, which are architectural features of the new building, to overhang the street right-of-way and public sidewalk by 2.5 feet. The property is located at 1006 East 2100 South Street, in the Sugar House Planning Community, and is zoned Sugar House Business District “C-SHBD”. Property Management Staff recommend that the encroachment lease be approved.
c. Questar Gas Company and Salt Lake City Property Management – Questar Gas is requesting a utility easement to allow a natural gas service line to be extended within Liberty Park, to provide gas service for new heaters in the new tennis court bubble structure, which is being erected to allow winter tennis court use. The proposed utility easement is located at approximately 1050 South 650 East and will extend from an existing gas line easement within the park. The park is zoned Open Space and is located in the Central City Planning Community. Property Management and Public Services Staff recommend approval of the utility easement.
d. Big-D Construction and Salt Lake City Property Management – Big-D Construction is requesting an encroachment lease agreement to allow the construction of a wheelchair access ramp for the new headquarters building located at 404 West 400 South, which would encroach into the public street right-of-way on 400 South Street by 3.5 feet. The subject building is located in the Central City Planning Community and is zoned Downtown Warehouse/Residential “D-3”. Property Management and the City DRT Staff recommend the approval of the encroachment lease.
e. Doerken Properties and Salt Lake City Property Management – Doerken Properties is constructing a new parking structure to support the existing office building at 324 South State Street. The City is requiring the construction of a sand/grease trap interceptor on the storm water drain prior to entering the City storm water drain system. Doerken Properties is requesting a public way encroachment lease to allow the sand/grease trap interceptor to be constructed under the City sidewalk on Exchange Place. The subject building property is zoned Central Business District “D-1”, within the Central City Planning Community. Property Management and the City DRT Staffs recommend approval of the encroachment lease.
Property Conveyance matters located outside of Salt Lake City:
f. Highland Care Center/Daywest Properties and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department Highland/Daywest Properties is requesting approval of a proposed box culvert construction and a surface use lease for an approximate 300 foot portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal right-of-way, located at 4285 South Highland Drive. This portion of the canal right-of-way property is located in Holladay City. Public Utilities and Property Management Staff recommend approval of the surface use lease and box culvert construction request.
g. Quest Communications and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – Quest is requesting a standard utility permit to allow the installation of 2 fiber optic cable conduits to cross a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal right-of-way property, located at 35 West 9000 South in Sandy City. Public Utilities Staff recommends approval of the utility permit request.
Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve items A, B, E, F, & G of the consent agenda. She requested that items C & D be tabled at this time until the issues associated with those requests are sorted out.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-04-38, by Capitol Park Penthouses, L.L.C. and Karen S. Wright requesting a zoning map amendment to reclassify the property located at 635 North “F” Street, consisting of the 5.1 acre site of the old Veteran’s Administration (V.A.) Hospital, from “FR-3/12000” Foothills Residential District to “RMF-35” Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District, in order to convert the V.A. Hospital Buildings into two condominium projects. The main V.A. Hospital building is proposed as a 29-unit residential condominium and the Annex building is proposed as a 7-unit residential condominium. The requested rezone also requires that the future land use map in the Avenues Community Master Plan be amended to reflect a higher density residential use rather than a “very-low density” residential land use category.
This item was heard at 5:54 p.m.
Principal Planner Wayne Mills presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that the proposal before the Commission this evening is to rezone the subject 5.1 acre site, containing the old Veterans Administration Hospital, from “FR-3”, Foothills Residential to “RMF-35”, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential. Mr. Mills stated that the site is located in the upper Avenues area, west of the intersection of F Street and 13th Avenue.
Mr. Mills stated that currently, the old Veterans Administration Hospital consists of two buildings connected by a three story enclosed corridor. He stated that the requested rezone would facilitate future development plans of converting the two structures into two separate condominium projects. The said rezone is required because the “FR-3” zone does not permit muti-family development. The requested rezone also requires amendment of the Avenues Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from “Very Low Density Residential” to a land use category that permits a slightly greater density. Mr. Mills stated that future plans for the project include demolishing the connecting corridor and application for subdivision approval to legalize the north-south property line that separates the two buildings. The properties would then be developed under separate ownership as separate condominium projects.
Mr. Mills stated that the Annex building (west building) is proposed as a seven-unit residential condominium project, which would have access from Capitol Park Avenue. The main building (east building) is proposed as a 28-unit condominium project with an additional dwelling unit that would be utilized as a caretaker’s home, totaling 29-units.
Mr. Mills noted that the main concern associated with muti-family projects is the potential for increased traffic. He noted that the Salt Lake City Transportation Division has indicated that the requested 36-units would not impact the level of service on the major intersections on the streets in the Avenues community. He noted that the Greater Avenues Community Council has submitted a letter in support of the request, which has been included in the staff report.
Mr. Mills stated that based on the review, analysis, and findings in the staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property from “FR-3” to “RMF-35” to allow the conversion of the old V.A. Hospital and Annex buildings into multiple family residential uses. The Planning Staff also recommends an amendment to the Avenues Community Master Plan Map to show the subject property as “Low-Density” Residential to allow 36 residential dwelling units to be developed within the subject rezone area. The Planning Staff’s recommendation is contingent upon the conditions noted in the staff report.
Commissioner Diamond asked Staff why the project was presented as rezone request rather than a planned unit development.
Mr. Wheelwright replied that the planned unit development would not allow a multi-family use under the base zoning requirements. Mr. Wheelwright stated that Staff felt that the rezoning option was the most straight forward approach.
Commissioner Diamond asked for clarification regarding the specific modifications from the plan that the Commission has previously reviewed.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the original concept plan at an “Issues Only Hearing”. At that time Staff was seeking direction as to the best approach in presenting the request to the Commission. He stated that the product this evening is a result of the “Issues Only Hearing” discussions. Mr. Zunguze referred to Commissioner Diamond’s question regarding the planned unit development option. He stated that the planned unit development process allows creativity in how to site projects, but does not allow a change in density requirements. He stated that the intent behind the current proposal is to utilize the building while keeping in mind the base zoning. He said that the Applicant and the City agreed on the rezone proposal and a development agreement that limits the number of units to be compatible with the area.
Mr. Wheelwright added that the additional changes from the last plan will be addressed by the Applicants. He briefly noted that the entry treatment has shifted from the parking and access on the west side to parking and access on the north side. The Applicant is not building a porte-cochere extension on the south side which was originally presented. The parking layout has been modified from underground parking on the south side to underground and surface parking on north side.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the Fire Department concerns regarding the fire apparatus access road. She asked if those changes have been made and are reflected in the plans.
Mr. Mills replied that the Applicant has been working with the Fire Department and some of the modifications are reflected in the proposed plans.
Commissioner Seelig asked if the Staff recommended condition number 4 will help mitigate those issues.
Mr. Mills replied that the Fire Department approval is required as part of the subdivision approval.
Chair Chambless asked regarding the status of the smoke stack.
Mr. Mills deferred to the Applicant to respond to that question.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Sheinberg addressed the Commission. He noted that there is a letter in support from the Avenues Community Council, which has been included in the staff report. He said that in terms of the proposed changes, they have tried to preserve the historic nature of the site.
Mr. Kevin Horn, Architect for the project, addressed the Commission. He referred to diagrams of the site identifying the proposed modifications as noted in the staff report. He stated that they plan to demolish the smoke stack.
Commissioner Diamond asked regarding the location of the fire truck access to the structure.
Mr. Horn replied that fire truck access is through the porte-cochere. He stated that in working with the Fire Department, they asked the Applicant to develop a concept to mitigate the Fire Department’s concerns. He stated that they have not met with the Fire Department to discuss the particulars of the current plan; however, he believed that this is the direction that the Fire Department requested.
Commissioner Diamond asked regarding the development schedule.
Mr. Sheinberg replied that they plan to begin the internal demolition by the end of December, 2004 or beginning of January 2005. He said that they hope to begin new construction in March 2005.
Commissioner Diamond noted that demolition and construction can be an inconvenience for the adjacent residents. He requested that the Applicant work to communicate with the adjacent community to mitigate those issues.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the Commission received three letters regarding the proposal. The first letter was from Mr. Robert Barrett which was forwarded to the Commission a day before the meeting by email. Mr. Barrett was not necessarily opposed to the petition; however, he indicated concerns with the potential increase in traffic. He hoped to discuss his concerns with the developer to find a solution. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the two additional letters were placed in front of the Commissioners this evening. A letter from Ms. Anne Peterson, a resident of 640 “K” Street, indicated that she is not necessarily opposed to the petition; however, she questioned the marketability of being able to sell the proposed amount of condominiums. The Commission also received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Palmer stating their concern with traffic. They recommended that the zoning not be changed and that the site be developed as single family homes.
Commissioner De Lay asked regarding the price point per unit.
Mr. Sheinberg replied that the units will start in the high $500,000-range.
Commissioner De Lay referred to Ms. Peterson’s letter. She said that she appreciates that Ms. Peterson recognizes the charming historic feel of the Mayflower, Dorius, and Maryland condominiums, unfortunately most of those buildings are failing and the maintenance fees are so high that the condos are very hard to sale. Commissioner De Lay said that she did not feel that the information presented in Ms. Petersons’ letter is quite accurate. Commissioner De Lay said that she appreciates that the Applicant is trying to keep the historic integrity of the green space and the buildings. She said that there is very little high end housing in Salt Lake City, and the current proposal will help fill that need.
Mr. Sheinberg agreed that there is a need for high-end housing. He referred to the fire concern, saying that they are removing every interior wall in the structure. He stated that the brick veneer, structure, and the cement floors will be retained. Otherwise the structure will be new, therefore eliminating much of the fire concern.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Applicant will be building all of the units at the same time.
Mr. Sheinberg replied that they will be built at the same time with the exception of the finishing work of the individual condos. He stated that all of the major construction will be finished by the second quarter of 2006.
Mr. Jonathan Ruga, adjacent property owner and representative of the Capitol Park Home Owners Association, addressed the Commission. He asked how the coordination of construction of the two buildings will proceed, given the two separate ownerships. He also asked how the look of the structures and landscaping will be coordinated between the owners.
Mr. Jim Michee, adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission representing himself and his wife. He said that they appreciate that the Applicant is preserving the historic nature of the site as well as the reduction in the number of units. He said that they support the proposal and feel that there is a market for such a project.
Commissioner De Lay asked if Mr. Michee believes that the proposal will impact his property value.
Mr. Michee replied that he believes that the project will greatly enhance his property value. He added that the project will be a great addition for the City as a whole.
Ms. Ruth Ann Hamilton, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. She said that she agrees with the concerns already expressed. She said that she is in support of the project. She said that if this type of housing were available when she moved to Salt Lake City she would have bought into it. She noted that the Capitol Park Home Owners Association has met with the developers regarding the project and they support the proposal.
Mr. Sheinberg referred to the question regarding the coordination of the development of the two structures. Mr. Sheinberg stated that he and Mr. Wally and Mrs. Karen Wright, owners of the Annex Building, have all agreed that the renovation and construction of both buildings will take place concurrently. He added that they have agreed to work together to coordinate the landscaping.
Mr. Wally Wright addressed the Commission saying that the two owners have been working to coordinate their plans, and will continue to do so.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the Wright’s currently live in the Annex Building. She asked if the Wright’s will develop the building into separate units.
Mr. Wright stated that they eventually plan to develop the building into separate units.
Commissioner Diamond asked for clarification saying that the request is for seven units in the Annex Building.
Mr. Wright stated that they are currently requesting the rezone which would allow for seven units in the future.
Commissioner Diamond indicated concern with the duration of the development. He asked if there is a sunset on this approval. He said that the rezone will allow the 36-units as discussed. He said that there have been projects in the past that have been required to adhere to sunset dates.
Mr. Wheelwright replied that the petition before the Commission is a request to rezone. He said that the subdivision and condominium requests will be presented in the future. He said that there have been no discussions regarding a sunset date to try to limit the duration of the zoning, pending the Applicant proceeding with development applications.
Mr. Zunguze added that the priority for Staff was to ensure that the density is compatible with the rest of the area.
Commissioner De Lay suggested that a display of the historic facts of the site be incorporated into the main structure.
Mrs. Karen Wright addressed the Commission saying that she has compiled historic information and would be happy to share this information with the developer.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Diamond reiterated that he believes the current proposal exceeds beyond rezoning because it will impact the number of units.
Chair Chambless clarified that the current proposal before the Commission is for a rezone.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that there are two safeguards in the proposal; one, the density limit of 36 units which will be embodied in a development agreement between the City and the developers. The second safeguard is that the rezoning petition is limited to reuse of the existing buildings.
Commissioner Scott asked if the demolition issues will be addressed in the demolition permitting process.
Mr. Zunguze replied that that is correct.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-38
Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the review, analysis, and findings noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property from “FR-3” to “RMF-35” to allow the conversion of the V.A. Hospital and Annex buildings into multiple family residential uses. The Planning Commissioner further recommended the amendment to the Avenues Community Master Plan Map to show the subject property as “Low-Density” Residential to allow 36 residential dwelling units to be developed within the subject rezone area, subject to the following conditions:
1. The property owners’ sign a Development Agreement to be recorded on the property stating that the total number of dwelling units within the rezone area may not exceed thirty-six.
2. The V.A. Hospital building and Annex must be reused for residential development. The three-story corridor connecting the V.A. Hospital Building to the Annex may be demolished if required under the subdivision process.
3. If the V.A. Hospital building and Annex are developed under separate ownership, subdivision approval shall be obtained in conformance with Salt Lake City and State of Utah laws, ordinances, and policies.
4. Condominium approval must be obtained in conformance with Salt Lake City and State of Utah laws, ordinances, and policies.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-04-47, by the Salt Lake City Administration requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Sign ordinance regarding portable signs, such as “A-frame” signs. The petition proposes to make the portable sign regulations permanent by removing reference to a November 30, 2004 sunset date.
This item was heard at 6:48 p.m.
Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that the request is by the Salt Lake City Administration to amend the text of Chapter 21A.46 Signs of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by eliminating the expiration dates for the portable sign regulations. The requested text amendment will make the portable sign provisions a permanent part of the sign ordinance.
On October 22, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt Petition 400-03-26, to allow portable signs to be located within the public right-of-way in certain downtown, commercial, manufacturing and mixed-use residential zoning districts. The purpose of the portable sign provisions is to encourage and facilitate additional retail activity in the City. Many business owners in the Central Business District indicate that 20 percent or more of their business activity is generated from these signs.
When the Planning Commission considered the portable sign provisions there was concern that the actual use of portable signs would not be consistent with the original intent and that the provisions could be abused. For this reason, the Planning Commission recommended adding an expiration date of mid-November 2004, to the portable sign provisions. In this manner, if significant problems with implementation of the ordinance arose or widespread displeasure was expressed regarding the manner in which portable signs were displayed, the provisions would automatically expire. Mr. Paterson noted that there has been a fairly positive response regarding the portable signs and the Administration recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to remove the expiration dates included in the portable sign provisions found in Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner De Lay disclosed that she is a business owner Downtown and has a personal interest in the portable signs. She asked if the Commission feels that she should recuse herself from this public hearing.
Commissioner Galli said that Commissioner De Lay has satisfied her responsibility in disclosing that information and he felt that that would not affect Commissioner De Lay’s ability to make a decision regarding the proposal.
Commissioner Scott asked if all portable signs need to be located within 25-feet of the establishment entrance.
Mr. Paterson replied that an individual responsible for the sign must be within 25-feet of the portable sign.
Commissioner Scott reiterated that a sign could be placed several blocks away from a business, if there is a person responsible for maintaining the placement of the sign.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the proposed ordinance applies to people who wear sandwich board type signs.
Commissioner De Lay felt that those types of signs fall under the freedom of speech category which can not be regulated.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the City Attorney’s Office has indicated that if a person is wearing or holding a sign it would fall under the freedom of expression category.
Commissioner Galli referred to the words “freestanding portable sign” in the proposal and said that he would interpret that language as a signs which does not need to be supported by a person or a structure. He said that sandwich board type signs would not be governed by the proposed ordinance.
Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scott noted that the proposal is attached to certain zones. She asked if a portable sign could be located outside of those zones if they are attended.
Mr. Paterson replied that portable signs must be located in the zones listed in the staff report. He gave an example saying that if a business is located in a “CN” zone, the portable sign could not be placed in an adjacent “R-2” zone.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the Commission received a letter of support from Central City Community Council Chair Thomas Mutter, representing himself.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-47
Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the findings in the original staff report, the evaluation of the current proposal, the responses received regarding the modification, and discussion this evening, that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to remove the expiration dates included in the portable sign provisions found in Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.