SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:08 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Weston Clark, Vice Chairperson Ivis Garcia; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Carolynn Hoskins, Brenda Scheer and Sara Urquhart. Commissioners Emily Drown, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes and Clark Ruttinger were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Nick Norris, Planning Director; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner; Michelle Poland, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Weston Clark, Maurine Bachman, Ivis Garcia, and Sara Urquhart. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris and Doug Dansie.
• 315 East 200 South -Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked what was happening on the ground level. Staff stated it would be commercial space.
• 1370 East Kensington Avenue -Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 2017, MEETING MINUTES. 5:30:25 PM MOTION 5:30:33 PM Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the November 8, 2017, meeting minutes. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Garcia, Bachman, Scheer and Urquhart voted “aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voting as she was not present at the subject meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:30:55 PM
Chairperson Clark stated he had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Garcia stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:31:00 PM Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Director, asked the Commission if they would like to keep the Public Hearing for the Block 67 item open or if it was closed. He stated their decision would determine how the project was advertised on the December 13, agenda.
The Commission and Staff discussed whether or not to allow public input for the Block 67 petition.
The Commission stated they would like the Block 67 petition advertised as a Public Hearing.
Sugar House Development, Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review at approximately 2290 S 1300 East -David Dixon, representing the property owner Sugar House Property, LLC is requesting Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review approval to develop two office buildings with an associated parking structure, and a multi-family residential building with ground floor retail at the above listed address. The proposed structures were approved by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2017 but the Commission requested that the applicant come back with additional details. These details include wayfinding signs, a management plan for the art gallery, and modifications to the north side of one of the office buildings. The subject property is located in the Sugar House Business District-1 (CSHBD-1) zoning district and is within Council District 7, represented by Lisa Adams. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801)535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com.) Case numbers: PLNSUB2017-00298 and PLNPCM2017-00300 (Administrative Matter)
Mr. Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file).
Mr. David Dixon, Dixon and Associates, thanked the city for approving the plans and help they have given to move the project forward
Mr. Cameron Bassett, development team, reviewed the signage and the placement of those signs on the site.
The Commission and Applicants discussed the following: • The inspiration for the signage and how it related to Sugar House.
Mr. Mark Isaac-reviewed the gallery space component of the development.
The Commission and Applicants discussed the following: • If a firm commitment was in place with the proposed management company.
Mr. Dixon reviewed the façade of the building and the changes that had been made to the medical building.
The Commission and Applicants discussed the following:
• The location of the deli in the medical building.
• If the glass on the medical building was tinted.
• The hours of operation for the gallery.
• Who would have access to and usage of the gallery space?
• If the gallery space would be rented or free to the management company.
• The general operation and programing of the gallery space.
MOTION 5:52:47 PM Commissioner Scheer stated based on the information in the memorandum, attached plans, and discussion by the Planning Commission, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the additional materials as proposed. By approving these materials, conditions 6, 7, and 8 from the Commission’s approval of PLNSUB2017-00298 and PLNPCM2017-00300 have been met. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion.
The Commission and Staff discussed the process of ensuring the conditions were satisfied.
Commissioners Garcia, Bachman, Hoskins, Scheer and Urquhart voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Violin School Commons Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 315 East 200 South -The Violin School Commons Associates is requesting approval of a Planned Development and a Preliminary Subdivision for a property at the above listed address. The City has declared surplus the former Public Safety Building and contracted with a developer to preserve/renovate the building. The proposed project includes housing units above ground level retail within the existing building and three additional buildings to be constructed on the remainder of the site. The overall project is proposed to include approximately 248 units of housing. The developer is applying for a Planned Development to allow for multiple buildings with shared access, modified setback requirements, off-site parking in a shared facility and shared open space; the petitioner is also applying for a Preliminary Subdivision to accommodate the proposal Zoning District: RMU Residential Mixed use. The subject property is within Council District 4 represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Doug Dansie at (801)535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) Case number: PLNSUB2017-00703 and PLNSUB2017-00704 (Administrative Item)
Mr. Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the petition as outlined in the Staff Report.
Mr. Chris Zarak, developer, reviewed the proposal its purposed, layout and use of the structures, history of the site and how it would benefit the area. He reviewed the commercial aspects of the proposal and how they would appeal to the neighborhood.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• The connection between the two buildings and parking garage.
• The historic renovation of the building.
• The process to ensure the exterior of the building was historically preserved.
• The thought process on how the new structures would connect or relate to the historic structure.
• The management of the site and how the public would lease the spaces in the
development.
• The interactive spaces on the ground level of each of the buildings.
• If public space would be available on the roof of the Metropolitan.
• Why the proposed name was chosen.
• The outdoor dining that would be offered throughout the development.
• How the buildings did and did not relate to each other in architecture, material and
expression.
• The standard in the ordinance regarding compatibility and how the design would change as the project moved forward.
• The affordability of the units and interaction with the community in the buildings.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:31:29 PM Chairperson Clark opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. David Amot and Ms. Joann Hook.
The following comments were made:
• Preservation Utah supported the proposal and was excited about the project. • Would prefer the units to be owner occupied and not rentals as a larger number of low
income individuals would create issues in the neighborhood.
• Would there be a cap on the number of affordable units in the area to prevent saturation.
• How the activities and residence of the buildings would be monitored.
Chairperson Clark closed the Public Hearing.
The applicant reviewed the number of unites that would subsidized, the reason the units would be rentals and not owner occupied. He reviewed the RFP requirements regarding affordability and apartments.
The Commission discussed the following:
• The review process for the application and why the planned development process was chosen.
• The review of the architecture.
• The standards of review for the proposal and how architecture was regulated. • The modification of the Planned Development and how those would be approve or
reviewed.
• If the design could be changed after the Planned Development was approved.
• The scale and design of the buildings and how they related to each other.
MOTION 6:59:44 PM Commissioner Scheer stated based on the information in the Staff Report, the information presented, and the input received during the Public Hearing, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development PLNSUB2017-00703 with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant return to the Planning Commission with revised and completed façade plans for all of the new buildings.
Based on the information in the Staff Report, the information presented, and the input received during the Public Hearing, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Subdivision PLNSUB2017-00704. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion.
The Commission, applicant and staff discussed the following:
• The Commission would like a design that gave the buildings a more connective feel between the new and old buildings.
• The motion to come back will be limited to the standards related to the ground floor design, not the entire façade and the entire façade is outside of the Planning Commission’s authority for a planned development.
Commissioners Garcia, Bachman, Hoskins, Scheer and Urquhart voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
7:10:15 PM
Alley Vacation at approximately 1370 East Kensington Avenue -Michael Daily and Gabrielle Barker, property owners, are requesting Salt Lake City to vacate the alley adjacent to their property located at the above listed address. The alley runs north/south between Kensington and Bryan Avenues and 1300 and 1400 East. The alley is adjacent to five properties, it has been used as a private driveway and there are two garages built over the alley. Current property owners would like to fix this situation by vacating the alley and incorporating the vacated alley into their properties. The subject alley is located on a block that is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning district within Council District 6, represented by Charlie Luke. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801)535¬6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number: PLNPCM2017-00628 (Administrative Matter)
Mr. Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council and Mayor as outlined in the Staff Report.
Ms. Gabrielle Barker, applicant, reviewed the request.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:07:49 PM Chairperson Clark opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Clark closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 7:08:00 PM Commissioner Urquhart stated based on the information in the staff report, the policy considerations for alley vacations, and the input received during the public hearing, she moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Mayor to declare the alley surplus property and to the City Council to vacate the alley (PLNPCM2017-00628) at approximately 1370 Kensington Avenue. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Garcia, Bachman, Hoskins, Scheer and Urquhart
voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
7:09:04 PM
Vintage Signs Text Amendment -The Salt Lake City Council initiated a petition to allow for the identification of nonconforming vintage signs subject to specific standards and to allow additional flexibility in terms of placement, modification, and relocation for signs identified as Vintage Signs. The amendments will affect section 21A.46 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A (Zoning) may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact: Anthony Riederer at (801)535-7625 or anthony.riederer@slcgov.com.) Case number: PLNPCM2017-00819 (Legislative Matter)
Mr. Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council as outlined in the Staff Report.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • If signs becoming public art was only city sponsored or if private citizens/property owners could develop projects.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:21:50 PM Chairperson Clark opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Judi Short, Sugar House Community Council, thanked staff for the work on the proposal and reviewed historic signs in Sugar House that have been lost or are being stored. She stated she was excited for the proposed amendment as it was a small way to bring the history back to Sugar House.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. David Amot, Mr. Dan Pace, Mr. John Wallace, and Mr. Vince Coley.
The following comments were made:
• The brief from the National Park Services regarding signs that supported amendments
such as the one being proposed.
• Young Electric Sign Company was founded on constructing the type of sign proposed to
be preserved by the text amendment.
• Please approve the proposal.
• Need to change some of the verbiage to allow some of the vintage signs to be brought
back in to Sugar House.
• Would like the word replica added to the amendment that would give a business owner the option to restore their building signs to historic nature.
Chairperson Clark closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The wording in the amendment and how it would affect replicated signs.
• The ability of a business to take their vintage sign with them if they relocate.
• At what point a sign became a replica versus a restoration.
• Should there be a percentage of damage to the sign that would allow restoration.
• A replica should only be allowed if the original is gone.
• What type of evidence would be required when replicating a sign?
• Allowing a historic sign to be moved with a business.
o Location was part of the vintage aspect of the sign.
• How to allow vintage signs that have been removed to be brought back into the public view.
• Would like the following issues addressed in the amendment.
o If a sign could be moved with a business.
o Address the issue of replica.
• Tabling the petition or allowing the petition to move forward with additions. • Conditions to add to the motion regarding businesses relocating signs and replicating signs.
MOTION 7:59:34 PM Commissioner Scheer stated based on the information in the Staff Report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, she moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve PLNPCM2017-00819. With the following changes:
• To allow replica sign to be considered as vintage signs if they are in the same location and design as the original sign based on documentation.
• To allow a business owner who is relocating their business to remove a vintage sign and relocate the sign to their new location.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Garcia, Bachman, Hoskins, Scheer and Urquhart voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8:01:23 PM