SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Gregory DeMille, Aria Funk, Gilbert lker, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Fred Fife and Diana Kirk were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Robert Glessner, Craig Hinckley, Joel Paterson, Doug Dansie and Emil Pierson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:20 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission.
Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, October 15, 1998 subject to a minor change being made. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows, Mr. Fife and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No.41 0-328 by ProLogis requesting a conditional use for an industrial planned development located at 1130 South 3800 West in the Sorenson Technology Park located in an Industrial "M-1" zoning district.
Preliminary subdivision approval is also requested for a three lot plat amendment (lot #20).
Mr. Max Smith noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-320 by U.S. West Wireless requesting a conditional use to install wireless telecommunications antennae on the Kol Ami Jewish Synagogue located at 2425 East Heritage Way in an Institutional "I" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Glen Nelson, representing U.S. West Wireless, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Srr1ith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith then stated that the Kol Ami Jewish Synagogue building is very obvious from the freeway, and that it is a superb piece of contemporary architecture, that perhaps it is not appropriate to approve this particular request.
Mr. Steed stated that he feels that the antennae will not be too noticeable from the freeway.
Ms. Funk stated that she does not like it either, however, it is more preferable than a monopole.
Motion for Petition No. 41 0-320:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-320 to install wireless telecommunications antennae on the Kol Ami Jewish Synagogue located at 2425 East Heritage Way subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows, Mr. Fife and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition Nos. 400-98-44 and 400-98-72 by Allen G. Nel requesting approval to rezone the property located on the northwest corner of Montgomery Street and 300 South Street from a Single Family Residential "R-1-5000" zoning district to a Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-3" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. McCandless then stated that two actions are being requested by the petitioner. The first is to rezone the property and the second is to vacate a portion of the Irving Park Addition Subdivision.
Messrs. Eldon Hackey and Sean Fleming, representing the petitioner, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Steed asked the petitioners about including open space within the development.
Mr. Hackey stated that the petitioner, Mr. Nel, is not opposed to including open space
(i.e. pocket park), however, he feels that it is not necessary because there is another park about a block and a half away from the proposed development.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Charlene Johnson, a resident in the area, stated that she is in favor of development for the vacant land, however, she does not foresee anyone wanting to buy a home in that area because the neighborhood needs to be cleaned up from the gangs and trash.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Comrr1ission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Messrs. Steed, Snelgrove and Mariger stated that they would like to see more interior open space within the development.
Motions for Petition Nos. 400-98-44 and 400-98-72:
Mr. lker moved, based on the findings of fact, that Petition No. 400-98-44 to rezone the property located on the northwest corner of Montgomery Street and 300 South Street from a Single Family Residential "R-1-5000" zoning district to a Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-3" zoning district be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. Development of the property according to the site plan as submitted.
1 Implementation of a homeowners association for the long-term maintenance of the berm along the north property line.
2 That the portion of the Irving Park Addition Subdivision owned by Mr. Nel and Mr. Welch be formally vacated by the City Council.
3 A subdivision plat be submitted and formally approved according to Title 20, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, consistent with the concept plans submitted.
4 Planning Director approval of the final plans for the sound attenuation berm, including long-term maintenance, as part of future administrative consideration of the subdivision. Planning Director also have final design approval for a small portion of the development to be common open space as part of the amenities. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
5 That the rezoning ordinance considered by the City Council include a condition that the ordinance not be published until preliminary subdivision approval is applied for and granted by the City and the subdivision being consistent with the concept plan and Comrr1unity Council approval.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows, Mr. Fife and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. lker moved, based on the findings of fact, that Petition No. 400-98-72 to vacate a portion of the Irving Park Addition Subdivision at the northwest corner of 300 South and Montgomery Street be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. DeMille,
Ms. Funk, Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows, Mr. Fife and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -The Planning Commission will re-hear Petition No. 410-302 by Thorn Williamsen. representing Chasebrook Company. requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development to expand an existing commercial shopping center and to consider a three lot subdivision for property consolidation on the north side of 400 South between 600 and 700 East in a Community Shopping "CS" zoning district and a Residential "RMF-35" zoning district.
Mr. Robert Glessner stated that the Planning Commission approved this planned development on July 9, 1998. A subdivision administrative hearing was held on October 16, 1998 in order to subdivide specific parcels to comply with the conditions of approval for the planned development. During the subdivision administrative hearing, neighboring residents stated that they were not notified of the July 9, 1998 public hearing and inquired about not being noticed. It was verified that property owners in attendance of the subdivision administrative hearing were not properly noticed of the Planning Commission planned development hearing and a re-notification of the planned development was required, thus requiring the re-hearing of the project.
Mr. Glessner then presented the addendum staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Glessner stated that there is an existing driveway (from 700 East) and parking easement along the north property line adjacent to a single family residence (owned by Drew and Gloria McCandless). The City's Zoning Ordinance requires that this easement have a 15 foot landscaped buffer. There are three different options available to Mr. and Mrs. McCandless which they have been considering. Staff is recommending Option #1 or Option #3 subject to Planning Director approval if the McCandless' and the developer cannot resolve the easement agreement. The three options are as follows:
Option #1 A 15 foot landscaped buffer between the property line and the
McCandless' property providing driveway access to the rear
yard.
Option #2 A 15 foot landscaped buffer along the north side of retail space 38 with 22.5 feet of asphalt driveway between the landscape buffer and the McCandless' property.
Option #3 A 12.5 foot asphalt area for the McCandless' easement, then 12 feet of landscaping between the two drive approaches and a 22.5 foot driveway adjacent to the north side of Building 38.
Mr. Thorn Williamsen, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Messrs. Christopher Webb and Russ Naylor were also present.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kevin Marcoux, a resident in the area, stated that he would like the developer to mitigate noise and visual impacts during the construction phase. He then stated that he is in favor of having a landscaped buffer, including trees, along the north property line which abuts residential homes. With there being some dumpsters on the north side of the building he suggests that garbage pick-up be limited to the same hours as delivery trucks which is between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Bill Bleazard, an abutting resident to the proposed development, stated that he is also concerned about the noise and visual impacts. He then stated that he agrees with Mr. Marcoux's comments that garbage pick-up be limited to the same hours as delivery trucks which is between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Mrs. Beverley Bleazard, an abutting resident to the proposed development, stated that she is concerned about the weeds and garbage that accumulate along the north property line and that she feels that the developers need to be responsible to keep it clean. Mrs. Bleazard also stated that she is concerned with graffiti.
Mr. lker noted that the City has a major interest in preventing graffiti and that there is help available through the City's Graffiti Hot Line.
After reviewing the three options available regarding the easement, Mrs. McCandless stated that she is not ready to make a decision at this time.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motions for Petition No. 410-302:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the previous public hearing, this public hearing and the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-302 for a planned development with modifications to the site plan, the minor subdivision and amending the conditions of approval as stated below:
Existing Conditions of Approval from the public hearing held on July 9. 1998:
1 A minor subdivision is required of the applicant to merge lots and adjust property boundaries for the new structures and to remedy the properties with split zones.
2 The existing parking and driveway easement required for the property owner to the north, along 700 East, is required to be modified to allow landscaping as part of the buffer between the land uses (Option #1). This must be recorded prior to building permit issuance. Or. in the alternative that an agreement is not made, Option #3 be satisfied. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
3 Building setbacks shall be adhered to as identified on the proposed site plan. No setback shall be greater than 15 feet on 400 South and 700 East. No setback in the rear yard shall be less than 15 feet. Any future minor deviations to the setbacks shall require Planning Director approval and major amendments to the planned development require Planning Corr1mission approval.
4 Provide proper security lighting in the rear yard of the planned development.
1 Delivery hours and garbage pick-up for the planned development along the north property line shall not take place between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Semi-tractor trailers are prohibited from loading areas that require the vehicle to "back in or out" on 700 East. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
2 Detailed landscape plan shall be required prior to building permit issuance and subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
3 A locking gate at the pedestrian access between the proposed Building #2 and Building #3A subject to the Planning Director's approval.
4 A designated walk (colored, stamped or textured pavement) running east to west between proposed Buildings #6 & #9 and #4 & #5 subject to the Planning Director's approval.
Additional conditions of approval to the planned development include:
9. The project will have a phased construction program that requires Retail Space 4 and 6 to be constructed between now and the time of the expiration of the initial rear retail (Buildings #2 and #3) lease agreement within a maximum 1 0-year period. Second lease agreements and business licenses will not be renewed for Buildings #2 and #3 if the construction is not completed for Retail Space 4 and 6 within the 10-year period.
10. The property owner will comply with the sign regulations for the "CS" zoning district with the exception that pole signs will not be permitted.
11. No non-residential parking shall be permitted in the "RMF-35" zoned properties located north of the commercial zoned planned development.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows, Mr. Fife and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant preliminary subdivision approval to the 4th South Market Minor Subdivision and delegate final approval to the Planning Director, subject to compliance with all departmental conditions and requirements. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows, Mr. Fife and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No. 400-98-70 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone property in the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H Rock area generally located east of Foothill Drive between 1900 South and 2350 South from Residential "R-1¬12000" and "SR-1" zoning districts to a Foothill Residential "FR-3" zoning district.
Ms. Barrows arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
Mr. Craig Hinckley stated that on June 18, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comment on the Small Area Plan and related zone changes and recommended that the Plan and zone changes be adopted by the City Council. However, it was subsequently determined that the public notice requirements of Section 21A.1 0.020 D. (amendments to the Zoning Map or the text of the Zoning Ordinance) had not been fully satisfied. For this reason, a second hearing has been scheduled for tonight.
Mr. Hinckley then presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rolen Yoshinaga, a resident in the area, asked for clarification as to why the designation over to the "FR-3" zoning ends at the point where Broadmore intersects Wasatch Drive.
Mr. Hinckley stated that when the boundaries were initially drawn, they were drawn where there were consistently steep slope areas. There are some additional steep slope areas going farther north along Wasatch Drive and it was determined to be a logical place to change the zoning.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger asked if the duplexes that are along Foothill Drive, that are currently zoned "SR-1 ", will become non-conforming as a result of this zoning change.
Mr. Wright stated that there is a legal conforming status for two farr1ily dwellings and twin homes. Any two family dwelling or twin home, that was a legal existence prior to April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming. With this status they can have alterations and additions made and if they burn totally to the ground or are demolished, they can be rebuilt and would have to meet the standards of the zone.
Mr. Mariger then stated that he has a philosophical objection because he does not agree with the concept that someone should, after they purchase a home, restrict someone else who is in another zone solely for their benefit.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-70:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-98-70 to change the zone from "SR-1" and "R-1-12000" to "FR-3" in the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark neighborhoods as illustrated on the map attached to the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. lker, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger was opposed. Mr. Fife and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Barrows excused herself from the Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNING ISSUES
Initial review and Planning Commission discussion of Petition No. 410-329 by H. Roger Boyer. representing Gateway Associates. requesting approval for a planned development for the "Grande Union at Gateway" project located between North Temple & 200 South and 400 West & 500 West.
Mr. Roger Boyer, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Boyer introduced Mr. David Moreno, the architect for the proposed development. Mr. Moreno briefed the Planning Commission members regarding the progress of the scheme. He stated that the project will be an appropriate extension of Downtown Salt Lake City. It will be a series of buildings that will be broken down to be compatible with the scale of the City. The mixed use project will include cultural, residential, office building, hotel, cinema theater, retail and restaurant occupancies as well as structured parking to support these uses. This project has been designed with the intent to establish compatibility with the adjacent property and neighborhood. This concept extends beyond the immediate area of adjacent sites to Downtown Salt Lake City. A strong effort has been made to ensure that this development is consistent with the Gateway Master Plan.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the proposed development, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He then stated that the large mixed use project is proposed to be constructed on the Union Pacific South Yard located between North Temple and 200 South from 400 West to 500 West. The site includes the Union Pacific Depot. Mr. Paterson then stated that a subcommittee was created by the Planning Commission to review the project. The Planning Commission members sitting on the subcommittee are Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Mr. Steed, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. DeMille. The subcommittee has met on October 21, and October 28, 1998.
Mr. Paterson continued by stating that the Gateway Development Master Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 11, 1998. The proposed development site is located within the Union Paci'fic Sub-district identified in the Plan. The Plan envisions:
1 The focus of this sub-district will be on visitor attractions, museums, educational facilities, shopping, theme entertainment/retail, open space, major employment, residential and hotel and cultural uses.
2 That housing become part of a mixed-use urban neighborhood with a large component of high density and varied housing types.
3 That the Union Pacific Depot be adapted and reused.
4 The extension of Rio Grande Street north of 200 South.
5 Bringing City Creek back to the surface as part of the urban design for this area.
The proposed project includes elements that are consistent with these objectives. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the proposed project and the above mentioned objectives.
Mr. Paterson then noted that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold an Open House to discuss the Mr. Boyer's proposed project on Monday, November 16, 1998. A public hearing has also been scheduled before the Planning Commission on Thursday, November 19, 1998.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.