November 7, 1996

 

SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

451 South State Street, Room 315

 

Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Max Smith, Ralph Becker, Jim McRea, Gilbert Iker, Aria Funk, Fred Fife and Carlton Christensen. Diana Kirk and Judi Short were excused.

 

Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce and Cheri Coffey.

 

A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Young. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.

 

Mr. Young introduced Mr. Carlton Christensen, a new member on the Planning Commission and welcomed him to the Commission.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Mr. Iker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, October 17, 1996 as presented. Mr. Becker seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Iker, Mr. Becker, Mr. Smith, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Ms. Funk voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

 

PETITIONS

PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-46 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division requesting Section 1 2-0.7 [Codified as 21 A.24. 1 01 CGU of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to require conditional use approval for flag lots in residential districts.

 

Mr. Brent Wilde 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 asked if a proposal to create three flag lots on a large parcel of land would be allowed under this ordinance. Mr. Wilde explained that a proposal to develop three lots would be considered a planned development.

 

Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Brian Jessop, a concerned citizen, stated that he had filed an application to create a flag lot on his property and added that he felt he had been caught in the middle of this process. Mr. Jessop said he was in support of flag lots.

 

Mr. Young asked him if he saw any problems with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Jessop said he did not see any problems with it and added that his proposal had been scheduled for the November 21st Planning Commission meeting.

 

Mr. Jessop said he thought the City needed to develop some kind of instruction booklet informing potential developers of all of the steps they needed to follow in circumstances like this. Mr. Jessop said he felt like he had been “beaten up" by the process he had been caught in.

 

Mr. Wright agreed that Mr. Jessop had been caught in the middle of the change in the process.

 

Mr. Jessop expressed concern that people who had attended the community council meeting and voted on this matter had not even visited the site.

 

Mr. Becker assured Mr. Jessop that the Planning Commission members attended field trips prior to their Planning Commission meetings.

 

Mr. Rawlins Young, the Vice Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that this area of Sugar House had quite a few of these deep lots. Mr. Young suggested the City consider not allowing flag lots at all. He said he believed housing located on lots without street frontage experienced problems as they aged and said it was expensive to mitigate those problems.

 

Mr. Wright stated that the existing ordinance allowed flag lots as permitted uses in certain areas and explained that the conditional use process would allow the Planning Commission additional control over flag lots. Mr. Smith said he thought there were some areas where flag lots might be appropriate and the conditional use process would add a layer of control to the approval process.

 

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

 

Mr. Becker moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-46, based on the findings of fact and the flag lot standards contained in the staff report. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Iker, Mr. Becker, Mr. Smith, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Ms. Funk voted “Aye." Ms. Kirk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

 

PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-246 by the Candlewood Hotel Company. LLC. requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development for a hotel to be located at 190 North 2200 West in a Commercial “cc" zoning district.

 

Ms. Cheri Coffey 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. Andrew Cheney, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.

 

Mr. Young 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. Iker moved to approve Petition No. 410-246, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Iker, Mr. Becker, Mr. Smith, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Ms. Funk voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

 

PUBLIC HEARING - Public comment on the proposed ordinance to establish an “open Land Trust".

 

Mr. Doug Wheelwright 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. Becker asked if the Mayor would be required to support the master plans under her veto power.

 

Mr. Steven Allred, representing the City Attorney's Office, stated that the Mayor's decision needed to be supported by the master plans but pointed out that the Mayor had a role in the master plan approval process.  Mr. Allred stated that they had tried to establish two additional checks and balances in the new draft of this ordinance.

 

Mr. Becker asked if the Mayor would need to comply with the master plans if certain properties were incorporated into a plan such as the Open Space Master Plan, as part of the general plan, and if the Mayor's ability to add property or remove it would be limited.

 

Mr. Allred stated that once those parcels had been incorporated into the master plan, the Mayor would be required to follow those plans.

 

Mr. Becker said he thought it was difficult to fully understand the separation of powers issues and said he wasn't sure why property disposal needed to be classified as an executive function. Mr. Becker asked how it would be possible for the Mayor to act independently of a legislative decision, particularly if the Planning Commission and the City Council took action, on a piece of property declaring that property as open space.

 

Mr. Allred explained that in the Supreme Court case of Martindale versus Anderson, the Supreme Court had determined that the legislative body had an enormous power to put into place philosophies regarding property in general, but had limited authority to deal with properties specifically. Mr. Allred stated that the policies set by the legislative body acted like an overlay to the Mayor's specific powers on City-owned properties.

 

Mr. Becker stated that State law now provided a legislative veto power over the acquisition/disposal of State-owned lands.

 

Mr. Allred stated that the Supreme Court ruling on the Martindale case did not seem to leave a great deal of opportunity for interpretation on these issues.

 

Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address

the Planning Commission.

 

Councilmember Sam Souvall was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that the City had been working to establish this protection for open space land for many years, with the help of former Councilmember Roselyn Kirk, and added that it had always been their intent for the lands placed in the trust to be placed there permanently. He asked if it was possible to create a situation where the land donated to the trust would be held in the trust permanently. Councilmember Souvall expressed concern that in the future, under different economic circumstances, an open space parcel such as Morris Reservoir might be removed from the trust and sold for development/economic purposes.

 

Mr. Tom Rogan, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that they had unanimously voted to support the concept of the creation of an entity to hold, manage and preserve open space in the City. Mr. Rogan said they believed the integrity of the Open Land Trust could be preserved by allowing the Mayor control over property placed into the trust, but not allowing the authority to remove property from the trust. He suggested the disposition of land contained in the land trust be controlled by the land trust board. Mr. Rogan suggested if the decision were made to allow the Mayor the power to remove land from the trust, it be called land management rather than a land trust.

 

Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that in 1990 the Planning Commission had considered adopting an Open Space Advisory Board which would function much like the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Cromer said she felt such a board would be appropriate for the City to establish. Ms. Cromer stated, however, that she did not believe the City should involve itself in a land trust because she did not believe this government had the skills, motivation or credibility to be involved in a land trust. She added that she felt the phrase “Salt Lake City Land Trust" was an oxymoron and she did not believe a land trust was the business of city government; that other organizations could better function in that respect. Ms. Cromer expressed concern that while the City managed the land trust, it would also be involved in its own real estate interests. Ms. Cromer said she supported the comments made tonight that this proposal, due to its construction with the Mayor's veto power, was not a trust. Ms. Cromer stated that she had reviewed the Supreme Court case on Martindale versus Anderson and added that she agreed with Judge Crockett, the dissenting judge. She quoted that opinion and said, 11The far reaching power to sell any substantial city property is something which it should require cooperative consideration of and action by both the Council and the Mayor." Ms. Cromer said she did support the staff's recommendation on an amendment of the master planning process but added that she did not feel it was enough. Ms. Cromer said she could only support an ordinance providing the Mayor with veto power if it functioned as a JJone-way door", allowing the Mayor to veto only properties being placed into the trust, and if the Mayor was required to support the master plan. She urged the Planning Commission to “tighten" up the language in the ordinance before approving it.

 

Ms. Cheri Carleson, a concerned citizen, stated that this trust had originally been called the Open Space Land Trust and added that she was requesting more tie-in with the Open Space Master Plan vision for urban trails. Ms. Carleson recommended the words 11Urban trails" be incorporated into the language of the ordinance at the end of the third “whereas" paragraph on the first page. Ms. Carleson stated that she shared the concerns expressed by others at the Mayor's veto powers and recommended the language dealing with those powers be deleted from Sections 15.32.060 and 15.32.070 of the Open Land Trust ordinance. Ms. Carleson said this language was redundant since it was secured in other statutes and she found it distasteful placed in this particular ordinance. Ms. Carleson commended the Planning Staff and the Administration for their good faith intention and efforts to provide for open space and protect it from future political decisions and preserve it for future citizens.

 

Mr. Wayne Martinson, a member of the Open Space Committee, suggested the language on Page 8 of the proposed ordinance be amended so the fourth line from the bottom of Paragraph A would read: II ••••• within a reasonable period, not exceeding two years before it is taken out of the trust." Mr. Martinson suggested the remainder of Paragraph A, starting with the word 11Unless" (on the fourth from the last line) and ending with “needed" be deleted. He said he believed this revision would allow the flexibility to divert land out of the trust but only when land was available to put into the trust before diversion occurred in order to mitigate that diversion. Mr. Martinson said if this new language was not acceptable, he suggested this ordinance not be forwarded to the City Council until the separation of powers issues could be clarified and it could be determined if the City were dealing with a "real" trust rather than some kind of temporary restrictive covenants.

 

Ms. Tantalisa Clayton, a member of the Open Space Committee and representing the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Community Council, suggested the Planning Commission table this matter in light of the concerns raised and the alternative options proposed. Ms. Clayton said she believed patience needed to be exercised to ensure the appropriate mechanism was put in place to protect open space land in the City. Ms. Clayton said she disagreed with the philosophy of 11just getting something in place" and added that she did not feel that something was better than nothing. She stated that the Open Space Master Plan was already in place and that people already had the ability to donate land to the City with restrictive covenants placed on that land to protect it. Ms. Clayton claimed that no ordinance would be better than a bad land trust ordinance and suggested again this matter be tabled and studied in greater detail. Ms. Clayton stated that the Martindale versus Anderson case, as cited by

 

Mr. Allred, appeared to be in direct conflict with the Utah Code, Section 1 0-8-2 and 10-3-12195 and unless additional statutory or case law amending, overruling, or superseding the Utah Code was presented, the ability of the land trust authority or the City Council to share or undertake the authority for the open land trust should be considered.

 

Ms. Clayton stated that unless adequate funding mechanisms for the land trust were established, the trust could become nonfunctional under less open space minded mayors and city councils. She suggested proceeds from the sale of surplus land for the acquisition of open space, implementation of legislative real estate transaction taxes, voluntary assessment districts, bonding for open space and City/County-wide referendums might provide sources and methods for funding the land trust. Ms. Clayton concluded by stating that the City should also study the possibility of implementing exaction dedications and impact fees, open space zoning, urban growth boundaries and performance zoning as a means to implement the Open Space Master Plan in conjunction with or instead of establishing a land trust

 

Ms. Linda LePreau, Chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that they had not had the chance to review the proposed ordinance but added that she believed they would agree with the Greater Avenues Community Council and the

comments made by Mr. Rogan when they did review it. Ms. LePreau said she believed that if something was worth doing, it was worth doing right and suggested that if the City were going to create a trust, it should be a real trust, a permanent trust. She said she agreed with Mr. Rogan's comments that the Mayor's veto powers should be limited to placing properties into the trust, not removing them. Ms. LePreau suggested this matter be tabled until Mr. Rogan's suggestion could be studied.

 

Ms. Roselyn Kirk, a member of the Open Space Committee, stated that two of the committee members who had addressed the Planning Commission were attorneys and questioned the direction this matter was taking and the Mayor's veto power. Ms. Kirk said the Open Space Committee was still not pleased with the final product though they did feel improvements had been made.

 

Mr. Hans Hoffman, a concerned citizen, stated that open space was what the state of Utah was all about and it should be preserved.

 

Mr. Steven Espinoza, a concerned citizen, stated that one of Salt Lake City's best features was that it was not a concrete jungle and said he felt preservation of the open space was critical for the future of the City. He said he believed any decision to preserve open space should be set in stone and recommended this matter be tabled.

 

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

 

Mr. Wheelwright stated that the difficult part of this task had always been combining private lands that might be donated to be permanently set aside and identifying City-owned lands and combining the two. Mr. Wheelwright stated that maybe the two types of land should not be combined. He added that the lands controlled by the Airport and Public Utilities could probably not be transferred to a new entity since they had been purchased with rate-payer revenues and air traffic and airline fees. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the master plan approach allowed those issues to be skirted. Mr. Wheelwright stated that it was the existing City owned land that was triggering all of the language on the separation of powers and the veto powers of the Mayor. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the staff did not believe land donated to the trust in the future would be subject to the Mayor's veto power since reversion clauses could be built into the donations to prevent that veto power. He explained that there was an expectation on the part of the City Council that this matter be moved along in the near future.

 

Mr. McRea asked if the reversion clauses Mr. Wheelwright referred to would be included in the ordinance or in other documents. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the reversion clauses would be built into the deeds, not this ordinance. Mr. McRea asked what the hurry was to move this matter along quickly.

 

Mr. Wright explained that the City had been involved in this matter for several years and the City had accepted some land donations that were intended to be placed in a trust like this which were sitting in a resource account intended to be placed in the authority of the Open Land Trust to be managed.

 

Mr. Becker said he believed the best vehicle for land trusts of this kind were private land trusts. Mr. Becker stated that unfortunately, we did not have any private land trusts serving this area and added that he did believe the City could play a constructive role in preserving open lands. He stated that if more tools could be provided for the concept of open land preservation, we would be enhancing the preservation of open space.

 

Motion on proposed Open Land Trust:

Mr. Becker moved, based on the findings contained in the staff report and the discussion at this meeting, to recommend, to the City Council, the ordinance regarding an Open Land Trust as proposed by the Planning Staff with the following amendments: 1) on Page 1, the words 11Urban trails" be added to the end of the last sentence in the third “whereas" paragraph; 2) on Page 7, that subsection “I" be amended to read “cooperate with and support other entities, 3) on Page 7, that subsection “J" be amended to read " that open land held by the trust in perpetuity be included. 4) on Page 7, that Section 15.32.060 be amended to specify that the Mayor's approval be consistent with the City's general plan, which includes all of the plan's elements; 5) on Page 8, Section 15.32.070, Paragraph A, line 6, that the words “after a public hearing before the City Council, to be" be eliminated in order to tie in the Mayor's actions, in terms of disposal of any property, to the master plan; 6) on Page 8, delete the last four lines of Section 15.32.070 and add the words before land is removed from the trust. so that before land can be removed from the trust, substitute lands of equal value have to be placed in the trust. Mr. Becker further moved that the City specifically provide for funding of the authority and the open land trust through 25% of surplus property sales by the City so that as the City sells its properties, 25% of those revenues be placed in this trust for acquisition of open space lands; that a provision be added that fees from an open space impact fee, to be developed pursuant to the State law for impact fees, also be placed in this trust for open space acquisition. Mr. Becker stated that the City did not presently have an impact fee and the idea was to get this before the City Council for discussion. Mr. Smith seconded the motions.

 

Ms. Funk asked why a reversion clause would be necessary, and why the land wouldn't just remain in the trust forever.

 

Mr. Wheelwright stated that the lands the City had received from the private sector all had those clauses, either at the insistence of the donor or at the suggestion of the staff to insure that the purpose of those donations did not change. Mr. Wheelwright added that many of these parcels may have been donated for tax benefits and the clause would have been necessary to guarantee the deduction was allowable.

 

Ms. Funk asked if anyone knew the correlation between the dates of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Martindale versus Anderson case and when the State legislature ruled that the legislative body, or city council, had the power to control the exchange or sale of land as they deemed fit.

 

Mr. Becker stated that the latest date for the amendment of the State Statute was after the Martindale versus Anderson case but added that they did not know which portion of that section had been amended. Mr. Becker said he was not sure if that affected the Court's decision or not.

 

Ms. Funk said it appeared to her that basing a decision on the Martindale case might not be the right thing to do.

 

Mr. Becker said he believed there was enough uncertainty relative to those dates and cases that he believed the Planning Commission should do what they considered the right thing to do and the City Council could sort it all out at the time they heard this matter.

 

Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Supreme Court had decided the Martindale case in 1978.

 

Mr. Becker stated that the statute had been changed in 1979.

 

Ms. Funk expressed concern that the 25% figure on surplus sale moneys going toward funding the Open Land Trust was too elusive a figure and asked if it might be better to have all surplus lands earmarked for open space maintenance and the amounts to be determined each year by the City Council as to how much of that money was used.

 

Mr. Wright stated that assets from the sale of surplus property were placed into the Capitol Improvements Projects fund, that the administration recommended how to expend those funds and the City Council then appropriated for the expenditure of those resources.

 

Mr. Becker stated that nothing in the ordinance provided for funding and his intention was to provide some kind of mechanism for funding for the City Council to consider.

 

Ms. Funk said she was not comfortable with the 25% figure because she was not sure what that would mean.

 

Mr. Becker said he would like to leave the motion as it stood.

 

Ms. Funk suggested the word “authority" be deleted from the ordinance because they would not be an authority and she believed they should be called what they were. She suggested advisory board might be more appropriate and accurate.

 

Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Allred had modeled this authority after the Airport Authority Board which managed and provided oversight for the airport.

 

Ms. Funk said she thought they should not be called authority because that term denoted power, whereas an advisory board merely advised.

 

Mr. Fife said he thought an open space impact fee might be a better way to go than the 25% of surplus property sales. Mr. Becker agreed but added that the City did not have any impact fees in place, other than water and sewer fees, but added that his interest had been in looking at an existing revenue stream and developing a future revenue stream.

 

Mr. Iker expressed concern that the ordinance did not specifically address getting property into the trust. Mr. Iker said it also needed to be stated that the act of accepting land into the trust incorporated it into the master plan. He added that he supported a means of funding future acquisitions.

 

Mr. Becker said subsection “J" on Page 7 took care of incorporating the land into the master plan but added that the language could be clarified for better comprehension.

 

Mr. Wright said he believed that language could be embellished by adding the word “Shall" to the beginning of subsection II J" so it would read: “Shall submit to the Planning Commission.”

 

Mr. Becker and Mr. Smith accepted Mr. Iker's amendment, in the form of wording expressed by Mr. Wright, to the motions and the second.

 

Mr. Smith said he had seconded the motions in the spirit that this ordinance was moving on as a working document. Mr. Smith said it was the intent of the Planning Commission for the document to be moved on to the next body where it could continue to change and improve.

 

In response to a question by Ms. Funk about what Mr. Becker felt was the best way to establish a land trust, Mr. Becker stated that he was not sure the City should involve itself in a trust for the City. Mr. Becker said he would rather see the City invest its energy establishing a private land trust; that the City could establish a funding mechanism to acquire land and get land set aside in a private land trust and for the City to establish, through restrictive covenants or by some kind of overlay, its own properties that it felt should be held in open space.

 

Mr. Becker stated that the Open Land Trust would provide a way for the City to get involved in open space preservation.

 

Ms. Funk reminded the Planning Commission of their discussion on the appeals process and suggested they go right to the solution they believed was the best way to deal with open space preservation and recommend, to the City Council, that they attempt to move forward to help establish a private trust for the lands donated to the City and the lands already owned by the City.

 

Mr. Becker said that was another option.

 

Ms. Funk said she felt it was the better option.

 

Mr. Becker said he wasn't sure why there wasn't an existing private land trust but added that he did feel this proposed ordinance would help accomplish the goal of preserving the City's open space at this time. Mr. Becker stated that this authority could possibly spin off in the future and establish that private land trust, partially funded through the City. He added that this could be a lot better than what was in place today and the Planning Commission needed to support the City Council in their interest to get moving in that direction.

 

Mr. Wright stated that the City had worked on establishing a private land trust but no one had been interested in managing some of the smaller parcels currently owned by the City and the City had decided it would be better to find a way to manage those smaller parcels rather than cast them aside leaving them in the real estate category. Mr. Wright said he agreed it was possible for the advisory board to establish a private land trust that might work better but added he felt it was important to get something going that would not be damaging to the City's interests.

 

Ms. Funk suggested the advisory board, as part of their duties, assist in the development of a private land trust as a means to manage the Open Land Trust and that the group be called an advisory board rather than an authority.

 

Mr. Becker and Mr. Smith accepted those amendments to the motions.

 

Mr. Wright said the staff supported the recommendation that the advisory board work to find a private, nonprofit way to accomplish the preservation of the City's open space.

 

Ms. Funk requested research be done to determine whether or not the Supreme Court case of Martindale versus Anderson superseded the State statute prior to this matter being forwarded to the City Council.

 

Mr. Becker asked if she was requesting that the separation of powers issues be further explored.

 

Ms. Funk responded in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Becker and Mr. Smith accepted the amendment to the motion.

 

Mr. Iker said he did not like the idea of changing the word “authority" to “advisory board” or “board” because he believed it would diminish their power and they were already lacking in power. Mr. Iker said he believed downgrading their name would invite vetoes and modifications. He said he wanted the open lands protected in perpetuity and any weak language in the ordinance would work against that and invite subversion of the purpose.

 

Mr. Becker said the title of the entity did not bother him whether it was board or authority. Mr. Becker said he would leave the motions as they were and let the City Council work out the details. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Iker, Mr. Becker, Mr. Smith, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Ms. Funk voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk and Ms. Short

were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

 

PUBLIC HEARING at - Petition No. 400-96-60 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division to amend the text of the Residential IIRB" zoning district amending the design standards for additions or expansions of nonresidential uses and to provide a maximum lot size.

 

Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the changes and additions made to the original staff report following the August 15, 1996 hearing on this matter, the original findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

 

Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

 

Ms. Linda LePreau, the Chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that they had worked with the Planning Staff to make the changes to the staff report and added they were in support of the changes that had been made.

 

Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she had been one of the representatives mentioned by Ms. LePreau. Ms. Cromer complimented Mr. Joyce and Mr. Dansie for the work they had done on this matter and recommended that in addition to approving this ordinance, the Planning Commission set a time clock to revisit the functioning of this ordinance within two or three years. Ms. Cromer stated that this issue was an extremely difficult issue to address and it needed to be reviewed in the near ·future. Ms. Cromer also recommended the zoning on the south side of 900 South between McClelland and 1100 East be reexamined. She stated that the existing zoning did not work well for the two commercial structures in that area. Ms. Cromer said she believed this had been something that slipped through the cracks during the enormous Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project and she did not want to see commercial development in this residential district encouraged.

 

Ms. Cheri Carleson, a concerned citizen, said she could find nothing constructive for the residential components of the "RB" zone but instead found only concessions for expansion of the commercial component. Ms. Carleson expressed concern that the buffer areas between the residential and commercial components of the area would shrink under this ordinance. Ms. Carleson stated that the streets in this area had been designed for homes, not retail businesses and signs were replacing trees. She expressed concern at the rapid demolition of residential structures for commercial structures. Ms. Carleson stated that she believed the language in the ordinance was too loose and open to interpretation. She suggested any demolition approval require compensation be made to the neighborhood for the loss.

 

Mr. Wright explained that the City Council had adopted a housing mitigation ordinance on rezoning and parking lot construction when residential structures were demolished. Mr. Wright stated that neither of those cases was likely to apply in the “RB" zone but added that the “RB" zone carried an expectation of business uses mixed with the residential uses, that this zone was not just a residential zone.

 

Mr. Ron Reaveley, a property owner in the 11RB II zone, stated that he had filed a conditional use application to demolish a structure which had been commercially zoned when he had purchased the structure. Mr. Reaveley stated that upon filing his application, they discovered that if they adhered to the regulations contained in the “RB" zone, the structure would have a negative impact on the community. He stated that if this proposal were approved, it would allow him to construct a more appropriate addition to his existing business which would enhance the neighborhood.

 

Ms. Gayen Wharton, a concerned citizen, stated that the goals of the community were to make this business district a residential district and suggested the commercial uses be encouraged to relocate to a better business district so the residential component of 11 00 East could be reclaimed.

 

Mr. Rawlins Young, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that they had been involved in trying to protect the City's residential neighborhoods for about 25 years. Mr. Young likened trying to get the City's master plans implemented to trying to melt glaciers in October. Mr. Young said he believed the recent Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project, which had amended the existing master plans, had negated the purposes in most of them. He stated that the master planning process suggests that commercial strip zoning was ineffective and had negative impacts on neighborhoods. Mr. Young said the master planning process also suggest traffic mitigation efforts. Mr. Young said he had requested the Planning Commission reconsider all commercial strips as well as the “RB” zone and not 11tweak II with them. He stated that this zone was located in residential collector streets which should be discontinuous streets. Mr. Young asked how many businesses could be served by the number of houses the residential collector streets served and suggested the City move forward on this problem.

 

Mr. Joseph Beesley, a property owner on 1100 East, stated that he had carefully studied the area and its residential/commercial components prior to purchasing his property. He stated that he did not believe the residential property owners in the area had given their purchase the same careful consideration. Mr. Beesley said he would be happy to relocate his business if the residents of this area were willing to equably compensate him for his business. Mr. Beesley stated that in 1983, the average number of trips per day on 1100 East in the Sugar House area was 3500; in 1996 it was 17,000. He stated that the major proposed developments for the Sugar House area would increase those traffic counts even more. Mr. Beesley said he believed the commercial strips acted as a buffer between the residential areas and the major development projects.

 

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

 

Motion on Petition No. 400-96-90:

Mr. Smith stated that he believed this ordinance would not expand the “RB" zone, but rather, would place some restrictions on it.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-90 based on the findings of fact and the comments received at the two hearings on this matter, and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Iker, Mr. Becker, Mr. Smith, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Ms. Funk voted "Aye." Ms. Kirk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

 

Mr. Smith said he agreed with Ms. Cromer's suggestion for the south side of 900 South. Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission could initiate a rezoning for that site or could request this parcel be added to the next group of areas to be added to the fine tuning issues from the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Process. Mr. Smith suggested they pursue the latter.

 

ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING on SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

 

Petition No. 41 0-244 by the Boyer Company for the McIntyre Investors requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development with structures exceeding 20,000 square feet located east of Highland Drive between 2100 South and Wilmington Avenue in the Commercial Sugar House Business District "CSHBD" zoning district. The petitioner is proposing to replace 132.000 square feet of existing structures with 128.000 square feet of new retail and service commercial buildings: and Petition No. 400-96-93 by the Boyer Company requesting a portion of Elizabeth Street and other City property within the proposed development be closed and declared surplus. Also requested is the vacation of a portion of the Union Heights Subdivision plat: and

 

Petition No. 400-96-94 by the Boyer company Requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a portion of the View City Subdivision plat.

 

Petition No. 410-247 by Homestead Village requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development for a hotel and a restaurant located at 1222 East 2100 South in the Commercial Sugar House Business District “CSHBD" zoning

district.

 

Mr. Young explained that this was an issues only hearing and no decision would be made at this time.

 

Mr. Everett Joyce gave a briefing of the major issues involved in this matter including master plan policies, community council input, approval procedures and the development issues involved in both requests, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

 

Mr. Richard Mendenhall, representing Woodmen Properties, one of the petitioners, stated that they were proposing a joint project with Homestead Village for this area. Mr. Mendenhall stated that they had designed their plans to be compatible with the adjoining open space in the area and to preserve that open space. He used briefing boards to demonstrate how this project would tie into the City trails through the area, their landscaping plans, and how pedestrian and vehicular traffic would be circulated through the project.

 

Mr. Paul Crabtree, representing Homestead Village, explained how this project was compatible with Sugar House Master Plan, their proposal for above ground water amenities for the project, pedestrian walkways, signage consisting of monument signs at each entrance, the restaurant planned for the project, creating a 24-hour population for the project through the proposed hotel, building setbacks and storm drainage issues.

 

Mr. Mendenhall explained that the restaurant and the hotel would be on separate parcels and demonstrated which projects would be constructed on each portion of the development site. He said they were negotiating with several restaurants and added that they intended to build the restaurant at the same time the hotel was being constructed.

 

Mr. Lewis Swain, representing the Boyer Company, showed their original plans and demonstrated how this project had been fine tuned and improved following input from the community. Mr. Swain stated that the square footage of the new proposal was not that different from the square footage of the existing buildings on the site. He described the traffic circulation proposed for the project and how it would affect 2100 South and 1100 East, the project's streetscape and compatibility with other buildings in the area, building orientation and size, and their intentions to make the project pedestrian-friendly. Mr. Swain said they intended to design the buildings so they would appear to have building faces on all sides. He explained their plans for lighting, parking, and the placement of some retail in the middle of the large parking area to split it up and reduce the impact of the amount of the parking. Mr. Swain stated that they believed the traffic study from July would not be materially changed with the construction of this development due to the traffic mitigation they were proposing.

 

Mr. Becker asked how much land was used for parking as opposed to buildings or open space.

 

Mr. Swain responded that in most retail shopping centers, the ratio between building and parking was 3:1 with parking, landscaping and common areas taking up the greater amount of space. Mr. Swain stated that this project would have a lower ratio than the typical 3:1.

 

Mr. Becker asked if they had considered underground parking.

 

Mr. Swain responded in the affirmative and added that it was not compatible with the grade change that occurred on 21 00 South and explained that a large portion of the parking structure would be visible from the lower portion of 2100 South. Mr. Swain stated that this proposal was not a regional shopping center but more of a specialty-oriented project with smaller retail centers than a regional shopping center usually provided.

 

Mr. Iker asked if they had coordinated with the Homestead Village petitioners on this project.

 

Mr. Swain said they had met with them at the community council meetings but had not coordinated building materials and design with them.

 

Mr. Becker asked why the developers did not feel the traffic impacts would be

significant.

 

Mr. Swain responded that with the mitigation they were proposing to accommodate the additional traffic, they felt this project would not degrade or reduce the existing level of service the streets provided.

 

Mr. Fife asked if the developers would be making proposals for additional buildings in the future.

 

Mr. Swain responded in the negative and stated that the contracts with their tenants required site plan approval by the tenants and this proposal was a 100% build-out for this site.

 

Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Young stated that a letter had been received from owners of some of the City's smaller book stores expressing concern that the giant book stores moving into the City would prevent them from providing a vital service to the community if they were not able to compete with the larger entities. He stated that another letter had been received from Christy Corbin, Lysia Hand, Tony Herring and Nancy Jacobsen expressing their opposition to this project. Mr. Young stated that two letters had also been received from the Sugar House Community Council listing their concerns relative to this proposal. Copies of these letters are filed with the minutes.

 

Mr. Rich Viskochil, one of the KOPE Kids, requested the Planning Commission keep this area as it presently existed and expressed concern that traffic and parking would harm the existing environment. Mr. Viskochil requested the developers construct a parking structure limited to one or two levels and that it be located closer to the buildings in order to reduce the surface parking.

 

Ms. Julie Schlesinger, one of the KOPE Kids, suggested more pedestrian access be provided into the project and through it.

 

Ms. Grace Sperry, a concerned citizen, expressed concern at the increase in traffic this project would create. Ms. Sperry said she believed the developer was going to find “brown" ground beneath the old Keith O'Brien building since it used to be an extremely large gas station prior to the development of the EPA standards. She suggested an above ground water feature on this site might not be desirable. Ms. Sperry said she owned a home in this area on Highland Drive which was one of the most historic homes in the Sugar House area and was a miniature of the Graystone Mansion. Ms. Sperry stated that the traffic on Highland Drive was so intense the only time she could mow her lawn was very early on Sunday mornings. Ms. Sperry stated that they had been promised a 11No left turn" sign by the Shopko center which had never been installed. She stated that the lights on Highland Drive were so bright you could read a book in her living room at night without turning on an interior light. Ms. Sperry stated that when the traffic got backed up, the exhaust and the noise pollution from the cars was intolerable, particularly on those days when the City experienced inversions. Ms. Sperry stated that this intersection was the number one traffic count area in the Valley and accidents occurred a minimum of once a day. She said they did not need any more traffic in this area on Highland Drive and added that the City was destroying part of the original Highland Park area. She requested the Planning Commission not approve any further developments unless the developer was willing to install 11No left turn" signs on Highland Drive, forcing the automobile traffic to move to the north, and return the on-street parking for the residents of this area. Ms. Sperry said if the City was not willing to comply with these requests, they should give back the commercial zoning for this area so the residents could benefit from the increased activity in Sugar House.

 

Ms. Lynne Olson, advisor for the KOPE Kids, stated that hundred of volunteers, including many students, had worked on the Hidden Hollow area for a very long time to clean it up and preserve it. Ms. Olson requested the Planning Commission keep in the mind the unique character of the open space in Hidden Hollow and the money and time invested in it when making decisions for the surrounding area.

 

Mr. Scott Kisling, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, said it was amazing how good a site plan could look and how pitiful a poorly constructed project could look in reality. Mr. Kisling said they would like to see enforced, the spirit, as well as the letter of the 1995 Wikstrom study which updated the Sugar House Business District Master Plan. He requested the trails in this area be protected and that no public lands be vacated without an offset in public gain. Mr. Kisling stated that they were very concerned about traffic impacts. Mr. Kisling said he believed the parcel on Wilmington Avenue which was not being dealt with at this time played a vital role in connecting the existing commercial uses to the proposed uses. He said they were generally in favor of this proposal but added that they did have several concerns as listed in their letters to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kisling said they believed the surface parking planned for these projects was excessive and suggested a parking structure. He added that he believed the land along the north side of the creek should be acquired by the City to allow public policing of the area. He stated that they were opposed to any portion of the development that could be considered regional retail.

 

Ms. Ann Ahlander, a concerned citizen, said she was concerned about the Boyer Company in general and said she was still troubled by a controversial subdivision on the south facing slope of Mt. Olympus and had doubts as to whether or not the Boyer Company was really committed to protecting open space. She said she was also concerned about the growing strip mall mentality in Sugar House and the possible loss of some of the large, old cottonwood trees behind the old Hygeia Ice building. Ms. Ahlander asked if the request for the plat vacations meant some of the homes in the area would be condemned and destroyed for the construction of this project and expressed concern at the intent to place the parking lot too close to the creek. Ms. Ahlander said she was in favor of the plans to preserve the open space and the urban trails in this area and the 80-foot wide easement which would flank Parley's Creek which would be landscaped and beautified. She strongly recommended the landscaping focus on native trees and wildflowers. Ms. Ahlander said she was pleased something would finally be done about the condemned Hygeia Ice plant.

 

Mr. Everett Joyce explained that the plat vacations were to correct lot lines that did not relate to the existing parcels, that they were all located on the commercial properties and did not relate to the actual property boundaries.

 

Ms. Nancy Tessman, representing the Sprague Library, stated that they were located in the heart of the area this project was planned for and stated that the library had never had any dedicated parking. Ms. Tessman requested the developers and the Planning Commission be sensitive to their need for access. She explained that they were hopeful to acquire additional adjacent land at some point in the future in order to expand their facilities.

 

Ms. Ruth Robbins, a resident of the area, stated that she had been involved with the Sugar House Community Council for more than 1 5 years and had seen many proposals for this site. Ms. Robbins said she hoped something could be developed on this site that would allow for the maintenance of Hidden Hollow and possibly, even expand Hidden Hollow so it could be made more user-friendly. She stated that they were opposed to the buildings being oriented with their backs to the Hidden Hollow area because this would not create a user-friendly atmosphere. Ms. Robbins said some provisions for the local elderly population should be considered and people should be able to get from the McIntyre Center to the Shopko Center easily. Ms. Robbins also requested the 91 trees removed for the Shopko Center which were supposed to have been replace but never were

replaced, be planted to make up for those lost to development.

 

Ms. Cheri Carleson, a concerned citizen, stated that she lived in a City where it could take 40 years to get a park constructed that had been suggested in a master plan, such as City Creek Park, yet developers were constantly given double the amount of parking lot that was actually needed. She suggested these developers become benefactors to the City in a manner similar to Mr. O.C. Tanner and make contributions to the City as Mr. Tanner had done, relative to beautifying what they were proposing to build.

 

Ms. Christi Corbin, a business owner in the Sugar House area, stated that she had owned a business in the Sugar House for almost twenty years and expressed concern that additional surface parking was being planned for these projects. Ms. Corbin stated that the massive parking lot for the Shopko development was never full, yet more parking was being planned. Ms. Corbin said she loved all three green trees planted in the massive Shopko Center. She stated that the citizens of this City deserved green trees and open space. Ms. Corbin said she thought the developers for these projects were missing a major point that they needed to construct something beautiful enough to attract people to the center.

 

Ms. Liz Davis, a resident of this area, stated that she was very concerned about the high amounts of traffic in this area and her fears that this project would make that unbearable traffic even worse. She stated that if this proposal were approved, the traffic impacts farther away than just this particular site needed to be studied since traffic would have to get to and from this site via other City streets.

 

Mr. Young stated that seven cards had been received from people who did not wish to speak but whose comments would be entered into the record. Their concerns included statements that the size of this project was too large, traffic increases would negatively impact the entire surrounding area, too much surface parking was reflected on the site plans, that the City had a chance to create something special and should not waste the opportunity to plan a great development, and a concern that there might be a lack of water pressure to service the hotel project and the surrounding residential area. One of the cards expressed support for the potential to integrate open space, urban trails, retail uses and residential uses within a relatively small geographic center. These cards are filed with the minutes. Mr. Rawlins Young, a member of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the trail system through this area was of vital importance and should be preserved. Mr. Young stated that the connection of the Valley's major trails through the Sugar House area should never be jeopardized and should not be easily dismissed. He said he believed the City should do what it could to incorporate all portions of these trails into City ownership. He also suggested assistance from the Redevelopment Agency be sought to help develop a parking structure for this project, as the redevelopment plan for this area recommended. He said this would help reduce some of the tension relative to excessive surface parking proposed for this project. Mr. Young said people needed to realize the major assault of traffic in this area was not generated by residents of the area, utilizing the area's commercial services, but by commuters and this traffic was only going to get worse in the future. He stated that the City needed to determine how to deal with all of the traffic on the City's arterial streets.

 

Mr. Rich Bennett, a resident of this area, stated that traffic problems in this area were intense. Mr. Bennett said he supported the preservation of the trails in this area and would prefer a little less square footage for this development. He said he would also like to see more mixed use for this project.

 

Mr. Aaron Hadfield, a resident of the area, stated that they were concerned about traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Hadfield said he believed the traffic issues needed to be fully studied before this project was approved.

 

Mr. Jeff Woodbury, one of the developers for this project and a resident of this area, stated that he appreciated all of the comments made relative to this project since they wanted to create a development that was compatible with the area. Mr. Woodbury said they were advocates for a mixed use development. He explained that they were very much in favor of preserving the trails through this area.

 

Mr. Lewis Swain said they had taken copious notes on the comments made and looked forward to the Planning Staff's and the Planning Commission's input on this matter.

 

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

 

Mr. Iker said he felt the most meaningful comment had been one of the written comments by Gerri Collett stating that the City had an opportunity to create something special in this area and said he believed that statement needed to be acted on. Mr. Iker said he believed a scale model needed to be created to incorporate the entire proposal in order to get a better feel for the whole project. Mr. Iker stated that the open space ownership and what would happen to Hidden Hollow needed to be made very clear so there would be no misunderstandings between the various interested parties. He added that Redevelopment Agency involvement and tax abatement issues also needed to be determined and understood. Mr. Iker stated that he felt there was a general lack of pedestrian amenities and too much asphalt which needed to be worked on. Mr. Iker said he believed a subcommittee was needed to study this matter before another hearing occurred and should include Planning Commission and Planning Staff representatives, community representatives, representatives from the existing businesses, and representatives from the various developers. Mr. Iker said the traffic issues also needed to be carefully studied.

 

Mr. Young stated that Ms. Judi Short, one of the Planning Commissioners who could not be present at this meeting had also suggested a subcommittee might be needed on this matter expressed a desire to serve on that subcommittee. Mr.

Young suggested she serve as the Chair of the subcommittee.

 

Mr. Iker also agreed to serve on the subcommittee.

Mr. Becker said he agreed the City had an opportunity to create a project that could work well in the community, unlike the Shopko project and its neighborhood impacts. Mr. Becker suggested City Council representation be added to the subcommittee. He added that he believed something had to be done to lessen traffic in this area or at least determine some way to improve it.

 

Mr. Christensen suggested representation from the Library be added to the subcommittee to ensure their needs were addressed.

 

OTHER BUSINESS

December Planning Commission Schedule:

 

It was agreed the only December Planning Commission meeting would be held on December 12th, due to the holidays.

 

Planning Commission Appeals:

 

Mr. Wright explained that the City Council had accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation and created a Land Use Appeals Board which would consist of three members and two alternates. Mr. Wright stated that they had already worked to determine who should serve on that board. He added that the Council had agreed to hear the pending appeals on the overflow homeless shelter which would be heard on November 19th, and the Watts appeal on the Almond Street project.

 

Mr. Iker asked if the appeal on the homeless shelter would be heard on the record only and not on new evidence.

 

Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.