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 5:30:03 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Matt Lyon, Vice Chairperson Carolynn Hoskins; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Weston Clark, Ivis Garcia, Andres Paredes and Sara Urquhart. Commissioners Emily Drown and Clark Ruttinger were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Lex Traughber, Senior Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner; Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner; Michelle Poland, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, City Attorney.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Ivis Garcia, Carolyn Hoskins, and Sara Urquhart. Staff members in attendance were Lex Traughber and Anthony Riederer.
The following sites were visited:
• 350 East 800 South - Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked if the residential and commercial uses were allowed in the SNB zoning. Staff stated yes.
• Trolley Square - Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked why the corner lot was not being rezoned. Staff stated because it was not contiguous to other Trolley property. The Commission asked questions regarding the setbacks and public comments on the proposal.
• 300 South and 600 West- Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked who owned the property and who would develop it. Staff stated the RDA and other developers.
APPROVAL OF THE October 26, 2016, MEETING MINUTES. 5:30:38 PM
MOTION 5:30:43 PM
Commissioner Urquhart moved to approve the October 26, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:30:59 PM
Chairperson Lyon stated he had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Hoskins stated he had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:31:06 PM
Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Manager, reminded the Commission that the next meeting was scheduled for November 30 due to the holiday.
5:31:27 PM
Trolley Square Ventures Zoning Map Amendment - A request by Douglas White, representing the property owner, Trolley Square Ventures, LLC, to amend the zoning map for seven properties as follows: 644 E 600 S (Parcel #16-06-481-019) 603 S 600 E (Parcel #16-06-481-001) 652 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-001) 658 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-002) 664 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-003) 628 S 700 E (Parcel #16-05-353-016) 665 E. Ely Place (Parcel #16-05-353-014) The subject parcels are currently zoned RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District), RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District) and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District). The applicant is requesting that the properties be rezoned to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) with the intent to redevelop the site in the future as a mixed-use (residential & commercial) development. The properties are located within City Council District 4 represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Lex Traughber, (801)535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2016-00031
Mr. Lex Traughber, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The request from the Applicant for the zoning map change.
• If another zone would address the height and setback issues.
• The standards of review by the Historic Landmark Commission regarding compatibility.
• If there was a way for the Historic Landmark Commission’s approval prior to the Planning Commission making a decision on the project.
Mr. Douglas White, Mr. Scott Howell, Mr. Alan Roberts, reviewed the proposal and why the zoning met the needs of the developer. They reviewed the issues with noticing, timing and the owner’s attendance at all of the meetings for the proposal. They discussed the history of the site, the importance of moving the proposal forward and the time frame of the proposal.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:08:32 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Michael Iverson, Central City Community Council, thanked the City for restarting the review process. He stated a formal vote was not taken at the Community Council meeting and read comments that supported the proposal but questioned the zoning. Mr. Iverson stated generally the community would like to see the parking lot developed.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Ms. Cindy Cromer, Mr. Jack Davis, Ms. Judy Short, Ms. Grace Sperry, Ms. Kira Wallace, Mr. Tray Wright and Mr. Steve Farr.
The following comments were made:
• A great amount had happened since the first proposal was approved.
• The FBUN zoning had been amended and was awaiting a rehearing.
• The FBUN 2 existed because it was companion zoned to FBUN1 zoning.
• All of the setbacks and step backs in the proposal are in the FBUN 1 and if the FBUN1 was not used in a comprehensive rezone the setbacks and step backs did not exist as they were not listed in the FBUN 2.
• The proposal was the only case in the city where form based zoning did not include setbacks and step backs.
• Cannot recommend an amended zone that did not exist yet.
• Encouraged that surface lots are being redeveloped for particularly mixed use development.
• The proposed zone (FBUN 2) as currently written, has specific issues with setbacks and step backs when used in infill applications.
• The proposal was the first time FBUN 2 zoning was proposed where adjacent parcels are not zoned according to other form based standards, FBUN 1.
• Proposal defeated the purpose of the form base zoning of supporting development of appropriately scaled buildings that respect neighborhood character but also allow for increased density.
• The proposal was against many prescription in the Historic Preservation Plan that stipulates the base zoning should be supportive of preservation considerations.
• Should table the proposal to the next meeting to allow the base zoning to be reviewed at the same time as the subject proposal.
• Proposal was not furthering the Master Plan.
• Master Plan called for livable communities and neighborhoods with vital and sustainable commerce but did not say to further intense development at the expense of neighborhoods.
• The Master Plan called for further preservation of existing housing stock and appropriate transition and multifamily housing with mixed land uses in designated areas to support sustainable development.
• The pictures of the dilapidated houses were a result of the City not enforcing proper zoning on a boarded house.
• Boarded houses have to maintain not just sit there.
• Nowhere in the city was form based code allowed without a buffer except for in this particular instance which was not a good solution.
• Concerned over the assumption that the development would include affordable housing in the project.
• If the rezone were approved it left the Historic Landmark Commission with the awkward job of trying to approve something that was compatible with historic designation but in the wrong zone.
• Should approve the FBUN zoning with its buffers before the proposal was approved then forward both proposal as a package to the City Council.
• If the proposal could not be tabled it should be forwarded to the City Council and request that they wait to approve it until they receive the FBUN zoning amendment and consider them both together.
• Homes had been left to deteriorate.
• Agreed the historic nature of the area needed to be protected but the homes were an eyesore.
• Against a hotel or any other development that was more than three stories in height.
• New building should not be a cookie cutter structure like what was being currently constructed in the city.
• Concerned about having mixed use developments change the character of the neighborhood.
• Unsure of how affordable housing would affect the area with bringing in undesirable individuals in to the area.
• Business owners in Trolley Square and the updates to the area have been positive.
• The improvements are wonderful but only on three sides of the center.
• The updates were needed to help the businesses survive, help draw people in, revitalize the center and the area.
• It was greatly important to keep the uniqueness of Trolley Square and the surrounding area.
• Excited to see the redevelopment of the area and bring people back to the neighborhood.
• Support the development of the property.
The Applicants stated the historic houses were not the issue at hand and were under the Historic Landmark Commission purview. They discussed the historic buildings in the area and those that had been removed over the years. The Applicants stated the houses were not significantly contributing structures, explained two would be moved to Ely Place and restored. They addressed the issue of not having the amended zoning regulations in place and stated sometimes the project preempted the governing documents. They stated they were asking the Commission to make the first step and let the other steps catch up in the review process as the petition moved forward. The Applicants stated the zoning allowed for height greater than three stories and there was a precedent for taller buildings in the area. They stated the only way the proposal would be feasible would be to have it taller than three stories. They reviewed the decision regarding the zoning and
why it was chosen for the proposal. The Applicants stated they had anticipated the setback and step back regulations of the future zoning.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• The current height of Trolley Square and Trolley Corners.
• Why the form base code was chosen versus different zoning.
o Other zoning did not allow for a hotel to be constructed.
o Current zoning did not allow commercial uses.
• The size of the proposed development for the property.
• The review and feedback from the Historic Landmark Commission.
• The possible design for the structures.
• The affordable housing features of the proposal.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The review process for form based zoning.
• How the proposal fit with the character of the neighborhood under the new zoning.
• The difference between the FBUN1 and FBUN2 zones.
• Who made the determination on regulating impacts and what zoning was appropriate for different areas of the city.
• Who reviewed whether or not standards were met.
• The Planning Commission’s and Historic Landmark Commission’s role in the review process.
• How compatibility was determined in a form based zone.
• If the proposal had to meet the proposed amended standards of the ordinance.
• The Historic Landmark Commission had the authority to modify any of the standards of the base zoning district due to the fact the property was in an overlay district.
• The uses allowed under the different zoning.
• If it was the original intention to require FBUN 1 and FBUN 2 together.
• If the Planning Commission could add additional criteria to zoning or if the zoning carried the regulations.
• What a Certificate of Appropriateness was and what it regulated.
• The next steps for the proposal.
• The upcoming proposed zoning changes.
MOTION 7:04:24 PM
Commissioner Bachman stated regarding Petition PLNPCM2016-00031 – Trolley Square Ventures Zoning Map Amendment, based on the analysis and findings listed in the Staff Report dated March 9, 2016, and all the testimony from the public and plans presented, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) for the following parcels:
644 E 600 S (Parcel #16-06-481-019), 652 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-001), 658 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-002), 664 E 600 S (Parcel #16-05-353-003), 628 S 700 E (Parcel #16-05-353-016), 665 E. Ely Place (Parcel #16-05-353-014), With the exception of the property located at 603 S 600 E (Parcel #16-06-481-001) which shall remain zoned as RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District). Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Garcia, Bachman, Hoskins and Urquhart voted “aye”. Commissioner Paredes abstained from voting and Commissioner Clark voted “nay”. The motion passed 4-1.
7:08:47 PM
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 350 East 800 South - A request by Suzette Eaton, the property owner, to amend the Zoning Map and the Central Community Future Land Use Map for one property listed at the above address. The subject parcel is currently zoned RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) Zoning. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to accommodate an existing nonconforming commercial structure. The property is located within City Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist (801)535-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com)
a. Master Plan Amendment - A request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Case Number PLNPCM2016-00660
b. Zoning Map Amendment - A request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map from RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial District). Case Number PLNPCM2016-00659.
Mr. Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Suzette Eaton and Mr. Josh Eaton, property owners, reviewed the historic and proposed use of the property. They stated the neighborhood was in support of the proposal and was excited to move forward with updates.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:17:51 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Ms. Cindy Cromer
The following comments were made:
• Transformation of the property was great.
• Tenants would need more space than allotted for the commercial use.
• The housing mitigation ordinance was triggered when the property was rezoned not when the use changed.
• The property lost its status because of the recession but the use was still viable and should not be a factor for this process.
Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Applicant and Staff discussed the following:
• If there was another way to reinstate the use without changing the zoning.
MOTION 7:21:27 PM
Commissioner Clark stated regarding Petition PLNPCM2016-00569 and PLNPCM2016-00660: Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for one parcel located at 350 E. 800 S., based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony and discussion at the public hearing, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning amendments. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:22:23 PM
Station Area and Depot District Rezone at approximately around the intersection of 300 South and 600 West - Mayor Jackie Biskupski has initiated a petition to rezone a number of properties in this area to facilitate their redevelopment as part of the Station Center project being pursued by Salt Lake City’s redevelopment agency. The project intends to redevelop the area with a mix of uses including retail, office, and residential. Currently, the land is home to a mix of commercial and light industrial uses and is zoned both D-3 (Downtown Warehouse) and CG (General Commercial). The proposed redevelopment project requires a rezone to GMU (Gateway Mixed Use). The subject properties are within Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. Staff contact: Anthony Riederer at (801)535-7625 or anthony.riederer@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2016-00583
Mr. Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:27:54 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• If the historic structures would be affected by the zone changes.
• If the proposal was part of the Salt Lake City Master Plan.
• The reason why the rezoning was being requested.
MOTION 7:31:01 PM
Commissioner Paredes stated regarding Petition PLNPCM2016-00583: Station Center Area Zoning Map Amendment, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:31:45 PM
TSA Zoning District Text Changes - A request by the Salt Lake City Council to review and modify the zoning regulations for the TSA Zoning District. The TSA Zoning District is located along North Temple between 400 West and 2200 West and along 400 South between 200 East and 900 East. The proposed changes to the regulations include: -Clarifying what land uses are allowed in the zone; -Changing how far buildings can be setback from the street; -Clarifying what types of uses are allowed on the ground floor of buildings; -Modifying design standards related to overall building size, street level design, building materials, parking garage design, mid-block walkways and other design standards; -Modifying the approval process and development guidelines to further incentivize affordable housing, higher quality development and other related issues; and -Minor changes to other sections of the TSA zoning district or other related provisions in the zoning ordinance. This zoning text amendment will primarily affect Section 21A.26.078 "TSA Transit Station Area District." Related provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Title 21A, may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact is Daniel Echeverria at (801)535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2016-00522
Mr. Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Why some of the items were given a score rather than just made a requirement.
• If developers were involved in drafting the ordinance.
• The increase in the point system and when developments would or would not come to the Commission.
• If the proposal would generate more applications that required Planning Commission review.
• The approval process for proposals brought to the Planning Commission.
• How the new language addressed building footprints, massing and scale.
• The definition of an active use.
• Making midblock walkways a requirement not an incentive.
• Future master plan changes to address midblock walkways.
• Affordable housing index and incorporating it into the transit areas.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:55:51 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Ms. Cindy Cromer, Mr. Bryce Garner, Mr. Jade Sarver and Ms. Ana Valdemoros, Mr. Mathew Dfohl, Mr. Sean Neves and Mr. Tim Funk.
The following comments were made:
• Developers go to lengths to not come in front of the Commission for review.
• Need to help change up the design to benefit the City.
• Need to encourage midblock walkways and make them a priority.
• Variation in height was a concern and not creating a walled in effect.
• Need more points for preservation which added diverse height and character to buildings.
• Add recommendation for City Council to review the changes in three to four years for effectiveness.
• Giving negative points for over percentages of affordable units.
• Too many points are given for affordable housing.
• The issues with centralizing affordable housing in one area and the current percentage of affordable housing in the Fairpark area.
• Recommend moving forward with the design standards and continuing to study the affordable housing issues along North Temple and 400 South.
• In support of the proposal.
• Need to ensure quality structures are being proposed and constructed.
• One of the purposes was to incentivize more commercial and major businesses to come into the area but that was not happening.
• Table the affordable housing portion of the proposal to further study the issues of placement and saturation.
• Public process has been open and inclusive.
• Construction along 400 South was very common and uniform.
• Many of the affordable housing components have been removed from 400 South.
• Leaving sections out would hinder the overall use of the ordinance.
• Affordable housing was a must regardless of where it was located in the city.
Chairperson Lyon read the following cards:
• Mr. Jack Davis – I am supportive of these proposed text amendments.
• Mr. Michael Iverson – It’s rare of people to speak up when they are happy about something, but these changes to the TSA zone are proving to be very popular. Particularly happy about noticing requirements, building material and decreased distance between entrances. Very encouraging to see the noticing requirements too. Please forward a positive recommendation. Special thanks to Daniel in Planning for present at CCNC when he had no statutory obligation to do so.
Chairperson Lyon closed the Public hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• How to incentivize affordable housing and design standards in the point system.
• If it was possible to require a certain amount of affordable housing in developments located in different areas of the city.
• Need to balance out the affordable aspects with other incentives in the proposal.
• The purpose was to further incentivize affordable housing in the district as requested by the City Council.
• The legality of limiting affordable housing and having the City attorney draft a memo regarding this issue.
• The definition of affordable housing.
• How to balance higher quality buildings while accommodating affordable housing.
• The clustering of low income housing units and how to spread them throughout the city.
• If there was a process of review for the ordinance to ensure it was working as intended.
• How to vary building height and how it was regulated under the proposal.
• How to ensure the ground floor uses were active.
• How to make developers obtain points from different components of the point system not just through affordable housing.
MOTION 8:41:05 PM
Commissioner Clark stated regarding Petition PLNPCM2016-00522, TSA Zoning District Improvements, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report and testimony provided, he moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments related to the Transit Station Area zoning district with a recommendation for the City Council to look at a way to possibly include a base requirement for affordable housing units in all projects in this zone also a legal memo concerning the legality and constitutionality of this issue and if not that take into consideration policy that would affect the balance between affordable housing on North Temple and 400 South. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
8:43:30 PM
City Wide Draft Transit Master Plan - The draft plan, developed over the past two years with input from thousands of residents and stakeholders, is available for review online at www.slcrides.org. Public transportation is an essential component of Salt Lake City’s transportation network, and the plan creates a 20-year vision and action plan for service, transit-supportive investments, programs and policies. The plan also includes a comprehensive look at the City’s overall travel patterns, identifies places where transit would be used if it met the needs of potential riders, as well as areas where transit improvements are needed for existing riders. Public comment can be submitted through open city hall at www.slcgov.com or through the staff contact below. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will
make a decision on whether or not to adopt the transit master plan at a later date. (Staff contact is Julianne Sabula at (801)535-6678 or julianne.sabula@slcgov.com)
Ms. Juliane Sabula, Transportation, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The improvements to transit stops on 200 West.
• The overall investment to ridership increase and if improving infrastructure at transit stops was a cost effective approach.
• The public outreach for the proposal.
• Discussion between Planning and Transportation regarding increasing density in higher use areas.
• The city plans that coordinate transportation and housing density.
• Rider fees and if they had been addressed for lower income riders.
• Rider programs for low income riders, Salt Lake City residents, University of Utah students and distance based fares.
• The percentage of University of Utah students that use alternate modes of transportation.
PUBLIC HEARING 9:17:57 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The timeline for the proposal.
• Whether to table the petition and if the Public Hearing should remain open.
MOTION 9:23:06 PM
Commissioner Urquhart stated regarding City Wide Draft Transit Master Plan, she moved that the Planning Commission continue the petition and Public Hearing to November 30, to allow for further review of the Staff Report. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:24:12 PM.