SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:49 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Maurine Bachman; Vice Chairperson Sara Urquhart; Commissioners Amy Berry, Adrienne Bell, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes and Clark Ruttinger. Commissioner Brenda Scheer was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Amy Thompson, Principal Planner; John Anderson, Senior Planner; Lauren Parisi, Associate Planner and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Sara Urquhart and Clark Ruttinger. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, Amy Thompson, and Lauren Parisi.
•830 South Jefferson Street - Staff gave an overview of the proposal and oriented the Commissioners to the site.
Q: How far from the sidewalk is the shed?
A: Between 16-17 feet.
•2 South 400 West – Staff gave an overview of the proposal and oriented the Commissioners to the site.
Q: Will the two, single story building be demolished?
A: Yes, they were added when Gateway was built and are not historic.
Q: Will the Gateway sign be relocated?
A: Question for the applicant.
Q: How will the depot building be used?
A: Part will remain the concert venue. The main hall will be part of the hotel and hotel rooms will be on the upper floors of the southern half of the building.
Q: How tall is the proposed hotel tower compared to the depot building?
A: The hotel tower will be similar in height to the tallest part of the depot building. The wings of the depot building are lower than the center portion of the building so the hotel will be taller than the wings.
•320 East 400 South – Staff gave an overview of the proposal and oriented the Commissioners to the site.
APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, MEETING MINUTES. 5:31:11 PM
MOTION 5:31:20 PM
Commissioner Clark moved to approve the September 26, 2018, meeting minutes. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Hoskins, Lyon, Clark, and Urquhart voted “Aye”. Commissioners Bell, Ruttinger, and Paredes abstained from voting as they were not present at the subject meeting. The motion passed 5-3.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Bachman stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Urquhart stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:32:27 PM
Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Director, stated he had nothing to report.
The Exchange Planned Development and CBSDR at Approximately 320 E 400 South - Downtown SLC Partners, the developer representing the property owner, Salt Lake City Corporation, has initiated petitions for a Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design (CBSD) for "The Exchange" a proposed mixed-use development at approximately 320 E 400 South. The proposal consists of two new buildings that will be completed in phases. The first phase is a 9-story structure with over 15,000 square feet of retail and 286 mixed-income units. The applicant is requesting 5 FT of additional building height through the Planned Development process and Conditional Building and Site Design Approval for modifications to the Design Standards in 21A.37 of the zoning ordinance. The project is located in the TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) zoning district in Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at 801-535-7281 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2018-00470 & PLNSUB2018-00434
Amy Thompson, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Clarifications regarding the changes with the 300 East blank wall
•Mural on the wall of 300 East
•Length of the façade on 400 South
•The intent of the Design Standard related to façade length
•Distance between door and entry ways
Chris Parker, Applicant, and Michael Glenboski, Architect, provided further details of the project. Mr. Parker also requested the Commission delegate the condition related to the 400 South façade to Staff.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
•400 South façade and where it remains accessible to pedestrians
•Retail hall off of 300 East
•Name of the building and the main entrance
•Housing affordability
PUBLIC HEARING 6:00:45 PM
Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bachman closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
•Whether the 20 percent AMI is within the Planned Development
•The Staff’s thoughts on delegating details regarding the 400 S façade to Staff
•Staff’s recommended condition of approval for a 5-foot recess on 400 South
The Commission made the following comments:
•The possibility of creating an illusion of a completely different building
•300-foot façade is very long
•The possibility of using different colors and materials to break up massing and scale
MOTION 6:21:02 PM
Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Building and Site Design Review request (Petition PLNPCM2018-000470) for modifications of the specified Design Standards in 21A.37, and the Planned Development request for 5 feet of additional building height (petition PLNSUB2018-00434) with the conditions listed in the staff report with the exception of:
and adding that Staff is able to work with Applicant with addressing loading and unloading and access to the building. And also, with approval by Staff that the North Eastern corner of 80 feet or more look officially different than the remaining portion of the building.
Discussion was made to clarify motion regarding requests to change the material and color of building.
Commissioner Clark second.
The Commission further discussed cosmetic details of the building.
Commissioners Barry, Hoskins, Lyon, Clark, Urquhart, Bell, and Ruttinger voted “Aye”. Commissioner Paredes voted “Nay”. The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Staff asked for clarification regarding the motion. The Commission and Staff discussed the motion voted.
6:35:15 PM Commissioner Barry made a motion to reconsider the previous motion.
Commissioner Bell second. Commissioners Barry, Hoskins, Bell and Ruttinger voted “Aye”. Commissioners Lyon, Clark, Urquhart and Paredes voted “Nay”. The Chairperson voted “Aye” to break the tie.
MOTION 6:36:21 PM
Commissioner Lyon stated based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Building and Site Design Review request PLNCM2018-000470 for modifications of the specified Design Standards and the Planned Development request for 5 feet of additional building height PLNSUB2018-00434 with the conditions listed in the staff report and with the following exceptions of:
1. The 400 S building façade will include a recessed area that is a minimum of 20 feet in length and 5 feet minimum depth that breaks up the building wall mass and continues to the ground level to ensure the requested modification (77 additional feet) of the Maximum Length of a Street Facing Façade design standard meets the intent of that design standard
2. Adding the condition that the Staff and Applicant address loading and unloading
3. Adding the condition that there should be no more than 200 linear feet along the street of the same materials, and anything over 200 feet must be substantially different with materials, design or colors than the other 200 feet
Commissioner Clark second. Commissioners Barry, Hoskins, Lyon, Clark, Urquhart, Bell, and Paredes voted “Aye”. Commissioner Ruttinger voted “Nay”. The motion passed 7-1.
D-2 Design Standards Zoning Text Amendment – Mayor Jackie Biskupski has initiated a petition to add design standards for new construction in the D-2 Downtown Support District. The proposed modifications include addressing setbacks, building design standards, affordable housing incentives, allowing projecting signs and other changes. The amendment would apply to all properties located in the D-2 zoning district. Other related provisions of Title 21A may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact: John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2018-00118
John Anderson, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Affordably housing and how it’s being defined
PUBLIC HEARING 6:53:00 PM
Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak, Chairperson Bachman closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 6:53:59 PM
Commissioner Barry stated, based on the information presented and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the D-2 Downtown Support Design Standards text amendment petition PLNPCM2018-00118.
Commissioner Hoskins second. Commissioners Paredes, Ruttinger, Bell, Urquhart, Clark, Lyon, Hoskins and Barry voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Jefferson Walkway Planned Development Major Modification - A request by Brody Leven, at 830 South Jefferson Street, for a major modification to the Jefferson Walkway Planned Development. The proposed major modification includes the location of an accessory building and mechanical equipment in the front yard of the subject property. The proposed structure would be approximately eight feet by eleven feet and seven feet six inches in height. The proposed structure would encroach approximately five feet into the front yard setback. The proposal also includes the placement of mechanical equipment in the required front yard setback. The mechanical equipment would be approximately four feet in height and would not extend further into the front yard than the proposed accessory building. The property is located in an FB-UN1 Form Based Urban Neighborhood zoning district and in City Council District Four, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Nick Norris at 801-535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNSUB2015-00801
Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Clarification of previous approval of 8x8 structure in original application
•Mechanical equipment
•Discussion was made regarding the original application excluding utilities
Brody Leven, Applicant and Property Owner, addressed concerns regarding the mechanical equipment and provided explanation for his need of the proposed shed. He also provided design details.
The Commission and
Applicant discussed the following:
•The need for a large shed
•Whether there’s a possibility to place shed in another location
PUBLIC HEARING 7:30:00 PM
Eric Daenitz – Provided a comment card but was not present to speak. Chairperson Bachman read the comment card which stated opposition towards the petition and raised concern regarding the incompatibility to the neighborhood.
Amy Caron – Provided a comment card which Chairperson Bachman read stating she is opposed of the proposed petition and raised concern regarding the possibility of decrease in esthetic value of the Historic Jefferson Street.
Garth Hare – Stated he is the original developer and the proposed petition does not meet his original design. He also raised concern with the incompatibility of the neighborhood.
Don Lemerson – Stated the HOA had made a previous approval for the original application of the 8x8 structure but that they have not taken a position on the current proposal.
Seeing no one else wished to speak, Chairperson Bachman closed the public hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Clarification with the previous application approval
•What makes this petition is considered a major modification
•Discussion on the regulations of shed placement
•Setback requirements
•Planned Development ordinance standard
The Applicant was given an opportunity to address the public comments and concerns.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
•Whether there was any discussion with the HOA if there’s common space that can be utilized as storage
•What the backyard of the surrounding neighbors consists of
•The fence height requirement of the HOA and zoning
The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following:
•Zoning regulations of fence height
•Whether the setback standard is reasonable in comparison to neighboring properties
MOTION 8:11:25 PM
Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the major modification to the Jefferson Walkway Planned Development based on the finding that the proposal is in substantial conformity with the Planned Development because the proposed setback is consistent with the averages along Jefferson Street and the proposal does not impede with the design or function with the Jefferson Walkway with the following conditions:
1. That the accessory building is constructed in conformity with the plans presented at the Planning Commission hearing.
Commissioner Ruttinger second.
The following comments were made:
•The possibility of approving the original proposal of the 8x8 shed
MOTION AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITION 8:13:28 PM
That the accessory building is constructed in conformity with the plans presented at the Planning Commission hearing except that the dimension should not exceed 8 feet by 8 feet.
Commissioner Ruttinger agreed to second the amended condition. Commissioners Barry, Hoskins, Urquhart, Bell, Ruttinger, and Paredes voted “Aye”. Commissioners Lyon and Clark voted “Nay”. The motion passed 6-2.
WORK SESSION
Union Pacific Hotel Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review at approximately 2 S. 400 West- A work session will be held with the Planning Commission to discuss a proposal from the Athens Group and HKS Architects, on behalf of the property owner Vestar Gateway, LLC, regarding the above-mentioned Planning petitions to accommodate the development of an 8-story, 225-room hotel on the west side of the existing Union Pacific Railroad Station. The hotel project is in conjunction with the adaptive reuse of the historic train station itself, which entails the preservation of the existing Grand Train Hall in the center of the station and the addition of other hotel amenities. All new construction in the Gateway-Mixed Use zoning district must be reviewed as a Planned Development and the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process allows for additional building height to be granted. The proposed development will also be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission for a major addition on a Local Landmark site. Because this is a work session and not a public hearing, a decision will not be made regarding these requests at this meeting. The subject property is located in Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact - Lauren Parisi at 801-535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2018-00617 & PLNSUB2018-00618
Lauren Parisi, Associate Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the memorandum
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Whether the Historic Landmark Commission also have a purview over the interior of the Depo
•Interior changes that will require exterior modifications
Athens Group – provided further details and provided a presentation regarding the proposed project.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
•Additional pedestrian access surrounding the building
•Modification of height being requested for Planned Development
•Whether the ordinance requires modification
•The purpose of the developments in the Gateway going through Planned Development
•Parking location
•Number of rooms for the hotel part of the Gateway
•Selection of operator and how soon construction will commence
•Whether the operator will brand the hotel
•Accommodation of the guest rooms and location
The following comments were made by the Commission:
•I’m impressed by design of the building
•I’m excited about the project and I think it’s in line with what’s there
•Very nice presentation and it’s a really nice building
•The Union Pacific Historic structure is the key component of the Gateway and this project is so large it blocks the view of the Union Pacific which is important
The meeting adjourned at 8:56:29 PM