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 5:33:35 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, Clark Ruttinger and Sara Urquhart. Commissioners Emily Drown and were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Nick Norris, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Senior Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; David Gellner, 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: Maurine Bachman, Weston Clark, Ivis Garcia, Carolyn Hoskins, Clark Ruttinger and Sarah Urquhart. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, Casey Stewart, John Anderson, David Gellner and Anthony Riederer.
The following sites were visited:
• 1600 -1700 E 1490-1455 South - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
• 200 East 269 East - Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked if the alley ran through the entire block. Staff stated yes it did.
• 470 S 700 W - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
• 2188 S Highland Drive - Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked about the location of the street that ran through the block and the location of the plaza. Staff oriented the Commission on the site. The Commission asked if the bar owner had commented. Staff stated the bar owner had not commented. The Commission asked what would happen to the existing businesses. Staff stated the applicant would have to address that at the meeting.
• 2206 South 1300 East - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
5:34:11 PM
APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2016, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION 5:34:22 PM
Commissioner Paredes moved to approve the September 28, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioner Clark abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:43 PM
Chairperson Lyon welcomed Commissioner Clark to the Planning Commission.
Vice Chairperson Hoskins reported on the conference regarding diversity.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:35:26 PM
Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Manager, reviewed the need for a Planning Commission member to participate with Public Utilities regarding the updates/upgrades to the water reclamation facility.
The Commission discussed the parameters for the group, who would like to attend and what was going to be discussed at the meetings.
Commissioner Garcia stated she would be attending some of the meetings.
The Commission discussed rearranging the agenda.
5:42:00 PM
Design Standards Chapter Text Amendment - A request by the Mayor for creation of a Design Standards Chapter for new development. The new chapter will consolidate existing design standards from various zoning districts, with some updates and revisions, into one chapter in the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment will affect multiple sections of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and will be applicable city-wide. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (801) 535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2015-00150.
Mr. Casey Stewart, 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 regarding the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The Commissioners on the subcommittee and the input that was given from those members.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:49:38 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 5:50:07 PM
Commissioner Ruttinger stated regarding, PLNPCM2015-00150 Design Standards Chapter Text Amendment, based on the findings and analysis listed in the Staff Report and the testimony and proposals presented, he moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for the requested Design Standards Chapter text amendment. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
5:51:15 PM
Emerson/Roosevelt Alley Vacation at approximately 1600 -1700 E 1490-1455 South - Salt Lake City Real Estate Services has initiated a petition to vacate a 710 foot section of unused alley in order to convey one-half of the alley to the abutting property owners on each side. The alley runs in an east/west direction from 1600 East to 1700 East and is located between Emerson Avenue (1490 South) and Roosevelt Avenue (1455 South). The project area is located within Council District 6, represented by Charlie Luke. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801)535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com.) Case Number PLNPCM2016-00573
Mr. David Gellner, 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 regarding the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The process for dividing the property.
• The Public comment received for the petition.
Mr. Dean Rip, Salt Lake City Real Estate Services, reviewed the petition and reasoning for the request.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:55:12 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. Kent Alderman, Mr. Phil Garn and Ms. Judy Short.
The following comments were made:
• In favor of the alley vacation as it would benefit the neighborhood.
• Would allow for improvements to the property.
• It was never an alley and was never intended to be an alley.
• The County did not have the alley on record as City property.
• Opposed to closing alleys because of potential accessory dwelling units.
• Would prohibit further development of the rear yards of these properties.
Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• If the publics concerns were addressed in the Staff Report.
MOTION 6:04:20 PM
Commissioner Bachman stated regarding, PLNPCM2016-00573, Emerson / Roosevelt 16-17E Alley Vacation, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, she moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation for the alley closure to the City Council subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6:05:14 PM
Darling/Lincoln Elementary South Alley Vacation between 200 East and approximately 269 East - Mr. Logan Darling, an adjacent property owner has initiated a petition to vacate a 600-foot section of alley located at the above listed address, south of the Lincoln Elementary School and behind the homes on Hampton Avenue. The alley was previously closed by City Council action in 1983 but the property was not vacated and ownership was retained by the City. This proposal is to vacate the property and incorporate the land into the neighboring residential properties along the alley. The project area is located within Council District 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801)535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com.) Case Number PLNPCM2016-00520
Mr. David Gellner, 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 regarding the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The utility services access to the area.
Mr. Logan Darling reviewed the petition and reasoning for the request.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:13:17 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Darrin Brooks, Ms. Nora Gallegos, Mr. Joe Gallegos and Mr. Gray Starling.
The following comments were made:
• The school Community Council supported closing the alley.
• Alley promoted criminal mischief and was a nuisance.
• The buildup of waste on the alley was a health hazard.
• Utilities could be access from the school property.
• If the fenced off portion of the alley were open it would allow the property owners to access their garages.
• The number of signatures on the petition was not properly reflected.
• Who was responsible for the storm drain on the property.
• Closing the alley would lower the property values of the properties who have access to the alley.
• Some of the homes did not have off street parking and this would make it harder to use their garages.
Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Applicant and Staff discussed the following:
• The access property owners had to the alley way.
• The number of garages on the alley and the access to those garages.
• What happened when the City closed the alley way.
• The location of the storm drain on the alley.
• If the property owners were required to absorb the abutting land or if it was if possible for them to leave it vacated.
• If the property owners would be allowed to put gates in the school fence.
• The verification of the petition and who verified the signatures.
The Commission discussed and stated the following:
• Appreciated the public comment.
• If it was possible to make a motion contingent to the verification of the petition signatures.
MOTION 6:36:19 PM
Commissioner Clark stated regarding, Darling/Lincoln Elementary South Alley Vacation PLNPCM2016-00520, 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 for the alley closure to the City Council subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report and the verification of the property owners signatures on the petition. Commissioner Ruttinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6:37:26 PM
Street Closure at approximately 470 S 700 W - Mr. Jim Lewis, representing FFKR Architecture, is requesting to close a section of street near the above listed property to accommodate improvements to their adjacent property. The subject property is located in the CG (General Commercial) zoning district and is in Council District 4 represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Anthony Riederer at (801)535-7625 or anthony.riederer@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2016-00487
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 regarding the petition.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:39:51 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission discussed the following:
• The importance of ensuring walkability would remain on the parcel.
MOTION 6:41:45 PM
Commissioner Urquhart stated regarding, Street Closure at approximately 470 S 700 W PLNPM PLNPCM2016-00487, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, she moved that the Planning Commission transmit positive recommendation to City Council for the request to close the subject portion of 500 South. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6:42:39 PM
Dixon Medical Office Building Conditional Building and Site Design at approximately 2188 S Highland Drive - Mr. Eric Thompson from FFKR Architects representing the property owner is requesting design approval for a new office building at the above listed address. The use is allowed in the zone. The proposed structure would be 105 feet in height and 160,000 square feet in size. The development must be approved through the Conditional Building and Site Design process due to the building size. The property is located in the CSHBD1 - Sugar House Business District and is located within Council District 7, represented by Lisa Adams. (Staff contact: John Anderson at (801)535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com.) Petition number PLNPCM2016-00585
Mr. John Anderson, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
Mr. Eric Thompson, Ms. Christina Haas and Mr. Rick Frericks FFKR Architects reviewed the petition and reasoning for the request. They reviewed the parking, materials, layout and amenities for the proposal.
The Commission, Applicant and Staff discussed the following:
• The canopy structure above the entry way.
• The use of the building.
• The standards for residential zoning in the Sugar House Business District.
• The features on the property to draw people through it.
• The way finding signage for the proposal.
• If there were concerns over the private road becoming a more active road.
• The parking for the proposal and if it would be available in the evenings.
• The effect of the proposal on the existing businesses.
• Why the proposal was going through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process.
• If the neighboring bar owner had been contacted.
• If there was consideration given, in regards to design, to the local businesses and helping them remain in the area.
• If the parking at the bar would create an issue for the development.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:18:13 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council, commended the developer on a job well done. She reviewed the public outreach for the proposal, the past designs of the proposal and the use of the structure. Ms. Short stated generally the Community Council was in favor of the proposal but would like it to look more like the smaller buildings in Sugar House. Ms. Short stated they were glad to see the wall was removed, there were concerns over j walking on Highland Drive and metal pillars would be more open than the brick pillars in the design. She stated a lot of the Community Councils concerns were considered, such as signage, the roadway and lighting. Ms. Short stated Staff needed to give more input on the design of the building and the Community Council would like to see the following as conditions: additional parking for retail in the evening and another Staff review of a modified entrance if the medical building was not the actual use of the building.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. Eric McGill, Mr. Steve Bateson, Mr. Milton Braselton and Mr. Gerry Litcher.
The following comments were made:
• Connectivity on the block was a big concern of the Community Council.
• The proposal was a new concept for the area.
• The large wall along the bar needed to be addressed.
• More walkability was needed for the area and should be a strong condition.
• The issues with past demolitions in the area.
• The demolition needed to be very careful that they did not damage the neighboring buildings.
• New design fit with the area.
• Proper pedestrian and vehicle access was a must.
• Proposal for the intersection was a bonus.
• If the residence of Sugar House were to vote on the design of the building they would say this was not a reflection of the area.
• The Sugar House Business district vision statement should be used to help change the design to match the area.
Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Applicant and Staff discussed the following:
• The traffic pattern for the street and the safety features that would be added.
• The issue of J walking on Highland Drive and how it would be addressed in future transportation projects.
• The protections for the bar during the demolition of the building.
• If evening parking was part of the design phase and if it could be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
• The exterior features and design that could be reviewed by the Commission.
• The materials proposed for the development.
• What the Community Council could do to require future developers to capture the feel of Sugar House.
• The consideration given to the design of the building to make it look like surrounding buildings.
• The basis for the design and layout of the development.
• The design was not refined to the finished product at this time.
The Commission discussed the following:
• It seemed like the biggest concern was that the pedestrian / Sugar House feel was not reached.
• The standards that were and were not met with the current design.
• How to make the building better fit the area.
• The options for approval that required the applicant to return to the Commission for approval on final design details but move ahead with the application.
• The conditions of approval and the fine details that were still needed for the proposal.
• A potential motion for the proposal.
MOTION 8:23:39 PM
Commissioner Clark stated regarding, PLNPCM2016-00585 Dixon Medical Office Building Conditional Building and Site Design Review, based on the information in the Staff Report, public testimony, and discussion by the Planning Commission, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional and Building Site Design Review request. Subject to conditions one through nine as listed in the Staff Report in addition standards C and D which speak to pedestrian engagement and interest could comply better and we strongly urge the Application to find fit better with the neighborhood.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The language in the motion.
• The need to give specific information on how to make the design meet the standards of the ordinance.
• That more definition was needed in the materials used.
• The articulation of the ground floor was a must.
• The need to vary and articulate the building massing and facades to contribute to pedestrian scale environment on the street level.
SUBTITUTE MOTION 8:27:54 PM
Commissioner Clark stated regarding, PLNPCM2016-00585 Dixon Medical Office Building Conditional Building and Site Design Review, based on the information in the Staff Report, public testimony, and discussion by the Planning Commission, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional and Building Site Design Review request. Subject to conditions one through nine listed in the Staff Report with the addition that the applicant better comply with standards C and D which refer to better detailing of the façade on the pedestrian level - to better engage pedestrian activity and interest, articulation and return to the Planning Commission for final approval of those fine details on the lower two levels. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Paredes let for the evening. 8:29:20 PM
8:30:03 PM
Marriot Springhill Suites Hotel Conditional Building and Site Design Review and Planned Development at approximately 2206 South 1300 East - Wilmington Hotel LLC represented by the Woodbury Corporation is requesting approval from the City for a new 6-story, 125-room Springhill Suites Hotel with a 2.5 story semi-underground parking structure to be located at the above listed address. Although the property is addressed off of 1300 East, it fronts on Wilmington Avenue. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the building step-back on the Wilmington Avenue frontage and to eliminate the ground-floor use requirement along Wilmington Avenue. The development also requires Conditional Building and Site Design Review (CBSDR) due to the building size and to address other design elements. The Planning Commission may modify other development standards as authorized by the zoning ordinance. The 0.67 acre property is located in the CSHBD1 - Sugar House Business District and is located within Council District 7, represented by Lisa Adams. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801)535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com.) Case numbers PLNPCM2016-00528 & PLNSUB2016-00529
Mr. David Gellner, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
Mr. Lynn Woodbury, Mr. Aabir Malik and Mr. Riley Jarrett, Woodbury Corporation, reviewed the petition and request. They discussed the design and details for the hotel and how it would benefit the area. The Applicants discussed the issues with the slope of the property and percentage of glass required in the ordinance.
The Commission, Applicant and Staff discussed the following:
• Access to the street and proposed trail on the east of the property.
• The retaining wall and if access to the trail would be available along the wall.
• If there was consideration to putting the entrance of the hotel on Wilmington Avenue.
• Why the proposed location was chosen for the hotel versus another location on the property.
PUBLIC HEARING 8:48:45 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council, stated they were pleased with the proposal and the developers design. She reviewed the activity on Wilmington Avenue and stated the hotel would be a great addition to the area. Ms. Short stated the Sugar House circulation plan called for reestablishing the streets that were once part of the Shopko block and as the block developed those access points would be returned. She stated the glass percentage was not an issue for the Council.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Mr. James Guilkey and Mr. Eric McGill.
The following comments were made:
• In opposition to the project as it was not in accordance to the Sugar House Master Plan and did not comply with the ordinance.
• The proposal would not benefit the residences of Salt Lake City as there were no ground level amenities.
• The proposal did not meet the ordinance and was asking for huge reductions in the ordinance requirements.
• Past decisions on projects did not set a precedent for future projects.
• Other projects have respected the step backs and the developer did not want to because he wanted to maximize the rooms in the hotel and his profits.
• The ground floor uses did not meet the requirements in the standards and they should not be given relief from that requirement.
• The percentage of glass requested was far too low for the proposal.
• Open space ordinance should be followed.
• Need to take into consideration the use of the hotel for people in transition that may have large profile vehicles that would not fit in the proposed parking structure.
• Parking access from the lobby was not convenient for patrons of the hotel.
Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Applicant and Staff discussed the following:
• The access and entrances to the parking structure.
• The access to Wilmington Avenue from the property.
• The use of the garage for both public and hotel uses.
• The signage or visual plan for the hotel.
• The pedestrian experience between the hotel and the Toys R Us building.
• The public use of the outside spaces of the hotel and surrounding property.
• The hotel amenities and the location of the amenities.
• Why a hotel was the best use for the property.
• If other hotel brands were considered that did not require so many exceptions to the ordinance.
• Why the hotel brand was chosen and why the orientation of the hotel was proposed as shown.
• The difficulties with the slope of the property and the grade of Wilmington Avenue.
• The retail elements of the proposal.
• The ways to make the outside areas more inviting.
• The materials for the proposal.
• The intent of the Master Plan.
• The purpose of the glass requirement standard.
• If a different material could be used in place of glass and still meet the requirements.
• The glass requirement referred to the ground floor and not the entire face of the building.
• The future plan for the Toys R Us shopping center.
Commissioner Hoskins left for the evening. 9:30:01 PM
The Commission discussed the following:
• The proposal was a well thought out plan and the Wilmington Avenue side could be addressed with Staff to change the façade.
• Should let Staff determine if the design elements were met.
MOTION 9:35:00 PM
Commissioner Ruttinger stated regarding, PLNPCM2016-00528 & PLNSUB2016-00529 – Marriot Springhill Suites Hotel – Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review, based on the information in the Staff Report, public testimony, and discussion by the Planning Commission, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development and Conditional and Building Site Design Review. Subject to the conditions one through seven as listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion.
The Commissioners stated why they supported or did not support the petition.
Commissioners Urquhart, Bachman, Garcia and Ruttinger voted “aye”. Commissioner Clark voted “nay”. The motion passed 4-1.
Mr. Norris stated the process for the Planned Development and Conditional and Building Site Design Review was currently under review and encouraged the Commissioners to send suggestions for improvements to the process to Staff.
The meeting adjourned at 9:37:50 PM.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33:09 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 and Sara Urquhart. Commissioners Emily Drown, Clark Ruttinger and Andres Paredes were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Michael Maloy, Senior Planner; Chris Lee, Associate 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 Michael Maloy and Chris Lee.
The following sites were visited:
• 860 S Donner Way - Staff gave an overview of the proposal. Commission asked questions about the slope issues, who was opposed to the petition, and the zoning for the proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE October 12, 2016, MEETING MINUTES. 5:34:14 PM
MOTION 5:34:18 PM
Commissioner Urquhart moved to approve the October 12, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:45 PM
Chairperson Lyon presented former Commissioner Gallegos with a thank you gift and expressed his gratitude for Commissioner Gallegos’ time on the Commission.
Mr. Gallegos discussed how the Commission had changed over the years and thanked the Commissioners and Staff for their friendship and comradery on the commission
Mr. Nelson encouraged Mr. Gallegos to continue to represent the affordable housing programs in Salt Lake City and to stay involved in the processes.
Vice Chairperson Hoskins stated he had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:40:01 PM
Ms. Nora Shepard, Planning Director, reviewed the postponed items on the agenda.
5:41:16 PM
Chairperson Lyon recused himself from the meeting.
5:41:26 PM
Central 9th Row Houses and Subdivision at approximately 912-916 Jefferson Street - A request by Peter Corroon, on behalf of Central Ninth Development Partners, LLC, to construct a residential planned development located at the above listed address. The property is zoned FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District, and located within Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy, AICP, at (801)535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com.)
a. Planned Development - A planned development request to construct 4 new town homes and 4 attached garages. Case Number PLNSUB2016-00581
b. Preliminary Subdivision - A preliminary subdivision request to create 4 buildable parcels, 4 related parcels, and 1 common parcel. Case Number PLNSUB2016-00582
Mr. Michael Maloy, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
Mr. Peter Corroon, Central Ninth Development Partners, and Mr. Jessy Holts, architect, reviewed the proposal the completed portions of the project.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• The orientation of the property and if the window layout would affect the privacy of the neighboring single family home.
• The HOA fees for the proposal.
• The maintenance of the property covered under the HOA.
• The reasoning behind the orientation of the building.
• If the owner of the adjacent single family home had been contacted.
• The layout of the building and how it helped the use and functionality of the homes.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:58:00 PM
Vice Chairperson Hoskins opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak; Vice Chairperson Hoskins closed the Public Hearing.
5:59:16 PM
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The parking for the proposal.
• The public outreach and the comments received.
• The conditions of approval regarding the landscaping.
• The maintenance plan for the proposal.
MOTION 6:02:06 PM
Commissioner Urquhart stated regarding Petition PLNSUB2016-00581 for the Central 9th Row Houses Planned Development and Petition PLNSUB2016-00582 for Preliminary Subdivision Amendment, based on information contained within the Staff Report, public testimony received, and discussion by the Planning Commission, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the petition subject to conditions one through five listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6:03:42 PM
Chairperson Lyon returned to the meeting.
6:03:54 PM
Emigration Overlook Planned Development - Christopher Clifford, Manager of the development group Emigration Overlook LLC, is requesting Planned Development approval from Salt Lake City to modify zoning standards related to lot frontage as part of the proposed residential development at approximately 860 S Donner Way. The development is comprised of 12 luxury condominiums at the mouth of Emigration Canyon. The design is unique in that each level of the structure follows the downward slope of the hillside, rather than being built vertically as a conventional building. Currently the land is undeveloped. (Staff contact: Chris Lee, at (801) 535-7706 or chris.lee@slcgov.com.) Case Number PLNSUB2016-00488
Mr. Chris Lee, Associate 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 regarding the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• How the height of the building was measured.
• The parking for the proposal.
• If the density proposed for the project is the maximum density allowed on the property.
• The height of the proposal and the requested exceptions.
• The issues with the lot that require the plan development process.
• The access to the property for construction.
• The comments from the Community Council.
Mr. Russell Platt, Emigration Overlook LLC, reviewed the layout of the building, the care taken to make the proposal fit the site. He reviewed the public’s concerns with digging into the hillside and the process to protect the neighboring properties.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• The layout of the units.
• The access to the property for construction.
• The precautions taken to ensure fire safety was followed.
• The comments from the Community Council.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:21:48 PM
Chairperson Lyon opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke to the petition: Ms. Tricia Bennion, Ms. Linda Fontenot, Ms. Erica Anderson, Mr. Fred Gonzales, Mr. David Salisbury, Ms. Lynn Jensen, Ms. Ashley Hutto- Schultz, Ms. Jane Rogers, Mr. Johann Jacobs, Ms. Joyce Man, Ms. Gail Grow, Ms. Rebecca Robbins, Mr. Adam Raines, Mr. Ron McKee, Ms. Molly McMahon, Mr. Alan Smith,
The following comments and questions were made:
• The environmental and ecological concerns were major and should be cleared before the project moved forward.
• Why was the additional height needed if the developer was allowed to build at 45 feet?
• How was the project being capitalized and was it enough to cover the possible damages?
• What other projects had the developer constructed similar to the proposal?
• The developer had been great to work with and the design fit the area.
• Other developers could do something much more impactful on the property therefore, this proposal was a good option.
• Where would the employees park during construction?
• How would the traffic affect the area?
• The animal habitat destruction and the protection of the existing stream was important.
• Needed sound proof windows as the noise from the park would be great for the proposed building.
• If the project did not move forward how the developer would put the property back to its original condition.
• How many petitions and discussions had been held regarding the property over the years and why had it not been developed.
• The study of the traffic and road width of the surrounding streets.
• How many condos currently existed in the area and how much infill was appropriate for the area.
• The population density in the area and the lack of emergency access to the properties.
• The problems with moving landscape and how the construction would change the water flow pattern.
• In opposition to the proposal as the access to the area was limited and the addition would increase the existing issues.
• Thrilled with the proposal but worried about access.
• The plan showed a road leading to Donner Way but that road did not exist.
• If a bond was required for the proposal.
• Access for emergency vehicles was a necessity.
• If the proposal was not completed what would happen to the area.
• Would like to see final plans for the proposal.
Chairperson Lyon read the following comments:
• Ms. Janice Knaphus- My concerns include the steep grade of the lot (so stability); possible damage to neighboring buildings due to construction procedures; unforeseen drainage issues due to underground springs in the area; additional traffic in an area of already high density knowledge with only one egress.
• Ms. Diane Rosner – With all the increased traffic I want to know if the bus routes will be brought back to alleviate traffic.
• Mr. William McMahon- The traffic, emergency vehicle access and severe slope are all problems.
• Ms. Alice Brown- I live on the ground floor with patio access to the green space in the photo. We now have a beautiful gully view with a six point buck in that space this morning. With this proposed plan out view will now be a parking lot. This project will disrupt wildlife and out peaceful park setting. I strongly oppose this development.
• Mr. Charlotte Stewart - The area is already densely populated. Traffic, snow removal, emergency vehicles will be negativity affected by and additional building. The roads (access and egress) simply cannot handle the flow. The disruption of many underground aquifers along with natural habitat will affect all of us. The design of the current building does not align with the current buildings in the area. I oppose their building and any additional growth that may take place in the future in the area.
• Ms. Jessica Hutto-Schultz- Like everyone I’m concerned about the slope and environmental impact as well as traffic flow on the private driveway and cul-de-sac. It is already quite crowded. While I agree they have taken great care in this project I think the impact will be tremendously greater than they think or say. As new homeowners (three months ago) here I can say that had we now of this project we would 100 % have abstained from buying in this building area.
Chairperson Lyon closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Applicant and Staff discussed the following:
• The financing for the project and the assurance that the project will be completed.
• Traffic flow and access to the property.
• Staging for construction and how it would affect the neighboring area.
• The request for height and why it was necessary.
• Drainage for soil and storm water.
• The standards of the ordinance and other factors of consideration the Commission should review.
• The construction timeline for the proposal.
• The history of the site and previous proposals for development.
• If an environmental study was done for the property.
• The previous studies for the area.
• The legal compensation for damage that may occur or if the development was started but never finished.
• The construction impacts to the area and how those were regulated.
• The review process and the departments that would make comments/review on the proposal.
• The transportation and other studies needed for the proposal.
• The height request and what was included in that height.
• The expansion of the private road.
• The appeal process for the proposal.
The Commission discussed and stated the following:
• The site was visited on the tour.
• Appreciated the public comments.
• A lot of the concerns could not be addressed under the Commission’s purview.
MOTION 7:34:40 PM
Commissioner Bachman stated regarding PLNSUB2016-00488, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report and the testimony and plans presented, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development request subject to conditions one through five listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35:55 PM