SALT LAKE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Robert Forbis, Peggy McDonough (Chairperson), Susie McHugh, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Matthew Wirthlin (Vice Chairperson) and Mary Woodhead.
Present from the Planning Division were: Alexander Ikefuna; Planning Director; Cheri Coffey; Deputy Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright; Deputy Planning Director, Joel Patterson; Planning Program Supervisor, Louis Zunguze; Community Development Director, Nick Britton; Principal Planner, Tami Hansen; Planning Commission Secretary, and Cecily Zuck; Senior Secretary.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson McDonough called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Matthew Wirthlin. Salt Lake City Staff present were Doug Wheelwright; Deputy Planning Director, Joel Patterson; Planning Program Supervisor, and Nick Britton; Principal Planner.
DINNER
A dinner for the Commissioners was held prior to the meeting, and a dialogue ensued with Lynn Pace; Deputy City Attorney.
Commissioner De Lay inquired if Conditional Uses are permanent, and if the Planning Commission imposes conditions for a specific use, whether those conditions remain if there is a change in ownership of the property.
Mr. Pace stated that the challenge will be articulating reasons why uses should or should not be allowed. Mr. Pace noted the adverse impacts should be listed, and a decision should be made as to why or why not the issue could be mitigated. There must be dialogue with the applicant discussing mitigating impacts, and also a chance for the applicant to rebut negative impacts raised by citizens and the general public.
Commissioner Woodhead inquired about identifying adverse impacts in motion.
Mr. Pace noted that mitigating factors should be added into the motion, as well as identifying real vs. fictional.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about the stipulations of the states conditional use regulations.
Commissioner Algarin inquired about the possibility that an applicant will use the excuse that a neighbor had a Conditional Use approved, so are they entitled to it.
Staff Cherri Coffey noted that the city criteria relating to a concentration of conditional uses is problematic because if, a conditional use is approved, that basically means that it is appropriate in the area and the impacts will be or have been mitigated.
Mr. Pace noted that many adverse impacts cannot be mitigated. One possibility would be to make a site plan work, if the condition was that the actual use of the site would not be applicable. He noted that there would be no justification in holding an applicant hostage because of potential future neighbors.
The conversation turned to the Public and Issue’s Only Hearings that were on the agenda 10-25-06.
Mr. Pace reminded the Commission that there were no decisions to make on the downtown project at tonight’s meeting because the project was noticed as an issues only public hearing.
Staff Cheri Coffey inquired about decisions of demolition.
Mr. Pace noted that a demolition permit could be issued only with the approval of an acceptable re-use plan.
Chairperson McDonough inquired about the possibility that conditions in the end would not match up to demolition decisions that were decided upon now.
Mr. Paterson commented about the standards and processes for the proposed City Creek Center project. He noted that any decisions for incremental approvals might be the most helpful to give direction to the applicants.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, September 13, 2006.
(This item was heard at 5:46 p.m.)
Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve the minutes with one noted change. Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion. All voted Aye. The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF NOTES from the Planning Commission Retreat, Wednesday, October 4, 2006.
(This item was heard at 5:55 p.m.)
Commissioner Delay made a motion to approve the notes from the Planning Commission Retreat. Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion. All voted Aye, The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:47.)
Chairperson McDonough recognized that this is Alexander Ikefuna’s last meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:48 p.m.)
Mr. Ikefuna noted that there was an error in the codification of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the Mixed Use Zoning District which required the attention of the Planning Commission. He requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to research this error.
Commissioner Muir moved to initiate a petition to correct the error in the codification of the Zoning Ordinance. The petition was initiated.
Mr. Ikefuna addressed a proposal from the Consultants, EDAW Incorporated, working on the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. He noted that the consultants are recommending the name of the Master Plan be changed. Mr. Ikefuna stated that this change was recommended to eliminate any confusion between the Northwest Community Master Plan and the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. Mr. Ikefuna asked for the Planning Commission’s opinion concerning the proposed name change and the suggested name itself, the Salt Lake City Lakeshore Community Plan.
Commissioner De Lay inquired if the Community Councils could be informed regarding this name change.
Ms. Coffey noted that at this time there are very few residents in this area. She stated that through the Master Plan process the name can be formalized. If anyone has a major objection, the name can be changed again. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan is only named as such, as it is the Northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County.
Vice Chair Wirthlin inquired who would be responsible for making this name change a reality.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed name change, it would then go before the City Council and the Mayor and would correspond with a new logo as well.
The Commissioners noted that if this was the case, they felt that there was no problem with the name and logo, and in fact felt it was an improvement.
Doug Wheelwright noted that a public hearing item, a conditional use request for planned development approval of a retail service establishment, has been remanded by LUAB due to insufficient information in the record to verify that the Planning Commission applied the correct legal standard. Therefore, this petition will appear before the Planning Commission again.
Commissioner Scott recommended that the audio record be reviewed to ensure that the motion had been crafted correctly.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA
(This item was heard at 5:54 p.m.)
1500 South SLC LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—The LLC is requesting the elimination or relocation of four existing easements of record which are controlled by SLC Public Utilities, as noted in the attachment. This is a large industrial site with existing buildings and site improvements located at between 1500 South and 1700 South on Swaner Road in the Industrial M-1 Zoning District. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the requested easement adjustment/eliminations as requested.
Four Square Properties and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Four Square is requesting a property trade with SLC Public Utilities to make adjustments between the two properties located at approximately 487 East Vine Street in Murray City, Utah. SLC Public Utilities owned property is used by lease agreement as part of the Mick Riley Golf Course. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the requested property trade as proposed.
There were no public or Community Council comments regarding these two items.
Both items were approved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 410-06-775 and 490-06-46 – A request by Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, located at approximately 715- 725 West 300 North, requesting conditional use approval to demolish the Church Rectory and replace it with landscaped open space. The project also includes a subdivision request to allow consolidation of three parcels into a single parcel larger than the maximum lot size allowed in the R-1/5,000 Zoning District.
Chairperson McDonough recognized Joel Paterson as staff representative. Mr. Paterson gave a brief overview of the petition. Mr. Paterson noted that the site consisted of three parcels and that the single family home on one of these parcels has not been occupied since 2004. He stated that the church is requesting that the rectory home be demolished and replaced with landscaping: grass, trees and picnic tables. He noted that the mitigation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance do not apply in this case as the parking lot is not being expanded to take the place of the residential use and only landscaping will be installed. Mr. Paterson stated that the area Community Council has been informed and supports the request. Mr. Paterson noted that the Church plans to keep the landscaped space open to the public, and he reviewed the Planning Staff’s recommended conditions for approval. He noted that the second portion of the request is to consolidate the B parcels into a single parcel. He noted that combined, the parcels would be just under one acre in size, and this exceeds the maximum lot size allowed in the R-1/ 5000 Zone. Mr. Paterson noted that the Planning Commission had the ability to waive this requirement, allowing the consolidation.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the accessory structures will remain, if permanent lighting will be installed to address the night use of the given space and whether time restraints would be visibly posted.
Mr. Paterson noted that the accessory structures will remain. He stated that there are no plans at this time to add additional lighting, and that the Planning Staff is recommending that the use be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but the upholding of those hours would be up to the Church.
Chairperson McDonough requested that the applicant, Robert Rendon, come forward to address the Planning Commission at 6:04 pm.
Mr. Rendon noted that the church has owned these three parcels for a long time. He also stated that the Rectory House is in disrepair and this is part of the reason that the Church wished to demolish it.
Commissioner Delay noted that she didn’t see much green space at this point surrounding the church.
Mr. Rendon acknowledged that the additional green space would be beneficial.
The Hearing was open to the public at 6:06
There were no comments from the public or the Community Council.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion that petitions 410-06-775 and 490-06-46, a conditional use and subdivision request, be approved based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the departmental conditions as listed in the staff report:
For the conditional use allowing demolition and landscaping, Petition 410-06-775:
1. The applicant provides additional sight-obscuring landscaping or fencing to buffer the house located at 733 West 300 North from the existing parking lot and noise from the proposed landscaped area.
2. The applicant shall remove the approach and driveway serving the Rectory Building.
3. The applicant will provide an irrigation system to adequately service the proposed landscaping.
4. Limit hours of use of the newly landscaped area from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
For the Subdivision approval for consolidation, Petition 490-06-46:
1. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with City Department and Division comments as outlined in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forbis. All voted Aye. The motion passed unanimously.
Petition 410-06-33 – A request by David Hurst for conditional use approval to change the status of Head’s Up tavern, located at approximately 1330 South State Street, from a “Class C” beer establishment to a private club. There is no construction or other redevelopment associated with this petition. The subject property is in the Commercial Corridor (CC) Zoning District
(This item was heard at 6:08 p.m.).
Chairperson McDonough recognized Nick Britton as Staff representative. Mr. Britton noted that this business has operated as a tavern since 1985. Since this time, he stated that two churches have moved within six hundred feet of the tavern. Mr. Britton noted that there will be no physical redevelopment of the area and there will be no change in the business hours either. Mr. Britton noted that the Planning Commission was the deciding body in the conditional use request and the body to forward a recommendation to the Liquor License Hearing Officer for the Business Licensing Division.
Vice Chair Wirthlin asked Mr. Britton to define the difference between a tavern and private Club.
Mr. Britton noted that a Private Club is a conditional use in the CC zone, and could serve all forms of alcohol. He stated that even if there are no physical changes in the development, it is still a new use.
Chairperson McDonough invited the applicant, David Hurst, forward to address the Planning Commission at 6:11 p.m.
Mr. Hurst noted that with a Private Club he would have more control over his clientele because only members and their guests could enter, and he is already willing to work with the Police Department regarding problems that already exist within the surrounding area.
Chairperson McDonough asked if there were any questions from the Commission.
Vice Chair Wirthlin inquired what adverse impacts Mr. Hurst might see in changing the use from a tavern to a private club.
Mr. Hurst noted that the adverse impacts are part of the nature of his business and he would have security.
Commissioner McHugh noted that he may have more control over who would be in his establishment.
Mr. Hurst stated that this is correct and that part of the value of distinguishing his business as a private club would include being able to deny membership to problematic individuals.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that the Police Department has public records of these establishments and their enrollment.
Chairperson McDonough opened the hearing to the public and the Community Council.
There were no comments from the public or the Community Council, therefore the Public Hearing closed at 6:14 pm.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion to approve the conditional use and forward a positive recommendation to the Liquor License Hearing Officer for Business licensing subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant is required to obtain the appropriate liquor license for a private club based on Salt Lake City Code Section 6.08.120B and Utah State Code Section 32A-5-101(7).
Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion. All voted Aye. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Scott noted that she felt it has been particularly difficult to receive input from the Community Councils.
Cheri Coffey noted that the Staff is required to inform the Community Councils of items such as this conditional use which come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Coffey noted that they send the Project Planners to the Community Council in order to hear comments and address issues relating to regulations and procedures, and give the Community Council forty-five days to respond before the item is placed on a P.C. agenda. She noted that in this case, they went to the Community Council meeting, but the Community Council Chair did not hear the meeting item. Ms. Coffey noted that the Community Council has not made any comments regarding this petition.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that the Planning Division must balance the right of the Community Council to hear this issue with the right of the applicant to appear before the Planning Commission in a timely manner.
ISSUES ONLY HEARING
(This item was heard at 6:21 p.m.)
Property Reserve Inc. and The Taubman Company requesting approval for the City Creek Center, a twenty acre mixed use development generally located between West Temple and 200 East, from South Temple to 100 South. The specific request will include:
1. Petition 410-06-38 –A planned development/conditional use request to allow a planned development for more than one principle building per lot and a conditional use to exceed the height regulations of 100 feet for mid block buildings in the Central Business (D-1) District.
Specifically Planned development conditional use is required for:
a. Approval for more than one principle building per lot.
b. Approval to exceed height regulations of 100 feet from mid-block buildings in the central business district (D-1).
c. To waive the requirement that retail goods, service establishment, and offices/restaurants be provided on the first floor, adjacent to the front property line on Social Hall Avenue.
d. To waive the minimum glass requirement on Social Hall Avenue.
2. Petition 400-06-37 – Master Plan Amendment to the Salt Lake City (1995) Downtown Master Plan and the (1990) Urban Design Element relating to view corridors and vistas along Main Street.
3. Petition 400-06-38 – A request for a partial street closure to allow the sale of air-rights over a portion of Main Street to allow construction of a skybridge.
a. Closure of Social Hall Avenue to allow the sale of sub-surface rights to construct an extension of the Social Hall underground pedestrian corridor.
b. Partial closure of West Temple and 100 South to allow expansion of the existing median parking ramps, and to provide access to existing sub-surface parking structures.
Chairperson McDonough asked that commentary specifically include the following above three petitions.
Chairperson McDonough recognized that staff member Doug Dansie was absent at the meeting; and Staff member, Joel Paterson would be filling in as Staff representative. She reminded the public this is an ongoing hearing, and certainly not the last hearing on this issue; which will be open in future meetings to take additional public testimony.
Commissioner Muir made note that his architectural firm is involved in the project by doing some tenant improvements, but not in the actual construction aspect. He noted his perspective is not compromised because of this.
Mr. Ikefkuna reiterated that this is one of many issues only hearings that the Planning Commission will be conducting until they have received all of the necessary comments pertaining to this project. There will be a link created on the Planning Division website, available to interested citizens who cannot attend the Planning Commission meetings, as a means to provide comments to the Planning Commission. He also noted that before there is a final decision made, all comments will be taken into consideration as a final report is prepared for the final Planning Commission action.
Mr. Paterson noted as a reminder that no decisions will be made by the Planning Commission at this time. Mr. Paterson gave a brief overview of the public process that is required for some of the requests that are being made for the redevelopment of the Main Street malls, known as the City Creek Center. Several requests have been received by the Planning Commission, including Conditional Use applications for:
a. Additional building height on four sites within the project, which exceed the maximum 100 ft. height limit, in the mid-block area in the D-1 district.
b. Four residential towers; proposed to be built on South Temple. Two are located between West Temple and Main Street, one located on South Temple between Main Street and State Street, and one on 100 South between Main Street and West Temple.
c. Multiple buildings on a single parcel.
d. Modifications/waivers of urban design standards that are incorporated in the D-1 zone:
1. Waive the requirement of a minimum of 40% glass on street level, along Social Hall Avenue and potentially other areas.
2. Waive the requirement that the fronts of buildings at street level have retail office space, or restaurant use. (In regards to the parking structure on Social Hall Avenue that will be demolished and rebuilt).
3. Amend the Downtown Master Plan, and Urban Design Element, relating to view corridors in the Downtown area, as well as skybridge use.
Mr. Paterson reminded the Planning Commission that they are the final decision makers on these requests, however, regarding the Master Plan Amendment and the partial street closures; the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council who has the final approval authority on these issues.
The transfer of property is an administrative function that rests with the Mayor.
e. Proposed extension towards the east, for the underground pedestrian walkway underneath State Street into Social Hall Avenue to make a connection with the new parking structure.
f. New median parking ramps in the center of the streets and expansion of existing ones:
1. New: South Temple between State Street and Main Streets.
2. Existing: West Temple that would be expanded, and 100 South between State Street and Main Streets.
g. Subdivision issues will need to be addressed. Condominium approval will be required, but can be processed administratively.
h. Relocation request to the Historic Landmark Commission, to remove the historic façade off the ZCMI building, store it, and relocate it in approximately the same area after construction.
i. Encroachment permit requests for underground vaults.
Mr. Paterson introduced the developers: Property Reserve, Inc. and The Taubman Corporation.
Allan Sullivan (Attorney representing Property Reserve Inc.); Mark Gibbons (President of Property Reserve Inc.), Bruce Heckman (Vice President of development for Taubman Centers), and Ron Lock (Vice President of Planning and Design). Mr. Sullivan asked for a first priority to be given consideration for a skybridge, and final approval for the Social Hall parking structure.
Mr. Gibbons gave an overview of Blocks 74, 75, and 76 (referring to graphics given to Commissioners and Staff in the Staff report packet). Block 74 is also referred to as the Social Hall block; Block 75, the ZCMI Center block; and Block 76 the Crossroads block.
Changes to the above Blocks are as follows:
1. Block 75 and 76
a. Reduced office space by, 300,000 square feet.
b. Reduce retail space by, 300,000 square feet.
c. Add residential component, which would include 480 units not presently in existence.
d. Increase parking stall count by 700 stalls, however, current parking will remain at 4,000 stalls during construction.
2. Phase 1 of Block 74 (Social Hall Avenue) would include:
a. 55,000 square foot grocery store (Harmon’s).
b. 50-100 residential units.
c. 300 parking stalls, to accommodate specific development in that area.
Demolition proposed on Block 76 would begin in November 2006 and would be completed by mid-year 2007. Demolition on Block 75 would be scheduled to start in the spring of 2007, and would be completed by early 2008.
Graphics found in the Staff packet show the demolition progress as follows:
a. Crossroads Mall Block (76):
1. The Inn at Temple Square.
2. Crossroads Mall Parking Structure.
3. Crossroads Mall
4. Key Bank Tower
b. ZCMI Center Block ( 75):
1. Around the base of the former Beneficial Financial Group Tower, to be renamed the new Key Bank Tower.
2. Buildings surrounding the former, First Security Bank Building on the corner. (Not proposing at this time to demolish the First Security Bank building; that decision will be reserved for a future date when a re-use plan has been prepared for that corner).
3. ZCMI Center Mall.
4. Current food court on the ZCMI center block.
c. Excavation and Parking Program will include:
1. Four levels of below grade parking, which will be built on both blocks to an approximate depth of 50 ft.
2. Six access points on the perimeter of each block, with the exception of Main Street.
3. Retain and enlarge two existing street ramps; 100 South and West Temple and add a third mid-street ramp on South Temple.
Mr. Heckman noted that once the parking had been completed the construction would move back to grade and landscaped. Open corridors would be constructed and would include a representation of the historic City Creek through the project. Mr. Heckman pointed out that a major contribution to being able to install the open spaces on ground level would be to put one-hundred percent of the parking below grade. He noted that currently seventy-five percent of parking is above grade.
d. Retail Program includes:
1. Three department stores, totaling 424,000 square feet of shop space.
2. Additional shop space, which would include areas at the base of office and residential towers, totaling 476,000 square feet.
Mr. Heckman noted that approval would be required for the construction of the skybridge, as well as the removal of the ZCMI Center façade.
e. Office Program includes:
1. Demolishing the Key Bank Tower, but retaining the remaining four towers that constitute 1.4 million square feet of office space; additional office space on Social Hall Avenue which is not included in that figure.
f. Residential Program:
1. Includes 405 units in five new towers (unit count may vary based upon the size that is finally decided upon by the builders).
2. 75 units being proposed in town homes above the retail space.
Mr. Heckman noted that approval would be required for increased height, mid-block, on four out of five towers that would be constructed.
a. 315 foot tall, a twenty-six story high tower on the Corner of South Temple and West Temple; which would be compliant with the existing D-1 zoning ordinances.
b. 124 foot tall, ten story high tower, between State Street and Main Street on South Temple
c. 120 Foot, eight story, twin towers between Main Street and West Temple. Residential units above the retail, only on the Crossroads Mall side of the block.
g. Social Hall Avenue (Block 74) Phase one:
1. Full-service Harmon’s Grocery Store; 55,000 square feet.
2. 50-100 residences will be constructed by Cowboy Partners.
3. 300 parking stalls will be built below the grocery store/below grade.
4. Replace above grade parking structures on the north side of Social Hall Avenue. Developers are also seeking the Planning Commission’s approval, to waive the requirement to have retail or office storefronts along the ground floor of that parking structure.
a. The structure sits mid-block on the north side of Social Hall Avenue, east of the Belvedere Condominiums; and would be extremely important to Harmon’s grocery store.
5. Developers are also seeking approval to build the tunnel connecter from this parking structure, which will connect from the existing tunnel under State Street, to the Social Hall monument, providing access to employees of Eagle Gate tower and the Former Beneficial Financial Group tower.
6. Harmon’s building will be built one floor above street level on 100 South, but at grade on Social Hall Avenue.
a. A small amount of retail space will be proposed below the store to allow customers of Harmon’s grocery store to access the building from 100 South.
b. Above Harmon’s would be a 175 ft. residential unit tower.
Mr. Heckman noted that the Developers would be leaving open three key sites for future development. First, a residential site for a proposed tower on 100 South between West Temple and Main Street; Second, a mixed-use tower located on the corner of State Street and 100 South, and finally, a residential tower on the corner of 200 East and 100 South.
The first is proposed to exceed the 100 foot, maximum height for mid-block use, and could be as much as 400 feet tall. The second is proposed as a mixed-use tower, including office and residential spaces; the developers are petitioning for an increase above the 375 foot height maximum for corner buildings. The final site would be an additional residential tower which would comply with the D-1 zoning.
Mr. Heckman indicated the importance of the developer’s contributions towards the vibrancy of Main Street including:
1. Two new department stores that would be designed to access directly from Main Street between South Temple and 100 South.
2. Restaurants and retail space would be added to the area, and have storefronts and access to and from Main Street.
Mr. Heckman noted that the developer’s philosophy of additional property would be a major benefit to the vibrancy of Main Street in adding round-the-clock activity into that area.
1. The project will break two very large blocks into eight blocks, by the pedestrian corridors that would be placed throughout the area. This would create a vibrant pedestrian neighborhood.
2. New connections to the City would be created from all four directions of these blocks.
Mr. Heckman noted that throughout the planning phase there has been careful consideration not to have a “backside” to the proposed project, but to have open, inviting spaces on all sides with the reintroduction of pedestrian green pathways through the blocks at the historic locations of Richards Street, Regent Street, Social Hall Avenue, and Main Street.
Mr. Heckman noted that the Developers have been asked by City Staff about their parking requirements and compliance with parking ratios; accommodating both through the construction period, as well as with the completion of the overall project. During the reconstruction period 4,500 existing parking stalls, a ratio of 3.1 stall/ 1000 square feet, will be available; exceeding the minimum standards the City requires. In the Long-term; 3,500 stalls, a ratio of 2 ½ /1,000 square feet, will exceed the minimum City standard. For retail use there will be 2,700 stalls, a ratio of 3/1,000 sqare feet, available; and finally, for residential use 720 stalls, a ratio of 1.5 stalls per unit. After complying with those ratios, there will still be 2,380 stalls extra; a total of 9,300 parking stalls.
Developers proposed schedule is to:
1. Continue to take public comment through October and November 2006.
2. Start Demolition during the month of November 2006.
3. Finish architectural drawings in the fall of 2007.
4. Complete project mid-year 2011.
Mr. Sullivan summarized the priority of the issues the applicants are facing:
1. To obtain the mid-block height approvals concerning the residential towers along South Temple and 100 South.
2. Approvals for the Social Hall parking structure.
3. The pedestrian connector over Main Street.
4. Median parking ramps.
5. Preserve the ZCMI center façade.
Mr. Sullivan noted that the approvals sought could be broken down into several different areas:
1. Filed Conditional Use planned development applications.
2. Filed Master Plan Amendment application for pedestrian connector over Main Street.
3. Filed a partial street closure application, which will enable PRI to obtain air rights for that pedestrian connector over Main Street, and to obtain sub-surface rights for the underground walkways eastern extension, as well as to create the median driveways.
4. Future filings will include: administrative applications for encroachment permits for the Main Street connector, and miscellaneous encroachments.
5. File Historic Landmark application to permit the removal and replacement of the ZCMI façade.
Mr. Sullivan commented that one of the main decisional priorities is the approval of the pedestrian connector, which will wholly determine the shape, size, and participation of all other entities in the project. He noted that consideration early in the process would be vital to the continuation of planning.
Mr. Heckman presented a PowerPoint proposal in favor of the pedestrian connector over Main Street. The main points of this presentation were to identify the benefits of a pedestrian connector (skybridge) including the following points:
1. Benefit of city retail interconnectedness, by providing proximity and synergy throughout the downtown area.
2. Provide and anchor, as well as a link to the rest of Downtown SLC.
3. Link to and through the project: including walkable distances, and accessible pedestrian walks throughout Downtown
4. The City Creek plan has to contain a relative mass of retail stores to make it successful.
5. Total amount of retail would be cut down from what currently exists today.
6. Would allow function of a regional draw to the area.
Mr. Ron Locke gave a presentation on inspirations for the design process. Local, regional, and international inspiration all are being considered for this project. Developers will be trying to maintain view, compliment the surrounding area, and find a good personality for the design.
Mr. Sullivan noted that one of the ideas that had been suggested by the Planning Staff would be an explanation of the priority of the decisions that the Planning Commission would be making. There are two particular decisions that would require higher priority earlier in the process; First, conceptual approval of the pedestrian connector. The second group of issues they prioritize as equally important are the parking structure on Social Hall Avenue, and pedestrian walkway underneath State Street.
Chairperson McDonough closed the applicant’s presentation, once it was completed.11/1/2006 3:29 PM
Chairperson McDonough asks the Commissioners if there were any questions or comments for the developers; specifically pertaining to the approval process of the priority items.
Commissioner De Lay wanted to know what the difference in height is from 100 South to South Temple.
It was noted that it’s a total of about 40 feet difference.
Ms. Coffey noted that the North view corridor looking up Main Street is of the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers museum.
Commissioner Chambless inquired how many pedestrian connectors had the developer constructed in the past.
Mr. Heckman and Mr. Lock noted about four or five amongst numerous large projects. There are many design issues that are being analyzed relating to the 132 foot span over Main Street; they are also addressing issues with vertigo, and investigating other technologies and types of construction for this type of connector.
Commissioner Muir noted that one of the challenges involved with the bridge concept is impediments that will be created within the project. He consulted the developers on the need to press some of the more serious issues first. He inquired about the importance of the stated pressing priorities, and inquired if the Planning Commission could also start working on less controversial and challenging issues. He also wanted to look at the project more topically; including transportation issues, building massing, height related issues, retail issues, and pedestrians at the street levels.
Mr. Heckman noted again that the skybridge is an essential element to the project. If the skybridge is not there the type of retail projects they are presenting within the plan cannot succeed. He noted that this is a threshold issue.
Mr. Lock noted that the pathway store relies on the anchor stores to be connected. Small shops cater to impulse purchases and the departments stores are a destination. People are drawn to the whole, but there must be a link between the two blocks to make it function.
Chairperson McDonough opened the Public Hearing and requested that public cards to be completed with personal information, and handed to the Commissioners in order to be able to speak in the meeting. She also reminded the public there is a two minute time limit, and to address the issues that appear on the agenda.
Cindy Cromer (Former member of the Planning Commission) noted the proposed plan is an undoing of the adopted master plans and is an undoing of close to thirty-years of planning for our community. She believes these will be the most important petitions that will be heard within the next several years. Relieved the petition was moved to an issue only hearing, she addressed the issues of a skybridge, walkable communities, and the benefits of having the tallest buildings on the corners. She believes the skybridge is a means to entrap and hoard the consumer, which also keeps them from getting to any smaller business that might be trying to compete along Main Street.
Robert L. Bliss raised concern about the project being so huge, that it would set a new pattern for the city. He inquired of the applicant to know if they had before done any project of this scale.
Mr. Heckman noted that this project is approximately 729,000 square feet, and that these developers are used to building projects of approximately a Million square feet.
Mr. Bliss was concerned about the future of the City, and wanted to make sure that the entire concept had been discussed. He was extremely disappointed about the amount of funds going into the urban design, as well as other aspects of this project, and thought that it did not follow the core pattern of Salt Lake City.
Ms. Coffey noted that there is a public open house concerning this project at the main library, on the 4th floor, Wednesday, Nov.1, 2006 from 5:30-7:00 p.m.
Shane Carlson (Representing the Avenues housing committee) was pleased to hear that the First Security Bank building will not be demolished at this time. He suggested that the main view corridor down Main Street that he was concerned about was Ensign Peak. He wanted to make sure that the preservation of the link between the city’s natural mountain environment and surrounding natural areas were preserved. He also was concerned this might set a precedent for future view corridor blockages. He wanted the developers and Commissioners to consider different possibilities. He noted a possibility would be to close Main Street to traffic and just have it accessible by foot.
Commissioner De Lay noted that might cause problems for Trax.
Mr. Carlson clarified that Trax would still run down Main Street.
Jim Christopher (Architect) supported present Downtown and Urban plans. He mentioned that Main Street is a significant view corridor and a sky bridge would be an elitist and damaging decision. He urged the Planning Commission to uphold existing Urban Design policies and plans.
Ira Hinckley (Home owner in the Avenues) expressed general support for the City Creek plan. He suggested the skybridge should be delicate and transparent. He is concerned also about parking, and the difficulty of left turns downtown.
Steve Winters expressed interest in a telegraph monument in front of the current ZCMI mall location. He would like to keep this historic site preserved, and also would like to see the First Security Bank building kept as a preserved historic site.
Chairperson McDonough asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Cindy Cromer wanted to know about transfer of development rights. She wanted to have Chairperson McDonough ask Commissioners about the air rights over Main Street.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that there is a petition discussing the air rights, but it could be discussed at a future meeting.
Chairperson McDonough requested that the applicant be seated back at the table.
Mr. Heckman noted there are other national pedestrian corridors that have supported a very vibrant street line. He noted that the applicant appreciated the view points of the public and that the urban design of this project would create additional view corridors that presently are not in existence, by taking whole blocks and creating additional corridors and areas that hold more of a sense of context within the design of the project. He noted that they had been exploring alternatives for three years and the applicant is prepared to share their line of thinking of how they reached this option, at the appropriate time.
Mr. Ikefuna inquired if dead streets, from lack of pedestrian activity, would be produced along Main Street if the skybridge were to be built.
Mr. Heckman noted that the whole point of the project is to enliven the streets via restaurants, department stores, and smaller retailers.
Commissioner Algarin inquired about more concrete plans and visuals and inquired about elements of designs that would be the core drive of business to the area of Main Street.
Mr. Heckman noted that the skybridge would be transparent, would have elevators at both sides of the bridge, and the project as a whole would create a seamless pedestrian network that would allow flow in multiply ways in and out of the project.
Mr. Lott noted that the whole idea of the project is to become a top five tourist attraction—a regional pull into the center of the city.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the Planning Commission is used to seeing more visuals and specific designs; and she inquired about more available visuals to view.
Vice Chair Wirthlin inquired about additional access to the levels from Main Street that would be made available besides an elevator.
Mr. Heckman noted that stairs in the area would be intimidating because the second story is 18 feet higher than the street level.
Commissioner McHugh inquired about Main Street under the skybridge area.
Mr. Heckman commented that the area would be very open, inviting, and transparent.
Commissioner De Lay noted that she felt the Planning Commission was in a very closed box, and would like to see more options as far as what was reviewed through the planning phase of this project.
Mr. Heckman noted that this plan could be thought of as a very complex Rubik cube and that you can’t change part of it without having it ripple throughout the rest of the plan design. He noted he would be willing to explore with the Planning Commission and public to see what would work best for the community, but from the options they have looked at, this was the best layout they have found.
Chairperson McDonough noted that the Planning Commission was not aware of the need to make a prompt decision on the issues presented tonight. She commented that submitting more details for the Commission to review would be most helpful and she would like to see more of the mechanics of the project, rather then the proposed intent.
Mr. Heckman noted that what the applicants are looking for is a two-step process. They would like a conceptual approval, with the applicants returning and verifying they are meeting the standards the Planning Commission is setting.
Commissioner Woodhead inquired about the Planning Commission’s authority in text amendment approval, and whether a skybridge would be a conditional or permitted use.
Ms. Coffey noted that the issue is whether the master plan should be amended including the closure and sell of the air rights over Main Street.
Commissioner Woodhead expressed concern that if the text amendment was approved, then later there would be no control over the design.
Mr. Sullivan noted there would be suggested language for the amendment presented to staff in the future. One possible text amendment could be to prevent skybridges on any main corridors, “except in extenuating circumstances”, which would allow some discretion.
Commissioner Muir stated that the applicant must understand how important it is for the Planning Commission to receive more concrete information, by receiving further design information. He suggested that this project does not go before a subcommittee, but rather is heard by the Planning Commission to ensure all Commissioners review it and the public be present at the meeting s to hear the discussions.
Chairperson McDonough noted that the Commission needed to discuss the issue of parking.
Commissioner Forbis inquired about the congestion in the Downtown area, and commented that he would not be inclined to waive the parking and access regulations for the applicant’s, because it might cause additional traffic problems.
Mr. Gibbons noted that the waiver would not be used to increase parking stalls, but rather to accommodate the future customers of Harmon’s grocery store. The issue is having ground level parking immediately adjacent to the store. It has been an issue to bring a grocery tenant into a full service facility in the downtown area, because of regulations requiring the view of the parking obstructed which could cause perceptions of being an unsafe area.
Commissioner Forbis noted that because of the placement of Harmon’s in the downtown area, the customers would most likely be within walking distance or use mass transit; He also inquired about the project’s ability to alleviate the traffic congestion in the downtown area, when the proposed plan is increasing the number of parking stalls by 2,380. He wondered how proximity and synergy will factor in.
Mr. Gibbons noted that the actual number of stalls that are being increased is 70, due to additional residential units that require dedicated 24/7 stalls, which are not able to be used by office workers during the day time. He also suggested that representatives from Harmon’s speak directly to the Planning Commission in regards to the concern with parking issues in the proposed store.
Commissioner De Lay commented on a past retailer (Keith O’Brien’s) that did not have access to this type of parking and consequently failed.
Commissioner Algarin noted that the Planning Commission should consider the balance of parking vs. Downtown synergy.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that there might still be an impression amongst those present that the First Security Bank building is still part of the project. He asked the Developers to explain that the building had been taken out of the first phase of demolition for this project.
Mr. Gibbons noted that all parties involved had agreed to reevaluate each part of the project. At this point no plans have been proposed for the future development of that specific corner, but at some future date plans for that corner will be submitted to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the Green Trails and Parks committee of the Downtown Rising project would like to meet personally with the contractor/developer to exchange informal ideas and proposals for the First Security Bank building in particular.
Chairperson McDonough inquired about any additional question.
Commissioner De Lay noted to Staff that she personally did not want to be one of ten people that decided three blocks with so little public input. She noted that she would like to see more community outreach done for the open house on November 1, 2006 to obtain more public input. She also noted that the longevity and design of the city is paramount to the community.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that Staff would be doing all that was necessary to solicit public input. He noted that the website would be modified to include a link that citizens, who cannot attend public meetings and open houses, could access and thereby provide the Planning Commission their comments.
Commissioner Chambless noted that there have been more citizens that have shown up to contend the closing of a local saloon, or contend with the proposition to partially close streets by the Salt Palace then there are here tonight.
Commissioner Scott noted that she would like to see taken into account parameters for green building.
Mr. Gibbons noted that as many elements of sustainable design that could be incorporated into this project would be.
Commissioner Scott inquired about this type of information being provided to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gibbons affirmed the request.
Commissioner Scott inquired about the ramping project and noted that she was concerned about ramps obstructing the Downtown streets, impeding traffic flow and destroying the outlay of the streetscapes.
Mr. Heckman noted that the applicants were not fully prepared to make a complete presentation on this issue, but that the balancing of traffic issues was being taken in consideration.
Mr. Gibbons noted that the density and intensity of development in a downtown area, must take into consideration the mix of pedestrians and traffic, which is a very important issue in design criteria and has been looked at.
Commissioner Scott noted that this issue is exactly why a skybridge would be beneficial with the new development layout.
Mr. Heckman noted that the ramps would permit citizens to enter the parking spaces from all directions. He noted that the six ramps within the 8 block area would help with flow and not overload any particular area. He noted that the applicants have studied this particular area and decided that this would be the best decision.
Commissioner Scott noted that part of the vibrancy of a city is the merging of pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic.
Mr. Heckman agreed that this balance is a vital part of the city environment.
Chairperson McDonough inquired if Staff had any more questions.
Mr. Ikefuna noted that PRI had submitted a demolition application to the Permits Office. He noted that the applicant has submitted a re-use plan in the form of several applications including: a master plan amendment, conditional use and planned development, among other things. The Planning Division is currently reviewing the application for the re-use plan.
Chairperson McDonough noted that the approval of the demolition is contingent upon the acceptance of the re-use plan once it is completely revealed to the appropriate Committees.
Louis Zunguze noted in summary, to the applicant and the Planning Commission, that this hearing is part of a process to keep this project moving forward. He also informed the Planning Commission that from a demolition standpoint, Staff is currently reviewing demolition plans, and the approval process is administrative. He noted, however, the permit to proceed with the demolition process requires that there be an approved re-use plan. He further noted that since the actual approval of the entire re-use plan would take some time; he inquired if the applicant would be allowed to proceed with the demolition process with a condition that the re-use plans would be required to reflect all of the Planning Commission's approvals in order to obtain a building permit.
Mr. Zunguze also noted that this approach was used when the Planning Commission was reviewing the Salt Palace expansion project. It is a process often used to ensure timely completion of complexes, and phased projects. He inquired whether the Planning Commission was comfortable with Staff moving forward with issuing demolition permits; and if all the administrative requirements had been met including, a condition that a building permit would only be issued if the re-use plans fully complied with Planning Commission conditions.
The Planning Commission indicated that they were comfortable with that approach. He noted that Chairperson McDonough should give the developers a sense of how the Planning Commission wishes to proceed. He inquired about what information, regarding the Master Plan amendment, would the Commission need from the developers for future meetings.”
Chairperson McDonough noted that the developers should bring more details to future meetings on:
1. Flow of circulation
2. Mechanics of how things work
3. How the street is going to be activated.
4. Proposed language for the text amendment
5. As many visuals as possible, as much detailed information as they could produce.
6. An overview of alternatives that have been reviewed in the past three years.
Commissioner De Lay noted that she would also like visuals regarding the parking on Social Hall Avenue (Block 74) in regards to how Harmon’s will incorporate into the parking scheme.
Chairperson McDonough noted that in terms of procedure for subsequent hearings, there would be value in inviting the Transportation Advisory Board, and Transportation Staff give a more detailed presentation on the project.
Commissioner Muir commented on concerns about building character. He noted that there is already a lot of character in the development area and urged the developers to be careful not to loose that. The Master Plan calls for the corners to be significant buildings, which puts considerable pressure on those corner lots. He noted not to eradicate all of the character and then have to totally recreate it. He requested they look to what Salt Lake City already has, not import something from outside, don’t use cheap materials in place of expensive ones, or be afraid to let new buildings look new. He noted that the juxtaposition of historic building with the new is more meaningful then the replication of them.
Commissioner McDonough adjourned the meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.