SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Noda, Vice Chairperson McDonough, and Commissioners Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Commissioners Babs De Lay and Craig Galli were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Planning Program Supervisor, Lex Traughber, Principal Planner, Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner, and Maggie Tow, Planning Commission Secretary.
A roll is kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. A compact disc recording of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, October 12, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:54 P.M.)
Chairperson Noda asked for a motion to approve the minutes of October 12, 2005. Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. There were no abstentions. The minutes of October 12, 2005 were approved.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(5:55 P.M.)
None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:55 P.M.)
Mr. Alexander Ikefuna addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that a draft of the timeline for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Planning Process had been completed and would be brought before the Planning Commission at the end of November. The draft timeline would show the process developing the plan, and would involve many political, environmental, social and transportation issues. The Planning Commission would play a critical and major role in developing the plan, and by doing so, they will know “where we came from and where we are headed”.
Mr. Ikefuna announced that the Planning Commission Retreat will be held December 13, 2005. He stated that the facilitator will be Dr. Eric Demian Kelly, a nationally known facilitator, with legal background. He has worked extensively with the Board of Directors of the Georgia Planning Association in providing planning education for Planning Commissioners. Mr. Ikefuna requested that the Commissioners give him a list of issues, concerns and questions by November 4, 2005 and he would forward them to Dr. Kelly.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that he asked the Planning Staff to prepare a list of petitions initiated by the Planning Commission over the past few years. That list was distributed to each Planning Commissioner at the meeting. Mr. Ikefuna stated that some of the Commissioners may not have been present when some of the petitions were initiated, and this list provides an update on the petition, the staff planner working on the project and the status. He invited the Commissioners to call Cheri Coffey if they had any questions.
Mr. Ikefuna introduced Mary Guy-Sell, Intermodal Hub Project Manager and Joel Paterson, Planning Program Supervisor.
Mr. Paterson stated that two years ago the Intermodal Hub Project came before the Planning Commission as a planned development project and was approved by the Planning Commission with a long term master plan for the development of that site. He said the Intermodal Hub was not completed nor opened and additional building was still to be completed. Mr. Paterson stated that a situation had developed and the City was asking for a modification to the site plan to allow the construction of a temporary parking lot. He said this situation did not come up in the programming efforts that were undertaken when trying to plan the needs of the users of the Intermodal Hub. The parking needs for the Greyhound bus drivers were not provided in the earlier discussions. When bus drivers came to the facility for cross country drives, they had no place to park their cars. At the old facility on South Temple a pay lot was available to park their cars for three to five days. The new location does not have parking and there have been problems with vandalism and stolen cars. Mr. Paterson said the administration is requesting to develop a temporary parking lot and the Planning Commission must determine whether or not this request is a minor modification which grants the Planning Director the ability to sign off or if the development of a temporary parking lot requires that the planned development be returned to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Mr. Paterson turned the time over to Mary Guy-Sell for further discussion.
Ms. Guy-Sell stated that previously the Intermodal Hub Project had provided Greyhound employee parking throughout the project and it did not include off-street parking for their bus drivers. A serious problem had since developed because the bus drivers park their cars on the streets for three to five days and the cars appear abandoned. The cars have been vandalized and/or stolen. The proposal would involve constructing a 30-stall interim parking lot exclusively for Greyhound bus drivers with the exception of two public ADA stalls. The proposed site is in close proximity to the facility accessible to Greyhound bus drivers and would be a safe and secure place for their parked cars. The lot would ultimately be replaced by an expanded Hub facility to accommodate additional transit providers. The facility would be designed with an active street front along 600 West. Ultimately that area would be developed into a Hub facility for future transit providers. Once the parking garage was completed, the interim parking lot would be demolished. She stated that the funding for the permanent facility was uncertain. The timeframe is two years and commuter rail will reach the Hub by 2008. Additional parking would have to be expanded by that time. The temporary lot would have sufficient lighting, be landscaped and hard surfaced.
Commissioner Noda asked if anyone had any questions for Ms. Guy-Sell or Mr. Paterson. No response was heard. Mr. Paterson stated that the question before the Planning Commission was to decide if the Planning Director could approve the modification for a temporary parking lot or if the change would need to have a public hearing.
Commissioner Seelig asked that it be put in the record that all letters and information for requests for these types of decisions be presented to the Planning Commission earlier so the Commissioners would have time to study each item and be prepared to respond. It was so entered into the record.
Chairperson Noda stated that if there were no objections from the Planning Commission, the modifications presented tonight would be signed by the Planning Director, Mr. Alexander Ikefuna. No objections were heard.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(6:09 P.M.)
South Valley Sewer Improvement District and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—South Valley Sewer District is requesting that two standard utility crossing permits be granted by Public Utilities, at two locations along the City owned Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal. One utility crossing permit is for a renewal of a prior crossing permit, located at 50 East, 10000 South Street. The second utility crossing permit is a new request, located at 10100 South State Street. Both utility crossing permits are for buried sewer lines and both locations are within Sandy City. Public Utilities Department staff intends to approve the requested permits.
Pacificorp and Salt Lake City Property Management Division—Pacificorp, doing business as Utah Power and Light Company, is requesting the relocation of a buried power line easement, which is necessary due to the reconstruction of the Concession Building, located on City property within Liberty Park. The Concession Building is located near the center of the park at approximately 600 East and 1100 South, within the Open Space (OS) zoning district. The new Concession Building is being constructed over a portion of the existing power line easement, and is proposed to be relocated slightly to the south to avoid the new structure. The new easement will be granted in exchange for canceling the conflicting portion of the easement, without additional compensation due by either party. Property Management division staff intends to approve the requested easement relocation request.
Chairperson Noda asked if the Commissioners had any concerns or questions with regard to the items on the Public Notice Agenda. No response was heard.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-08, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting approval to amend Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance that will add standards to regulate the use and placement of street banners throughout the City. The purpose of this proposal is to designate the use of certain utility poles for the display of street banners to benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by allowing street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activities and events.
At 6:11 p.m. Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 400-03-08 and Lex Traughber, Principal Planner. Mr. Traughber stated that the Downtown Alliance, under contract with the City, has administered the street banner program in the Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District since 1991. This contract allows the Downtown Alliance to develop and implement standards for the administration of the street banner program in the improvement district. The Downtown Alliance banner guidelines are included in Exhibit 2, and are particularly relevant because Planning Staff’s proposed text amendment language essentially mirrors the Downtown Alliance’s program with some minor differences. The Downtown Alliance’s program appears to be very successful, and is located between North Temple, 200 East, 400 South and 400 West.
Mr. Traughber stated that Salt Lake City adopted a new zoning ordinance in 1995. The ordinance includes Section 12A.46.070(K) - Signs on Public Property, which prohibits the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, unless such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. This section of the ordinance does not include any standards regarding the administration of any such signs. The City has interpreted this provision in the Zoning Ordinance to authorize the Mayor to issue executive orders to regulate signs in the public way including street banners. The Mayor’s Executive Order dated August 19, 2003, concerning authorizing the placement of street banners in the public way, currently regulates such signage.
Mr. Traughber said that during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games the City enacted Olympics related ordinances, which among other things, authorized the placement of Olympic street banners on many of the major street corridors in the City. When the Olympics ended, the brackets installed on utility poles became the property of the City. He said a reference map was attached for reference indicating those routes where brackets are located along the public way (Exhibit 3).
Following the Olympics, the City started to receive an increasing number of requests for street banners in new locations. Because of the restrictive nature of the previous executive orders regulating street banners, many requests were denied even though the proposals were for street banners advertising local events such as the St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
Mr. Traughber stated that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission had reviewed the project and made recommendations. All of their recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance except their recommendation to not have a proximity regulation.
Mr. Traughber stated that the Planning Staff heard from multiple entities that a proximity requirement should be incorporated. The rationale behind the recommendation was that perhaps said proximity requirement would eliminate conflict between various groups or organizations that would want to place street banners in locations that may not be appropriate. For example, placing Hogle Zoo banners on the perimeter of Liberty Park may create a conflict with placing banners that draw attention to the aviary in the Park.
Based on the comments, analysis and findings in the staff report, we recommend that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Street Banner language that is presented in your staff report amending the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
Commissioner Seelig was concerned with the “proximity” requirement as found in sub-section E(3) of the proposed ordinance and felt the “two mile limit” could be exclusive in nature and thus indicate that a person on one side of the valley would not know what was occurring on the other side of the valley.
Mr. Traughber further explained the reason for the “proximity” language by stating that complaints about banners being located in areas that conflict with uses in certain locations had been received. He used the example of Hogle Zoo banners being placed around Liberty Park that has an Aviary that is a bird zoo. He stated that could create a conflict because Liberty Park would like to advertise the Aviary in the park.
Comments from the Commissioners included statements regarding the purpose and support of tax dollars and questions that asked if Hogle Zoo would be allowed to regulate the banners around that area and what the purpose of the banners really were. Mr. Traughber said the distance requirement was in relationship to the home base of the organization or activity center, and where that particular activity would take place. The purpose of the two mile limit was to minimize conflicts, give a viewer some sense of what was in the neighborhood, and be a source of direction.
Ms. Coffey stated that most facilities advertise for events. The two mile radius was not to discriminate or keep certain people from being informed. She said these facilities had many ways of advertising and this was just one way.
Chairperson Noda asked if there were any questions for Staff. No response was heard. She opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from a Community Council wished to speak.
Helen Peters, resident of Sugar House, stated that banners were an important community building piece in Sugar House and she felt this was a good idea to provide some codification of the banner ordinance.
Chairperson Noda asked if anyone else wished to speak. No response heard. She closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion.
The Planning Commissioners spent considerable time discussing how the banners would be funded, the issue of power and control regarding grass root organizations, small functions versus larger functions and well established companies and corporations. The Commissioners also discussed the Subcommittee recommendations and discussions that involved the sponsorship of the banners, external advantages in partnering with the local businesses in the community and the functions that banners served; esthetic values, good advertising and a directional concept.
Mr. Traughber stated that the proposed Draft Ordinance at the back of the staff report, Exhibit four, item “G”, provided the reasoning for how this came to be an issue. He said the Downtown Alliance is currently the only entity that managed and coordinated the Street Banner Program. All other applicants would apply through the Transportation Division. Mr. Traughber stated that the public had expressed the view that there were entities who were interested in managing their own program and this draft would allow the entities to enter into an agreement with the City. The agreement would be an outline of an entity’s program and would closely follow any City regulations. These people could define their own geographic area and program.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that one of the entities wishing to control and define a geographic area and program was the Salt Lake City Airport Authority. Given the nature of terrorism and security, Mr. Ikefuna said the Airport Authority had expressed interest in entering into a contract with the City to regulate or control what was done within the Airport district.
Mr. Traughber stated that the banners provide cohesiveness to a community in terms of advertising events, activities, and community happenings in a certain area of the city.
Commissioner Muir stated that he was familiar with Downtown Alliance issues. A policy and review group was established to adjudicate disputes. He stated the city was trying to absolve itself of refereeing by being regulatory, standing back, and letting it take care of itself but he did not think the City would be able to do that. Those decisions must be handled by a management team that would create a policy that was more flexible and could be adapted over time depending on the issues.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that the City Attorney had reviewed concerns regarding freedom of speech and fully supported the enactment of an ordinance to provide a comprehensive city-wide policy for street banners, noting that there were significant legal issues that included constitutional rights of free speech and equal protection. He said the Planning staff had been sensitive to the advice and those issues throughout the draft ordinance development. He stated that the ordinance was not restrictive.
Mr. Traughber stated that the Transportation Department administered the program under the executive order to resolve these types of issues. He told the Planning Commissioners that if they did not think the proximity issue was important (Section E.2.1. of the draft ordinance) Coordinated Street Banner Program would work, they could strike it. He said the intent of the Coordinated Street Banner Program was not to alleviate review for the City, although it would do that, but was to give groups that wanted to manage their own program the ability to do so.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that what was in place right now was not working effectively. The proposed program would provide an avenue to manage the conflicts currently being experienced by the City. Further, the executive order issued by the Mayor concerning banners was generic and very restrictive. He said the proposal should be flexible in terms of peoples’ ability to hang street banners. It would remove the conflict.
Commissioner Diamond asked what the downside would be if banners did not have a boundary stated. Ms. Coffey said one downside would be conflict resulting in more than one group wanting to advertise in the same area. He also asked staff to notify various groups about the banner program so they could take advantage of it. He did think many groups knew of the program.
Commissioner Scott stated she was inclined to agree with this proposal. Commissioner Seelig said that she was on the subcommittee and the subcommittee as a whole did not recommend the two mile radius.
Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-03-08
Commissioner Seelig moved for the Planning Commission to approve Petition No. 400-03-08 as it related to the City Street Banner Program based on comments, analysis, findings of fact, and discussion with the staff and Commission Members and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the attached Street Banner language with the exception of item “E2ai and E2b” and change the word “geographic” area to “management” area. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Petition No. 400-01-32, and Petition No. 400-02-08 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend Chapter 21A.26.060 relating to the text of the C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District) zoning district and the corresponding Sugar House Community Zoning Map, as well as the text of the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001) and corresponding Sugar House Future Land Use Map. In addition, several rezones are proposed for specific properties located adjacent to the area currently zoned C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District). The areas affected by these amendments are located between approximately 2100 South from 900 to 1300 East, and along 1100 East/Highland Drive from Hollywood Avenue to I-80, including the Granite Furniture block, the Sugar House Commons, and the Sugar House Center.
At 6:51 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 400-01-32, Petition No. 400-02-08 and Lex Traughber, Principal Planner. On September 14th, 2005, a hearing was held by the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation in an attempt to summarize and focus on the “big picture” and the rationale behind the proposed amendments. Public comment was taken and subsequently the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. After questions had been posed to the Planning Staff and much discussion and deliberation were completed, a decision was made to refer the matter to a subcommittee, comprised of Commissioners Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, John Diamond, and Prescott Muir, for further discussion and revision of the proposed amendment materials prepared and presented by the Planning Staff.
On September 19th and 26th, 2005, meetings were held with available members of the Planning Commission Subcommittee and the Planning Staff. The resulting changes to the zoning ordinance from these meetings are reflected in the attached ordinance in blue (Exhibit 1).
On September 28th, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to deliberate and discuss the proposed changes that the Subcommittee members had formulated. Planning Staff presented the issues discussed and recommended changes to the amendments made by the members of the Planning Commission Subcommittee. It was decided that due to the substantive nature of the changes, the public hearing would be reopened and the case formally noticed in order to take public comment at a future date.
Following the hearing on September 28th, 2005, the Planning Staff worked with members of the Planning Commission Subcommittee to capture the proposed changes and make subsequent revisions to the proposed draft documents. Twelve items were proposed to be changed with the rationale for the decisions. They are listed in the Staff Report. On October 10th, 2005, a meeting was held with members of the Subcommittee to finalize the proposed changes in anticipation of the Planning Commission hearing on October 26th, 2005.
Having revised the draft ordinance as suggested by the Planning Commission Subcommittee, the Planning Staff noted that the proposed subsection titled, “Planned Development Option/Transfer of Required Residential Component” was redundant and covered in other sections of the proposed ordinance. The Planning Staff therefore recommended that section be deleted in its entirety.
Mr. Traughber said that during the course of the Planning Commission hearing on September 14, 2005, Planning Staff noted that the Business District Design Guideline Handbook that was an adopted appendix in the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001), should remain unchanged. The Planning Commissioners agreed with this course of action at that time.
Based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the original staff report distributed on June 8, 2005, with the changes outlined in this memorandum, including all attachments, the Planning Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, the Sugar House Community Zoning Map, the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001), and the Sugar House Future Land Use Map.
Chairperson Noda asked that it be noted for the record that she was originally on the Subcommittee for this project, but because of prior commitments she was unable to participate. She stated that she understood the need to move this forward and thanked the Subcommittee for its work. She asked it there were questions for Mr. Traughber.
Commissioner Diamond asked for clarification of elimination of the language relating to the process of the Planned Development. Mr. Traughber referred to the Staff Report. He stated that it essentially said that the criteria outlined in Section “G” had been addressed within the ordinance that was worked on. That whole section had become redundant, was not useful and had been proposed for deletion. Mr. Traughber said the struck portion of the text was not covered in just one specific area of the ordinance, but was covered by various changes that had been incorporated throughout the ordinance. Ms. Coffey stated that any developer could still go through the planned development process.
Ms. Coffey stated that letters from the Sugar House Stakeholder Committee, Smith-Crown Company, and the Sugar House Community Council Land Use Sub Committee had been received that afternoon and e-mailed to and copied for the Planning Commissioners at the meeting. Chairperson Noda noted the letters had been received very late in the day and she expressed concern that those people submitting them had waited so long to get them to the Planning Commissioners. She said that issue had been raised before and needed to be addressed again. With this short of timeframe the letters were not going to be read. Ms. Coffey stated that all the people that authored the letters were at the meeting and would speak to the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Noda opened the Public Hearing. She asked if any Community Council chairs were present.
Mark Holland, Chair of Sugar House Community Council stated this had been a long and difficult process. The proposed changes give a framework for future development in the business district. He hopes that all of the players can go forward in good faith and work together in the future. He was in support of the proposal.
David Johnson stated that he was a property owner in the area and this was the first time he had heard of the underground parking requirement. He said he had not been noticed and felt he had not been treated fairly. Chairperson Noda and Ms. Coffey stated dates and times of previous notices and public hearings and Commissioner Muir and Mr. Traughber clarified the maximum height versus the underground parking structure requirement.
Ms. Coffey stated they had spoken with Mr. Johnson several times and although they heard his request, staff did not agree with it and therefore did not recommend changing his property from RMF-35 to C-SHBD-1. Mr. Johnson’s property helps to provide an anchor to the low density residential neighborhood pocket study relating to Petition 400-02-08.
Jim Johnson stated he was a property owner in the Rockwood Building, the arts studios and the home that was the “anchor” to the neighborhood. He was generally pleased with the zoning.
Nancy Stark, spokesperson for the Sugar House Stakeholders Committee, reviewed information regarding a meeting held October 21, 2005 by Craig Mecham. She was hoping the meeting would help alleviate fears people had regarding the zoning changes. The stakeholders are requesting more flexibility in the zoning to help the property owners work to implement the vision in the plan. She stated she disagrees with the zoning proposal north of 2100 South to C-SHBD-2. She stated the proposal includes buffers, setbacks and step backs to protect residential property to the north. She urged the Commissioners to make the judgments on adequacy of development when specific plans go through the process.
Jerrold Green stated that he would like to recommend that the Planning Commission not remove the CSHBD-1 Zone regarding the 1100 East area north of 2100 South.
Judi Short, a member of the Sugar House Community Council Land Use Subcommittee, stated she was generally in favor of the Planning Commission Subcommittee report and not in favor of postponing the amendment any longer. She stated that she personally thinks the proposed heights are too high.
Brad Busath stated he works for Architectural Nexus, representing Mecham Investments, and lives in the Sugar House neighborhood. Mr. Busath was in opposition of the amendment and presented conceptual drawings of what is possibly on the “Mecham/Granite” block if the amendments are approved. He stated the difficulties in building mixed use buildings.
Lynne Olson stated that she was in support of the amendment but still had some concerns regarding certain areas of the Business District. She also is concerned with preserving buildings and trail ways in the Business District.
Claudia O’Grady, a property owner, Executive Director of Multi-Ethnic Development and Chair of the Utah Housing Coalition that advocates for affordable housing, stated she was in general approval of the proposals but felt that the removal of the Housing Trust Fund option would limit the incentive for affordable housing.
Dennis Glass stated that he felt the fear of decisions being made was a major component of the proposal. He stated there should be more trust, and more flexible development environment created.
James Warlarmont stated that he was representing the Salt Lake Pizza and Pasta Restaurant and the owners felt that City procedures and processes had become more restrictive. They wanted more flexibility and were opposed to the amendment.
Russ Callister, who is employed by Mr. Mecham, stated that he wanted more flexibility on the fifteen (15) foot setback above thirty (30) feet. He said there was a penalty in density if the residential units are not built in a mixed use building, but it is difficult to build residential when the market is uncertain. He wondered if there was a way to have a Conditional Use “out” if the market does not support the residential. He stated he would like the petition to move forward.
Craig Mecham, a business owner in Sugar House, stated that he asked an architect to draw up preliminary plans that would meet the City proposal. He stated if there was more flexibility in the ordinance there could be a win win situation and all would benefit. He stated he wants Sugar House to be successful.
Barbara Green, a trustee of the Community Council, board member of the Merchants Association, and a landowner, stated she was in opposition of the amendment to downzone her property on the east side of 1100 East north of 2100 South. She stated her property has the potential to redevelop as mixed use, but it can not if it is limited in height. Ground water makes it impossible to do underground parking.
Chairperson Noda asked if anyone else wished to speak. No response was heard.
Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion.
Ms. McDonough addressed Mr. Callister’s comments relating to density of residential in mixed use buildings stating that flexibility is built into the process with design guidelines and Planning Commission review.
Ms. Scott stated that mixed use is not a punishment, but one of the few ways to get a 24 7 population in Sugar House.
Ms. McDonough addressed the proposed C-SHBD-2 north of 2100 South on 1100 East. She stated this area is a transition area between the intensive business district uses and residential uses to the north. It is a pedestrian gateway and both sides of the street should have the same zoning classification.
Ms. Noda commended Staff and the Subcommittee on their work and thanked the public for commenting on the project. She stated she believes 105 feet is too high for the Business District. She believes Sugar House should be a lower scale area. She also noted that a fault line runs in the vicinity of 1300 East and she is concerned about development increase in the area.
Motion for Petition No. 400-01-32 and Petition No. 400-02-08:
Commissioner McDonough moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petitions 400-01-32 and 400-02-08, based on the comments, analysis, findings of fact noted in the original staff report distributed on June 8, 2005, with the changes outlined in this memorandum, including all attachments and discussion at the hearing tonight to amend the Salt Lake City’s zoning ordinance with Sugar House Community Zoning Map, with Sugar House Master Plan of 2001, Sugar House District Design Guideline Handbook, and the Sugar House Future Land Map. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Petition No. 450-05-01 - Salt Lake City Corporation is making a formal application to the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development for the establishment of a recycling and market program, to be known in the City as the Designated Recycling Market Program (DRMP). The DRMP is an economic development tool only and does not have any proposed changes to the City’s existing land use policies, zoning ordinance, or zoning map. As part of Salt Lake City’s application, the City must demonstrate approval of and commitment by the Planning Commission, City Council and the Mayor for the overall program. Only businesses west of I-215 could be considered for inclusion in the program.
At 8:28 p.m., Chairperson Noda announced that Petition No. 450-05-01 had been cancelled and would not be heard.
Petition No. 400-04-20 and Petition No. 400-04-26 - by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting approval to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as it relates to regulations of fences, walls and hedges. Specifically, the request is to amend Sections 21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges and Section 21A.62 Definitions.
At 8:30 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 400-04-20, Petition No. 400-04-26 and Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner. Ms. Gasparik stated that the purpose of this petition was to create a definition of an open fence and a solid/opaque fence and to establish regulations on construction and materials of the fence. Solid/opaque fences are required for screening outdoor storage, parking lots that abut residential zones and various other circumstances. The existing regulations do not adequately specify materials or construction type of fences for screening which led to inadequate fencing in mainly the industrial areas. There are several provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that refer to the requirement of solid, opaque, sight proof, sight obscuring, light proof, tight board and privacy fence, but there are no definitions of these types of fences. The proposed petition was created to establish a definition for all these references of solid fencing.
The petition also was created to define standards including height in general and in the sight distance triangle for all fences. These proposed standards would require a building permit for fences to assure fences are structurally sound and constructed in such a manner as to not pose a threat to public health or safety. The proposed standards would also help the Zoning Enforcement Division to require a property owner to remove, replace or repair fences found to be out of compliance with materials, location, height requirements or not in good repair. The creation of the proposed definitions, standards for fencing and requirement of a permit will improve the implementation of these regulations.
Ms. Gasparik stated that Exhibit 1, Proposed Ordinance Language, 21A.62 Definitions states “Fence open – An artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of at least fifty percent (50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties.” Ms. Gasparik requested that it be modified to read “Fence open – An artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties.”
Chairperson Noda asked for questions for Staff. Planning Commissioners requested clarification on front yard setback requirements and the type of fence that had been installed as discussed earlier. Mr. Paterson stated that some proposals had been before the Planning Commission for changes to height requirements and the sight distance triangle issues. Those proposals went to the City Council. At the City Council level the City Council asked for some of those changes and it was decided at that time to combine two different petitions. He clarified that the provision to change where that would start going to a six foot fence was decided in the public hearing process with the City. It was a specific request by the City Council. He stated that currently the front yard setback in a residential zone was twenty (20) feet, so a property owner could put an addition onto their house out to that twenty (20) foot line. Mr. Paterson further stated that the fence questioned by the Commissioners had been a solid six foot cedar fence across the front of the house.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that he had received a letter from Steve Domino, Director of Airport Planning and Capital Programming and would like to have it entered into the record that the Salt Lake City Airport Authority had requested that they be exempted from requirements regarding this proposed change of language to the zoning ordinance. He stated that the Airport follows regulations issued by the Federal Government.
Chairperson Noda also noted that a letter from Garr Campbell, a landscape architect, had been received and he was opposed to any regulation of planting on a private residence.
Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present from the Community Council or the public that wished to speak. No response was heard. Chairperson Noda noted that no one was present to speak to the issue and closed the hearing to public comment. She asked for discussion and/or a motion.
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council based on Staff’s recommendations, comments, analysis and findings of fact listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
The Planning Commissioners again discussed the height restrictions as stated in the proposed zoning ordinance and it was decided to retain the language and height of fences as stated. Mr. Paterson added that part of the City Council’s concern with adding six foot tall fences across the front of houses was an urban design issue in the neighborhoods and the impact that it could have on the streetscape.
At this time Commissioner Scott withdrew her motion on petitions 400-04-20 and 400 04 26, stating she needed further clarification. Commissioner Chambless withdrew his second. Planning Commissioners and Staff again discussed various scenarios, including courtyards, heights, and setbacks.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-20 and 400-04-26:
Commissioner Muir moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-04-20 and 400-04-25 based on Staff’s recommendations, comments, analysis, and findings of fact and forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendment with one modification to section E1A, Height Restrictions. The original language of the ordinance would be retained. The proposed new language would be struck. Any original ordinance language referencing “front yard” would be retained. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott abstained. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Petition 410-773, a request by Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, for conditional use approval for a place of worship in an existing commercial building at approximately 1760 South 1100 East.
At 8:53 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 410-773 and Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor. Mr. Paterson stated that the adopted land use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed place of worship at 1760 South 1100 East is the Sugar House Master Plan adopted in 2001. The Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map recommends low intensity mixed use for the properties in the vicinity of Vintage Square fronting on 1100 East. Properties to the east and west of the low intensity mixed use strip are identified as low density residential.
The Vintage Square retail building is an existing two-story retail and office structure built in 1983. Retail and office use tenants occupy both floors of the structure. The Chabad Lubavitch Synagogue will occupy approximately 11,500 square feet of the building. The worship hall will seat 25 people. The use includes office and administrative functions, class rooms and meeting/gathering space. He stated that the petitioner would be willing to make any needed changes and corrections.
This proposal was reviewed by both the Sugar House Community Council and the East Central Community Council. Both indicated their support for the proposed project. Staff recommended approval subject to the screening of the dumpster and correction of the draining issues.
Chairperson Noda asked the applicant to speak. Rabbi Zippel, the Executive Director of Chabad Lubavitch of Utah stated he has been in Salt Lake City since 1992. In 1994 he purchased the building at 1443 South 1100 East and 1435 South 1100 East. Originally his plan was to demolish those properties and build a new structure and permits were obtained from the Planning Commission. He said he ran into very high building costs; approximately $200.00 per square foot. Since 1997 he has been trying to purchase the Vintage Square Building. He stated that the building was now available and he was purchasing the property and renaming the building Chabad Square. Rabbi Zippel stated he had made a presentation to the Sugar House Community Council and East Central Community Council. He said there were 62 parking stalls and no problem with parking.
Chairperson Noda asked for questions for Rabbi Zippel or Mr. Paterson. No response was heard. Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone from the community that wished to speak.
Helen Peters of the Sugar House Community Council stated they are delighted to have Rabbi Zippel and Chabad Lubavitch of Utah in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Chambless asked Rabbi Zippel if they would be able to occupy the entire structure at this time or if they would grow into the structure. Rabbi Zippel replied that they would not occupy the whole structure right now. He said the structure consisted of 29,000 square feet and Chabad Lubavitch of Utah would occupy about 11,500 square feet. He stated that currently tenants occupy the remaining square footage of the building and he would continue to have tenants occupy the space until he was able to occupy the whole building.
Chairperson Noda asked if there were any questions for Ms. Peters or if anyone else wished to speak. No response was heard.
Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion
Motion for Petition No. 410-773:
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-773 based on the analysis and findings outlined in the staff report and with the following conditions:
1) Compliance with the 5% bicycle parking provision.
2) Resolution of existing drainage issues as identified by the Transportation Division.
3) The existing dumpster must be enclosed per City standards.
Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Petition 400-05-36, a request by Chabad Lubavitch of Utah to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map for a property located at approximately 1435 South 1100 East from Single Family Residential R-1-5000 to Residential Business RB.
Petition 490-05-53, a request by Chabad Lubavitch to subdivide property at approximately 1435 South 1100 East by re-establishing a prior lot line for the purpose of reducing an existing non-complying element of a lot that has two principal buildings on a single parcel.
Motion for Petition No. 410-113:
At 9:01 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 400-05-36, Petition No. 490-05-53, and Joel Paterson. Mr. Paterson stated that the applicant was proposing to change the zoning designation of property located at 1435 South 1100 East from R-1-5000 Single Family Residential to RB Residential Business.
Mr. Paterson stated that the Chabad Lubavitch of Utah was requesting the proposed Zoning Map amendment to restore the zoning that was in place prior to July 2003, when the zoning designation was changed from RB to R-1-5000 to accommodate Chabad Lubavitch’s proposed construction of a new synagogue at this site. Chabad Lubavitch no longer plans to construct a new synagogue at this site and wishes to sell the property.
Furthermore, Mr. Paterson said that in 2003, Chabad Lubavitch of Utah planned to build a new synagogue on the subject property. To accomplish this goal, Chabad Lubavitch of Utah was told by the City that the new synagogue would require conditional use approval (granted in August 2003), and that the two lots (1433 and 1435 South) would have to be combined into a single lot.
However, because the RB District included a maximum lot size of 10,000 square feet, and the new lot would be approximately 12,500 square feet, the property was rezoned to R 1/5000 to accommodate the consolidation of the two lots of property. The Council approved the Zoning Map amendment in August 2003.
Mr. Paterson said that Chabad Lubavitch of Utah no longer planned to construct a new synagogue and in fact is seeking conditional use approval for a place of worship at 1760 South 1100 East. As a result, Chabad Lubavitch of Utah is selling the property at 1435 South 1100 East and wishes to restore the RB zoning and re-establish the two lots that existed prior to the consolidation of these lots in August 2003. Restoring the original conditions for this property would allow the property owner to sell the property separately. The property is occupied by two principal buildings; a commercial building on the north and a residential structure on the south. Chabad Lubavitch occupied both buildings for use as a synagogue for at least ten years. Since the inception of zoning in Salt Lake City in 1927 until 2003, the zoning of this property allowed both residential and commercial land uses.
Mr. Paterson recommend that, based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report, the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-05-36 to amend the Zoning Map by changing the zoning designation of 1435 South 1100 East from R-1-5000 Single Family Residential to RB Residential Business.
Mr. Paterson then spoke of the subdivision request. He stated that the property owner, Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, is requesting to subdivide the property at 1435 South 1100 East into two lots by restoring a lot line that was removed during a property consolidation in 2003. The original two lots were consolidated into a single lot in anticipation of the demolition of the existing structures on the property and the construction of a new synagogue. Chabad Lubavitch of Utah has since decided not to pursue the new construction project and is proposing to restore the prior lot line to lessen the non-conforming situation of having two principal buildings on a single lot and to allow the two buildings to be sold separately.
The subdivision request is being heard by the Planning Commission along with the proposed Zoning Map amendment, rather than scheduling a separate administrative hearing.
Based upon the analysis and findings in this report, the Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary minor subdivision (Petition 490-05-53); subject to the following condition:
1. That a notice of minor subdivision be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
Chairperson Noda asked if there were questions for Mr. Paterson. No response was heard. She opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the Community Council or the public wished to speak. No response was heard. Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-05-36 and Petition No. 490-05-53:
Commissioner Scott moved that based on the analysis and findings presented in the staff report, the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-05-36 to amend the zoning map by changing the designation of 1435 South 1100 East from R1/5000 Single Family Residential to the RB Residential Business. Further, based on the analysis and findings of fact presented in the staff report, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Petition 490-05-53 for the preliminary minor subdivision approval subject to the condition that a notice of the minor subdivision be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. It is stated that Lot One will be a non-complying lot. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Planning Commissioners gave a commendation to Tim Chambless for a job well done as Chairperson to the Planning Commission for the last year, and asked that it be entered into the record.
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by Chairperson Noda.