October 27, 2004

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 Chair, Tim Chambless; Vice Chair, Laurie Noda, Babs De Lay, Craig Galli, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. John Diamond and Peggy McDonough were excused.

Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor Elizabeth Giraud; Principal Planner Everett Joyce, Principal Planner Ray McCandless; Principal Planner Wayne Mills, Senior Planner Joel Paterson; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; Transportation Engineer Kevin Young; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

Chair Chambless referred to the last item on the Planning Commission agenda, Petition No. 400-03-34, noting that it may not be heard for quite a while. He stated that Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey and Principal Planner Everett Joyce are offering to meet with the public regarding any questions or concerns associated with this petition. He stated that if the concerns are alleviated then the public would not need to stay for the reminder of the potentially long meeting.

Chair Chambless presented Bip Daniels with a plaque and letter of appreciation for his five years of service as a Salt Lake City Planning Commissioner.

Chair Chambless presented Prescott Muir with a plaque of appreciation for his service as the Chair of the Planning Commission for the past year.

Approval of minutes from Wednesday, October 13, 2004

This item was heard at 5:45 p.m.

The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected on the October 13, 2004 ratified minutes.

Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.

Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.

Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR

This item was heard at 5:54 p.m.

Chair Chambless and Vice Chair Noda had nothing to report.

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR

This item was heard at 5:54 p.m.

Mr. Zunguze stated that he had nothing to report.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Chair Chambless stated that the City Attorneys have directed the Planning Commission to convene to an Executive Session in order to consult with them regarding issues in accordance with the Utah Code 78.24.8.

Commissioner Noda made a motion that the Planning Commission convene to an Executive Session.

Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.

The Planning Commission convened to an Executive Session at 5:55 p.m.

The Planning Commission reconvened at 6:21 p.m.

Petition No. 400-04-11 (tabled on March 10, 2004), by the City of North Salt Lake, requesting a boundary adjustment between Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake concerning an 80-acre parcel of property owned by North Salt Lake City located east of the gravel pits along Beck Street (Continued from the March 10, 2004 Planning Commission meeting).

This item was heard at 6:21 p.m.

Principal Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that North Salt Lake City is requesting a voluntary boundary adjustment between the municipalities of North Salt Lake and Salt Lake City. The requested action seeks to remove 80 acres from Salt Lake City’s municipal boundary and extend the municipal boundary of North Salt Lake to include the 80 acres. The property is currently located in Salt Lake City’s jurisdiction. However, it is owned by North Salt Lake City.

Mr. McCandless stated that the current zoning on the property is Open Space, and North Salt Lake City is proposing natural open space for 47 acres; a future City cemetery for 23 acres; and a single-family residential development of 10 acres.

Mr. McCandless noted that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on March 10, 2004. At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to table North Salt Lake City's request to allow time for the Planning Commission to visit the site and set up a Planning Commission Subcommittee Meeting to consider the issues discussed at that meeting. He stated that the Commission visited the site at various times and on September 29, 2004, held a Subcommittee meeting. The Subcommittee meeting focused on North Salt Lake City's proposed residential development on the northern portion of the property, the proposed cemetery use, and acquisition of the property by an open space preservation entity. The Planning Commissioners at the Subcommittee meeting were mainly concerned that approving the residential component of North Salt Lake City's plan would not be consistent with the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan and would result in the further loss of existing natural open space on the ancient Lake Bonneville Bench.

Mr. McCandless stated that Staff is recommending that if funds to purchase the property become available, and North Salt Lake agrees to the purchase (Option 3 noted in the staff report), it would be the best solution. However, should the acquisition of funds be problematic, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council enter into negotiations with North Salt Lake to fashion a boundary adjustment only around the proposed 10 acre residential development and 23 acre cemetery and that the 47 acres of the North Salt Lake owned property remain in Salt Lake City and that an agreement between the two jurisdictions be implemented assuring that the 33 acres be developed as proposed i.e., 10 acres of single family residential and 23 acres as a municipally owned cemetery as discussed in Option 4 noted in the staff report.

Mr. Bill Wright, Planning Consultant, addressed the Commission saying that the facts concerning the proposed site have not changed from North Salt Lake City’s perspective. He said that they still believe that there are valid reasons that have been expressed in the request and the staff report as to why the proposed site is best included in North Salt Lake City’s jurisdiction. Mr. Wright stated that that is why North Salt Lake City is seeking a boundary adjustment. He stated that there are other options of achieving their goal such as a disconnection which is provided under State law. However, the desire is to work with Salt Lake City to achieve the adjustment. Mr. Wright noted that North Salt Lake City is the only jurisdiction that can provide basic public and municipal services. He said that the site is extensively developable, and they have laid out a plan that is very responsible in the way it would be used. Mr. Wright stated that their plan recognizes the importance of open space. He noted that it was zoned by Salt Lake City in 1995 as open space. Mr. Wright noted that although North Salt Lake City does not agree with all of the aspects of the appraisal, and they feel that there were oversights, it does note the magnitude and severity of land values between natural open space and developed open space. Mr. Wright stated that the appraisal indicates that natural open space is about 4,000 dollars an acre, and it is believed that residential property is about 74,000 dollars an acre. He indicated that North Salt Lake City has received proposals for 110 – 160 thousand dollars an acre. Mr. Wright stated that a significant amount would be needed to purchase the site from North Salt Lake City. He stated that during the past six moths they have not seen a significant indication that there is an effort to raise that amount of funds.

Mayor Kay Briggs, of North Salt Lake City addressed the Commission saying that he appreciates the staff report. He stated that North Salt Lake City’s intention is to increase and encourage more use of the proposed area. Mayor Briggs asked the Commission why the City is willing to allow development of the Salt Lake City portion of the hill that divides the two jurisdictions, and not allow North Salt Lake City to develop ten acres of their back yard. He asked the Commission to approve the proposal, and reiterated that their intention is to preserve the area.

Commissioner Muir apologized to Mayor Briggs for the delays, saying that it certainly was not the intent of the Commission to delay the issue. The Commission tabled the request in March with the hope for the evaluation of the two jurisdiction’s prospective open space agendas. Commissioner Muir noted that the Planning Commission does not have the tools to make that judgment. He referred to the Beck Street Reclamation Plan saying that the staff report indicates that North Salt Lake City participated in developing that plan. He asked if the proposed area had development potential then why was it not included in the plan as such.

Mayor Briggs said that he believed that the Hunter Family, adjacent property owner to the south of the proposed site, as well as others did protest that plan. He added that he did not believe that it was ever the intent of North Salt Lake City to indicate that the area was undevelopable. Mayor Briggs said that he believed over time the site has become a more attractive property for development. He added that he has received numerous offers from individuals requesting that North Salt Lake City sell the site and those private entities would come to the Commission to get approval to develop it. He said in an effort to protect as much open space as possible he has declined the offers up to this point.

Mr. Wright added that they have staged this proposal as a refinement of the Beck Street plan which covered thousands of acres. He compared this proposal to that of the Salt Lake City plan to preserve Ensign Peak, which allowed for more development on the flat areas as well as the preservation of the open space area. He stated that they view this proposal as a “save by development” proposal which will develop a small portion of the 80 acres while allowing for the preservation rest of the property.

Commissioner Galli referred to Mayor Briggs’ comments that they were working to acquire some or all of the 180 acres of more valuable open space. He asked what efforts have been made to ensure that there will be more open space in this community.

Mayor Briggs stated that he has made application with parks and recreation to purchase a portion of property which sits below the proposed 80 acres, with the intent that the 80 acres will never have housing on it.

Commissioner Galli asked if North Salt Lake City is willing at this point to negotiate the sale of the property if a fair price can be agreed upon.

Mayor Briggs replied that they would be willing to negotiate at this point. He reiterated that there are several developers who are quoting prices for the entire 80 acres at over 100,000 dollars an acre. Mayor Briggs said that it is not their intent to develop. However, if North Salt Lake City is forced to put the property on the market, it may happen. Mayor Briggs noted that the relevant groups who reviewed the staff report either supported or did not oppose the request, with the exception of the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee.

Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.

Mr. Peter von Sivers, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, addressed the Commission in opposition of developing the proposed site. He noted that there was a resolution passed by the Capitol Hill Community Council to preserve the open space. He said that the Capitol Hill Community is in support of Salt Lake City purchasing the proposed site and preserving it as open space. He said that Salt Lake City has reached the point where urban sprawl needs to stop.

Mr. Ralph Becker, past Planning Commissioner, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He said that he finds it regrettable that so much time has lapsed since the first public hearing. He felt that North Salt Lake City has been patient up to this point, and they need a decision from Salt Lake City that shows the commitment that Salt Lake City has to preserve the open space. He noted the uniqueness of the site and asked the Commission to evaluate the impact that the proposed uses may have on the future generations. He asked that the Commission make a decision tonight, which would allow the City Council to take action soon, then perhaps the negotiations can take place.

Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Mayor’s Open Space Advisory Committee (MOSAC), addressed the Commission. She noted the letter to the Planning Commission submitted by the MOSAC. She said that this issue has been discussed by MOSAC numerous times and they have come to the conclusion that the property should be preserved under its current naturalized open space zoning. Through their discussions MOSAC has come to understand that this issue has a large number of legal sensitivities and complexities that could be handled at the City Council level. Ms. Peters asked that the Commission take the position that would facilitate negotiations to preserve the area. She suggested that the Planning Commission forward the proposal to the City Council without taking a position. She said that MOSAC hopes that this decision would allow for a climate where the two jurisdictions can arrive at an agreement for Salt Lake City to acquire the proposed site. She said that they are actively raising funds to proceed with the purchase.

Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Peters why she is suggesting that the Commission forward the petition to the City Council without a recommendation for or against.

Ms. Peters replied that their intent is not to create a positioning this evening, but rather leave it as open as possible to allow the negotiations and legal issues to be discussed at the City Council level.

Ms. Cindy Cromer, addressed the Commission a citizen, she thanked the Commission for their manners in considering this petition. She noted three important planning issues that the Commission should address; one is that the City must have a manageable boundary which considers land use conflicts that are the responsibility of the local municipality. She felt that the proposed boundary adjustment does not accomplish that. Ms. Cromer said that the second issue is the importance of maintaining the Bonneville Shoreline Trail at the Bonneville elevation. The proposed realignment of the trail with variations in elevation will cost both municipalities users. The third issue is that there is a 15 year master planning history with regard to open space. She referred to two aspects of the Capitol Hill Master Plan, noting that there is a separate open space zone that does not allow structures; the other calls for historic areas to be designated. Ms. Cromer said that the proposed site is certainly an historic site.

Mr. Stan Porter, Chair of the North Salt Lake City Planning Commission addressed the Commission saying that they are committed to not allowing any development until the 80 acres are preserved as open space. He referred to the comment that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail must remain at the current grade. He stated that it will run along the same contour of the mountain and will remain at the same grade. Mr. Porter said that he had to make a personal compromise in deciding that the proposed plan is the best because he believes that the 10 acres of development will help to preserve the open space. He referred to the negotiation regarding the monetary value of the proposed site, saying that there are those on both sides of the issue claiming significant difference in the value of the site. He said that he believed that the crux of the problem is the dispute relating to the value of the site.

Mr. Jim Burn, Co-Chair of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee and Chair of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition, addressed the Commission. He indicated concern regarding the proposed site, saying that it is a rare piece of land along the trail. He asked that Salt Lake City scrutinize every possibility to preserve the site.

Mr. Jim Webster, Chair of the Yalecrest Community Council addressed the Commission saying that his concerns relate to the question of how perpetual is the open space zoning, and what does it really mean to zone property open space. He noted the importance of preserving the site. He said that he understands North Salt Lake City’s perspective; however, he did not agree that the development of the 10 acres will help to preserve the open space. He asked if the forest service has been involved in the negotiations.

Chair Chambless asked Staff if they have been in contact with the U.S. Forest Service regarding this matter.

Mr. Wheelwright replied that they were sent notices but have not responded to the Planning Staff.

Mr. Wright replied that in the development of the North Salt Lake City’s General Plan amendment, approximately two years ago, they met with Mr. Steve Sheid of the U.S. Forrest Service regarding trail heads, location of the trail heads, and other various issues relating to the area. Mr. Wright indicated that Mr. Sheid came to the same conclusion that there will not be a severe grade change with regard to the proposed trail alignment.

Mr. Richard Hunter, property owner adjacent to the proposed area, addressed the Commission saying that his biggest objection is that he, as an adjacent property owner, has never been included in the various committee’s discussions nor has he been invited to give input in discussions of the proposed site which will potentially affect his property. He said that he would like to be included in the negotiations and discussions regarding the proposed site.

Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Seelig asked for clarification regarding the departmental comments section of the staff report. She asked why the staff reports are routed to various City Departments, and what is Staff seeking in the process.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that it is routine for Staff to contact City Departments relative to development requests. He added that Staff also seeks departmental input regarding changes to City regulations.

Commissioner Galli suggested that the Commission focus on the optimization of land use. He said that he is persuaded to advance the request with a strong recommendation that the site be protected as open space while indicating the urgency for the issues to move forward. Commissioner Galli said that he personally regrets the time delay without any progress as to negotiations between the two municipalities.

Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner Galli saying that the Commission tabled the request in March to allow for negotiations. She added that the Commission should look at the land use and preservation issues. She said that she believes that the site has a geographical and historical uniqueness which should be preserved. She thanked North Salt Lake City for their patience in the matter. Commissioner Noda said that she hopes that the two municipalities can agree on a price for Salt Lake City to acquire the property, and that would obviously require both jurisdictions to do their own appraisals.

Commissioner Muir stated that he agreed with the comments expressed; however, he did not believe that the Commission is empowered to evaluate nor negotiate purchase or a resolution other than make a recommendation regarding land use. He said that he felt that the will of the City is that the proposed area is to remain as open space based on the governing Master Plan.

Motion for Petition No. 400-04-11

Commissioner Muir made a motion to that the Planning Commission reject the proposed boundary adjustment.

Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.

Commissioner Galli suggested that the Planning Commission amend the motion to reject the boundary adjustment with the strong recommendation to work expeditiously to search for an amicable solution. If Salt Lake City is not able to purchase the property outright because a purchase price can not be agreed upon, then the two parties negotiate a modification of the boundary adjustment or fashion a new boundary adjustment which carves out the proposed 10 acres.

Commissioner Scott said that she agreed with the amendment with the exception of carving out the ten acres. She felt that the recommendation should not be that specific but rather add the request that every attempt be made to organize the purchase of the 80 acres. She felt that that would send a clear message that the preservation of the land as open space is a priority of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Galli said that his concern is that the there may be such disparity relating to the dollar figures, which may not allow for negotiation. He said that his intention is that the Planning Commission recommendation be very broad and every possibility be explored. Commissioner Galli referred to the Staff recommendation noting that if Salt Lake City can not purchase the property, the Staff recommendation is that the City Council look to fashion a new boundary adjustment around the 10 acres. He felt that that may be the most realistic option if the first priority can not be reached, which is the preservation of the entire 80 acres.

Commissioner Scott noted that Mayor Briggs has indicated that there are developers who are interested in developing the entire 80 acres and are waiting for a final decision, and are willing to underwrite that cost. She reiterated that the open space is the main concern of the Planning Commission and it is their responsibility to maintain the open space.

Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner Galli that perhaps the most realistic solution, if Salt Lake City can not purchase the property, is that the City Council look to fashion a new boundary adjustment around the 10 acres.

Commissioner Galli reiterated that he agrees with the motion to deny the proposed boundary adjustment in favor of Salt Lake City purchasing the property in a speedy fashion; if that is not feasible then the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council look at a boundary adjustment that might suit the needs of both jurisdictions while preserving the maximum amount of open space.

Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment. He said that he felt that the option for negotiations goes without saying and those that preside in the offices of the Mayor’s Office and the City Council Office should be encouraged to exhaust the opportunities; however, he did not want to prescribe what those opportunities are. One option certainly would be the purchase of the property or an adjustment to the current plan that has been presented, or a combination of both.

Commissioner Seelig agreed with the motion and asked that the word “strongly” be added because the Commission encouraged negotiations when the petition was last reviewed by the Commission.

Amended Motion for Petition No. 400-04-11

Commissioner Muir made a motion that the Planning Commission reject the proposed boundary adjustment, with a strong recommendation that those who preside in the offices of the Salt Lake City Mayor and the Salt Lake City Council should be encouraged to exhaust the opportunities for negotiations that might suit the needs of both jurisdictions while preserving the maximum amount of open space.

Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.

Continued Discussion of Petition No. 410-701, by the Salt Lake County Administration, requesting conditional use approval to allow modifications to the “D-4” zoning requirements to accommodate the expansion of the Salt Palace on the block between South Temple and 100 South from 200 West to 300 West. The property is located within the “D-4” Downtown Secondary Central Business District. The Petitioner is requesting modifications of the following “D-4” requirements:

1. The front yard setback;

2. Restrictions on parking lots and structures located in block corner and mid-block areas;

3. Requirements for retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants on the ground floor of parking structures adjacent to the front or corner side yard;

4. Requirements for the first floor elevation facing a street to include at least 40% glass; and

This item was heard at 7:44 p.m.

Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that on September 29, 2004, the Planning Commission forwarded positive recommendations on Petitions 400-04-35 and 400-04-36 to the City Council. Mr. Paterson stated that the City Council approved the petition for the text amendment October 5, 2004. The request of partial street closure at 100 South was scheduled for City Council review on October 12, 2004; however, that petition was withdrawn and is no longer part of the proposal. The Planning Commission also granted preliminary conceptual approval of Petition 410-701 subject to the final site design approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paterson noted that since the meeting on September 29, 2004, the County has made modifications to the site plan. In response to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, Salt Lake County has worked with representatives of the Japanese American Community and revised the design of the proposed expansion.

Mr. Paterson noted that the Planning Commission received renderings of the proposed modification which have been retained for the public record. He identified the modifications of the current site plan from the original proposal as outlined in the staff report and renderings.

Mr. Paterson stated that Staff is recommending based on the findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission grant conditional use approval for the proposed Salt Palace expansion project based on the site plan and elevations presented to the Commission. This approval grants the following modifications to the following “D-4” urban design guidelines:

Front and Corner Side Yard Setback:

a. 300 West: The setback for the entry lobby ranges from twenty to forty-five feet as shown on the site plan.

b. 100 South: The setback for the loading docks and parking structure is seventy-five feet as shown on the site plan.

Minimum First Floor Glass:

a. 100 South: Waive the minimum first floor glass requirement for the parking structure and loading docks along the 100 South frontage.

This approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. The final site plan and elevation drawings shall be approved by the Planning Director.

2. The Petitioner shall address all Departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.

3. The Petitioner shall work with the Salt Lake City Urban Forester to transplant/or replace the trees removed from Salt Palace property to other locations on-site or within the general vicinity of 100 South between 200 West and 300 West.

4. Salt Lake County shall record a deed to consolidate all of the parcels on the subject site into a single parcel.

5. Determination by the Planning Commission that the Applicant submit to the Planning Division a process and plan by which the affected community will have a direct input on the design of the aesthetics of the structure; input on the parking assessment and potential mitigation measures if there is a reduction in parking stalls that impact the two churches; a long range process that they will commit to better communication with the community that is most impacted regarding their religious or cultural events sensitive to their calendaring of events; and that there be a heightened evaluation of safety due to the increased traffic (This condition was part of the Planning Commission’s September 29, 2004 motion to grant preliminary concept plan approval of Petition 410-701).

Commissioner Scott asked if the grade of the parking structure entrance on 100 South is at the same grade of the church adjacent to it.

Mr. Paterson replied that the parking structure is slightly higher than the church property.

Commissioner Scott referred to the site plan and asked if the loading docks are located along 100 South.

Mr. Paterson agreed and identified the loading area.

Commissioner Scott asked if the ramps on the site plan will go up to the second level or down below grade into the Salt Palace.

Mr. Paterson replied that there is a ramp going up into the exhibitions space on the second level.

Commissioner De Lay asked what prevents an entrance into the parking garage from 200 West.

Mr. Kent Ament, Project Manager, replied that the parking structure under the loading dock has been eliminated. He said that when they chose to not build into the street to accommodate the community, they found that designing the parking structure got too complicated and eliminated it.

Commissioner Muir said that he felt that the request to waive the restriction on parking structures on the first level of the structure is a major concession. He asked Staff what is the rational for conceding on that aspect. He indicated that he felt that the space is marketable.

Mr. Paterson replied that that area is small and any retail space would be isolated, making the space difficult for the Applicant to lease.

Mr. Burke Cartwright, Architect for the project, addressed the Commission identified the modifications of the current plan. He noted that they have been with the Japanese American Community to work through the impacts of the project on that community. He noted that the current design allows for the Japanese Community to continue using the street for the various festivals and such throughout the year. He added that the current plan helps to create a cultural corridor and give the immediate community their required space, while allowing the Salt Palace their required space. Mr. Cartwright noted that currently there are 500 parking stalls and the proposed plan lessens the available parking to 403 stalls. Mr. Cartwright stated that the current plan eliminates the need for stacking the delivery trucks. The space required for the trucks to maneuver within the property line is available. Mr. Cartwright noted that they have collaborated with the Japanese American Community in the design of the pocket park. Mr. Cartwright noted that the 90 foot grid is a defining element for exhibition spaces in general. The proposed exhibition area is necessary to maintain the contract with the Outdoor Retailer Association. He said that they are planning to solicit ideas from the community as to the design of the urban features of the outside walls of the structure.

Commissioner Muir said that he feels like the dock configuration is a political solution. He wondered if the Applicant would be open to the option, given the time constraints to begin building, if the Planning Commission approves the conditional use for the building while remanding the design of the dock area to the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee to possibly include some type of a street closure.

Mr. Ament replied that they are certainly agreeable to that option.

Commissioner Muir stated that the Subcommittee would certainly work with the Applicant, and affected parties to accommodate the needs of the community.

Mr. Ament noted that since the Planning Commission meeting on September 29th, the team working on this project has included members of the Japanese Community and will be doing so throughout the life of the project. He said that they have compared plans and it seems that the master plans for the Salt Palace and the Japanese Community are compatible. He stated that they hold a standing meeting every Monday at 1:30 p.m.

Commissioner De Lay asked if the Buddhist Temple will be moving.

Mr. Ament said that they are negotiating with Salt Lake County to perhaps purchase that space.

Commissioner De Lay expressed concern that increased truck traffic may impact the Buddhist Temple.

Ms. Allyson Jackson, General Manager of the Salt Palace, addressed the Commission saying that docks currently exist along 100 South and the Buddhist Temple has been dealing with the docks since 1983.

Mr. Chris Crowley, Acting Director of the Salt Lake County Community Services Department, did not have anything to add, but offered to answer any questions.

Commissioner Scott referred to the current landscaping and asked if the trees that line 100 South will remain.

Mr. Cartwright replied that they will remain and there will be a few more trees added.

Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.

Ms Jamie Iwamoto, Mr. Raymond Uno, Mr. Kenneth Pollard, and Ms. Karie Minaga-miya, addressed the Commission representing the Japanese American Community. Mr. Uno thanked the Commission and the other private and governmental agencies for allowing the Japanese Community to participate in the public hearing process and voice their concerns and grievances. He stated that this is the first opportunity for the Japanese Community to be involved in matters that seriously and perhaps permanently impact their community. He stated that they sincerely do not wish to be obstructionists; they feel that perhaps this is their last chance to address the issues. Mr. Uno stated that they are here this evening in an attempt to preserve what is left of J-Town with the hope that the Japanese Community can be resurrected. Mr. Uno stated that the Japanese Cultural Preservation Committee (JCPC) has been formed to represent the Japanese Community regarding their opposition of the Salt Palace expansion. The Japanese Church of Christ and the Salt Lake Buddhist Temple fear the encroachment of the Salt Palace expansion on the two churches. Mr. Uno stated that the JCPC objects to the conditional use request and are requesting that the Planning Commission table the conditional use until the JCPC has the opportunity to meet with the City and County to develop an overall plan for the community. Mr. Uno referred to the public hearing notification requirement, saying that all of the notices for the meeting this evening were received 8 days prior to the meeting rather than the required 15 days. He referred to the requirement that a sign shall be posted on a property to notify the public of a public hearing. Mr. Uno stated that a sign was never posted on the property regarding the hearing this evening. He stated that the community has not been given a reasonable amount of time to research the impacts of the expansion on the adjacent community because the project is moving too fast through the process. Mr. Uno requested that a study be done to identify the impacts that the expansion will have on the JCPC. Mr. Uno said that the JCPC has not been given time to prepare for the meetings regarding this petition and have not been included in the meetings with the Salt Palace representatives regarding their planning process. Mr. Uno requested that all of the documents in association with the current petition be given to the JCPC to allow them to explore all of the possible avenues. Mr. Uno said that their intention is to protect the culture of the Japanese Community.

Chair Chambless clarified that the JCPC is indicating that they did not receive proper notification with regard to the meeting this evening. He added that the JCPC is requesting that an environmental impact statement (EIS) study be done relating to the Japanese Community. Chair Chambless asked Mr. Uno if the JCPC feels that there is an element of inclusion on the part of the Salt Palace representatives.

Mr. Uno replied that there is an element of inclusion; however, the Japanese Community does not have the time to research or the resources to contribute to the dialogue. He said that their input is in an attempt to make the project better for the Japanese Community.

Chair Chambless asked how much time is the JCPC requesting for the Planning Commission delay a decision.

Mr. Uno replied that they are requesting that the decision be made after the JCPC meets with the City and County again.

Commissioner De Lay asked Staff to address the question of the notification.

Mr. Paterson replied that the public hearing was held on September 29, 2004 and the required 15 days notice was provided for that meeting and the site was posted. At that meeting that Planning Commission closed the public hearing for this petition and asked that the Applicant come back with revised site plans. Mr. Paterson stated that Staff sent out a courtesy notice regarding the meeting this evening.

Commissioner De Lay clarified that the ultimate goal of the JCPC would be to close 100 South and make it a cultural corridor.

Mr. Uno replied that that is correct and it will be further discussed as the meetings with the City, County, and the JCPC continue.

Commissioner De Lay asked if the JCPC would support the option that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use while excluding the design of the docks which will be reviewed by the Subcommittee.

Mr. Uno replied that they do not want to be obstructionists; they just want to protect their interests. He said that any expansion is going to affect the Japanese Community; however, they realize that that is just a reality of progression of the City.

Commissioner De Lay asked if the JCPC is working with the Community Council. She indicated concern with the JCPC not making efforts to communicate with them.

Mr. Uno said that they have not been working with the Community Council; however, they have been working with their Council representatives, and County representatives.

Ms. Minaga-miya said that the JCPC is hesitant to support the option of the Planning Commission approving a portion of the request this evening. She said that they do not have the funding in place for the Temple to be relocated and for the Japanese Church of Christ to be expanded to the Struve Building.

Mr. Pollard addressed the Commission noting that there are adverse affects of the Salt Palace wall to the east of the Japanese Church of Christ. He said that they hold their services in the morning and the wall will keep the church in perpetual shade. He added that there are concerns related to the additional traffic, safety of the neighborhood, and other adverse impacts that he felt the Applicant has not had time to explore.

Commissioner Scott asked if a shadow study was completed.

Mr. Pollard replied that they did perform a study.

Commissioner Muir asked if he could give any other constructive criticisms relating to the design.

Mr. Pollard replied that the overall impact of the expansion will be negative; he specifically noted traffic that will empty out of the parking structure on to 300 West. He suggested that if the traffic empties on 100 South it may mitigate some of the traffic. He said that he realized that the Salt Palace representatives are forced into certain aspects of the design given the state of the property.

Mr. Uno noted that the churches are growing as well and they are working to look to the future in terms of expansion.

Mr. Ament stressed the fact that the project has 8 months left to complete phase one in order to uphold the commitment made by the County and the State to the Outdoor Retailers.

Ms. Jackson stated that phase one must be complete by July 7, 2005 to meet the agreements of the contract.

Mr. Ament agreed that the process is too fast; however, it is a responsibility that the community has taken on to keep the Outdoor Retailers in Utah. He stated that it is the intent of the Salt Palace to work with the Japanese Community to meet their needs as well as the needs of the Salt Palace. He noted that they should have begun digging for the project six weeks ago.

Ms. Jackson referred to the park noting that the Japanese Church of Christ will have a morning shadow in the classrooms located in the back of the structure only. She said that they have tried to mitigate that by creating the pocket park to reduce shade on the church. She said that they support the church’s master plan, and are willing to have a left turn only coming out of the dock area which would lessen the amount of traffic and actually take it away from the church to the west. Ms. Jackson replied that the cars coming out of the parking garage on 300 West will be right turn only and will help reduce the traffic impacts. Ms. Jackson reiterated that they do not allow the trucks to sit and idle in the docks.

Mr. Crowley added that the process that they are proposing for the loading docks area will actually reduce the amount of traffic on 100 South. The Outdoor Retailers would typically close the 100 South for the exhibition. He said that they are trying to be good neighbors and partners in planning for the community.

Commissioner Noda asked how many trucks at any given time will be going into the loading docks on 100 South.

Ms. Jackson stated that there is no rule of thumb as to the amount of trucks at any given time.

Commissioner Muir asked if Ms. Jackson believes that the project would benefit from further analysis of the docks.

Ms. Jackson replied that she did not think it would benefit, because the maximum capacity of docks will not ever be filled. The docks are truly additional space, less than 8 percent of the year would the Salt Palace be used to its full capacity. She noted that large conventions are booked 7 years in advance, and the Salt Palace would be able to plan for that many years in advance.

Commissioner Scott stated that she was under the impression that the first preliminary approval of the site plan allowed the Applicant to begin digging.

Mr. Zunguze said that the Planning Commission’s direction clearly indicated that; however, the Building Services Division have certain requirements that need to be met.

Commissioner Noda asked if there was feed back given by either of the churches regarding the loading dock on 100 South.

Mr. Ament replied that it was discussed in the regularly scheduled meeting and the plan was changed from the diagonal layout of the trucks to the current layout.

Ms. Dian Akiama, a concerned citizen addressed the Commission disputing the statement that the trucks do not idle in the street. She stated that they have seen trucks idle in the street and they have even unloaded their cargo in the street which creates a traffic hazard.

Ms. Jackson apologized, saying that she was referring to trucks idling on the Salt Palace docks. She stated that they do not have control over the street. Ms. Jackson noted that there are two conventions in which Usana and Novel receive permits to park their trailers on 100 South for their shows.

Chair Chambless asked if there is an alternative resolution to mitigate that.

Ms. Jackson replied that if the City denied the permits then the trailers would not be parked on 100 South. The issuance of those permits is out of the control of the Salt Palace.

Mr. Crowley added that they are going to be working proactively to deal with the issues that they can control.

Commissioner Scott noted that the public has the opportunity to contact the authorities regarding traffic violations.

Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Scott noted the importance that the dialogue continue between the Japanese Community and the Salt Palace to mitigate the issues. She added that it is important that the Applicant be allowed to proceed to meet their timeline.

Chair Chambless asked Mr. Pace to comment regarding the delay in the excavation of the site.

Mr. Pace stated that the Planning Commission does not grant permits; they give permission for permits to be applied for. If the permits were not obtained it is not because the Applicant lacked zoning approval. The matter before the Commission is not the request for excavation; it is a request for a conditional use in its entirety.

Commissioner Muir asked how the Commission can ensure that the City and County will pursue a small area plan to solve some of the problems.

Mr. Pace replied that the Applicant is entitled to be processed under the existing ordinance. If the Commission decides that a small area master plan is appropriate they may initiate a petition to do so, but it is not a justification for holding the current proposal hostage.

Motion for Petition No. 410-701

Commissioner Muir made a motion based on the noted findings of fact, that the Planning Commission grant conditional use approval for the proposed Salt Palace expansion project based on the site plan and elevations presented to the Commission. This approval grants the following modifications to the following “D-4” urban design guidelines: (with the exception of the Restriction on Parking lots and Structures which shall be stricken)

Front and Corner Side Yard Setback:

a. 300 West: The setback for the entry lobby ranges from twenty to forty-five feet as shown on the site plan.

b. 100 South: The setback for the loading docks and parking structure is seventy-five feet as shown on the site plan.

Restriction on Parking Lots and Structures: Allow the parking structure on 300 West to be located behind a finished walkway providing pedestrian access between the entrance lobby and the parking structure. This portion shall be stricken from the motion and the area shall be reserved for retail

Minimum First Floor Glass:

a. 100 South: Waive the minimum first floor glass requirement for the parking structure and loading docks along the 100 South frontage.

This approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. The final site plan and elevation drawings shall be approved by the Planning Director.

2. The Petitioner shall address all Departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.

4. Salt Lake County shall record a deed to consolidate all of the parcels on the subject site into a single parcel.

Commissioner De Lay indicated that she did not feel that condition number 5 will accomplish the goal to include the Japanese Community.

Commissioner Scott indicated that she felt that the language in condition number 5 is acceptable and will accomplish that goal.

Mr. Pace said that he is concerned with what condition number 5 means. Typically conditions like this delegate to the Planning Director some follow up. This paragraph does not indicate when the determination that the Applicant has done or will do certain things will take place.

Commissioner Muir suggested that the Planning Director replace the Planning Commission in condition number 5.

Mr. Pace restated that condition number 5 suggests that the Planning Commission will determine whether or not the Applicant has given the community sufficient amount of input. He said that condition 5 seems to be inconsistent with the request this evening which is complete approval. He said that the Commission needs to clarify whether they are approving the proposed site plan and footprint, which does not leave a lot of room for input at a latter date, or whether they are not approving the proposal this evening.

Commissioner De Lay agreed with Mr. Pace. She said that she is not concerned with the Salt Palace meeting their timeline. She said that the community needs to have good representation.

Commissioner Noda agreed saying that this process is moving too quickly. She said that she did not believe that if the Commission tabled the request it would impede the development. Commissioner Noda felt that there are several issues that need to be resolved before the Applicant should be allowed to proceed.

Commissioner Galli disagreed that tabling the request would allow for changes in the footprint and fundamental design which will relieve the issue that the churches are located near a convention center.

Commissioner Seelig asked if the Commission approved the request would it allow for Commissioner Muir’s suggestion concerning the retail.

Mr. Zunguze replied that the Applicant would have to submit new plans that identify the retail areas as suggested by Commissioner Muir. Mr. Zunguze said that condition number 5 was included in the staff recommendation because Staff did not have a way to evaluate whether the interaction between the County and the community was fruitful. He said that Staff left that question to the Commission to decide tonight based on the comments from the community this evening.

Commissioner Muir asked if Staff can represent to the Commission whether there was a sufficient dialogue between the two parties.

Mr. Zunguze said that he participated in one meeting that the Mayor organized, and Staff participated in two other meetings. He said that there were a lot of issues discussed and he did not get the feeling that there was total satisfaction on the part of the Japanese Community.

Commissioner Muir asked if it is fair to say that there are expectations that far exceed the ability to accomplish them.

Commissioner Muir suggested replacing the words “Planning Commission” in condition number 5 with the “Planning Director”.

Commissioner Seelig said that her concern was with the lack of enforcement regarding idling trucks in the public street.

Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.

Commissioner Galli asked to amend the motion to modify condition number 5 to read:

5. Determination by the Planning Director that the Applicant submit to the Planning Division a process and plan by which the affected community will have a direct input regarding impacts and mitigation.

Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment.

Chair Chambless called for the question.

Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Seelig voted “Nay”. Chair Chambless voted “Nay” to break the tie. Three Commissioners voted in favor, and four Commissioners voted against, and therefore the motion failed.

Motion for Petition Number 410-701

Commissioner Noda made a motion to table Petition No. 410-701, with the recommendation that the parties work to try to resolve the issues that have been raised tonight and the petition shall be brought back before the Commission at their next meeting on November 10, 2004.

Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.

Commissioner Galli stated that the Commission owes the Applicant an explanation of the issues that need to be resolved. He said that he believed there are intangible issues that he did not believe the County or the Applicant can address to mitigate the issues that the Japanese Community has raised. He asked the Commissioners who voted against the motion to note the issues that the County can address, which are in the Planning Commission’s purview to impose on the Applicant.

Commissioner De Lay said that the loading docks are an issue. She said that the environmental issues such as the projected air quality and projected noise levels are a concern. She indicated concern with the additional traffic.

Commissioner Noda indicated concern with the additional traffic and loading docks.

Commissioner Seelig indicated concern with the traffic and waiving the retail space requirement.

Commissioner Scott asked if it is possible to complete the assessments of the above mentioned issues within a two to four week period.

Mr. Zunguze replied that there are resources involved in that process that he can not speak to. He said that he would defer that question to the Applicant.

Commissioner Muir suggested an alternative motion to approve the proposed foot print and exclude the approval of the docks.

Commissioner Galli said that another reason to support that concept is that there is no State environmental policy act in place to empower the Commission to impose the obligation on an Applicant to provide an environmental impact study or assessment of the environmental issues. He said that there is State law and there are ordinances in place regarding air quality. He said that the Commission may look at the traffic impacts.

Commissioner Noda stated that she is concerned with the loading docks as well as the entrance and exit of the parking structure onto 300 West.

Commissioner Seelig noted that she believed that further investigation of the loading dock is merited.

Commissioner Galli asked Staff what traffic study has been done regarding this project.

Mr. Kevin Young, Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer, addressed the Commission saying that 100 South is a street that currently carries a low volume of traffic in comparison to other streets in the City. He said that the Commission could require a traffic study; however, he believed that they would find that 100 South is underutilized in comparison to other streets in the City. He said that from a traffic standpoint 100 South is a street that functions well.

Commissioner Seelig asked if idling trucks in the street impact traffic flow. She stated that based on testimony given this evening, she believed that the entire impact can not be anticipated. She reiterated that she is in favor of Commissioner Muir’s suggestion to exclude the docks in proposal.

Mr. Young stated that there are impacts that may not be anticipated, but those impacts are on every public street, and are often there and gone before they can be addressed.

Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Young from an engineering perspective if he anticipates that this proposal will increase the safety risks and transportation congestion.

Mr. Young stated that there will most likely be an increase in traffic; he added that he believed that 100 South can handle the possible increase.

Commissioner Seelig stated that she appreciated Mr. Young’s expertise and said that she also valued the input from the people who live and function in the community. She said that she believes that the traffic impacts need to be further evaluated.

Amended Motion for Petition No. 410-701

Commissioner Muir made a motion based on the noted findings of fact, that the Planning Commission grant conditional use approval for the proposed Salt Palace expansion project based on the site plan and elevations presented to the Commission. This conditional use approval will exclude the loading docks and ingress and egress locations to the parking structure on 100 South, which will be deferred to the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee for further design review. The approval grants the following modifications to the following “D-4” urban design guidelines:

Front and Corner Side Yard Setback:

a. 300 West: The setback for the entry lobby ranges from twenty to forty-five feet as shown on the site plan.

b. 100 South: The setback for the loading docks and parking structure is seventy-five feet as shown on the site plan.

Restriction on Parking Lots and Structures: Allow the parking structure on 300 West to be located behind a finished walkway providing pedestrian access between the entrance lobby and the parking structure. Commissioner Muir proposed to strike this portion from the approval and requested that the area be reserved for retail.

Minimum First Floor Glass:

a. 100 South: Waive the minimum first floor glass requirement for the parking structure and loading docks along the 100 South frontage.

This approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. The final site plan and elevation drawings shall be approved by the Planning Director.

2. The Petitioner shall address all Departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.

4. Salt Lake County shall record a deed to consolidate all of the parcels on the subject site into a single parcel.

Commissioner Galli asked to amend the motion to modify condition number 5 to read:

Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment.

Commissioner Galli asked to amend the motion to add an additional condition number 6 that would read:

6. That the number of loading docks and the configuration of docks is conditioned on a study prepared by the Applicant, Transportation Director, or City Engineer that shall be submitted to the Planning Director, which evaluates the impact on traffic flow and safety from the proposed number and location of loading docks.

Commissioner De Lay did not agree that the additional condition number 6 was sufficient. She asked that the Planning Commission be directly involved in the review and approval of the location and number of loading docks.

Commissioner Muir amended the motion to include a condition number 6 that reads:

6 That the dock configuration, design, and entrance locations at 100 South and 300 West to the parking structure shall be excluded from this conditional use approval and shall be remanded to the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee for continued dialogue with the adjacent community, Staff, and the Applicant. The final design shall be reviewed by the full Planning Commission.

Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.

Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli voted “Nay”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted in favor, one Commissioner voted against, and therefore the motion passed.

Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission to identify what they are requesting of the Applicant to address at the Subcommittee meeting.

Commissioner Muir stated that they hope to address the concerns of the Japanese Community.

Commissioner De Lay added that the traffic issues and design of the parking garage and traffic impacts on the churches.

Mr. Zunguze sought clarification as to whether the Commission wanted the Japanese American Community to be involved in the Subcommittee meeting.

Commissioner Scott wondered if it would be appropriate to initiate a petition for a small area master plan to create a cultural corridor along 300 West.

Mr. Zunguze replied that that concept is being reviewed at the highest City and County levels. He suggested that the Commission hold off on that petition until he can get more information and direction as to the progress of that effort.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Petition No. 410 – 678, 683, 686, 689, 690, 691, 693, 694, 695, and 696 by Qwest Corporation to install electrical utility cabinets measuring approximately 40 inches long by 48 inches high by 14 inches deep for Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services at the following approximate locations:

Petition No Location Zoning District

410-678 1403 S. Roxbury Road Single Family Residential – “R-1-12,000”

410-683 402 N. Virginia Street Open Space – “OS”

410-686 1304 Federal Heights Drive Single Family Residential – “R-1-12,000”

410-689 699 East 13th Avenue Foothills Residential – “FR-3”

410-690 1744 N. Cavallo Drive Single Family Residential – “R-1-7,000”

410-691 763 North 900 West Single Family Residential – “R-1-7,000”

410-693 395 North 1300 West Single Family Residential – “R-1-7,000”

410-694 589 North 1200 West Single Family Residential – “R-1-7,000”

410-695 577 North Colorado Street (1350 W) Single Family Residential – “R-1-7,000”

410-696 954 West 1000 North Neighborhood Commercial – “CN”

This item was heard at 10:13 p.m.

Chair Chambless noted that Petition Numbers 410-684, 410-685, 410-687, 410-688, & 410-692 have been withdrawn from the public hearing this evening.

Principal Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report. He addressed the Commission to answer questions.

Commissioner De Lay noted that the Planning Commission received a letter in opposition from Ms. Margaret R. McMain, an adjoining resident of the proposed Qwest DSL cabinet at 1403 Roxbury Road.

Commissioner Scott referred to the Federal Heights location asking if there is a proliferation of boxes in that area.

Mr. McCandless indicated that Staff does not see an issue with the Federal Heights location. He noted that Staff also received a postcard in opposition of the Roxbury site from the resident across the street. Mr. McCandless stated that the concerns noted in the postcard were associated with safety in the public way. Mr. McCandless stated that Staff does not see an issue with the Roxbury site because it is not located in the public way, it is on private property.

Commissioner Scott referred to the proposed site at 589 North 1200 West. She indicated concern with the amount of boxes at that location due to the amount of traffic at that intersection. Commissioner Scott specifically referred to the issue of pedestrians approaching the corner and possibly not being seen due to the amount of boxes there.

Mr. McCandless replied that one of the conditions of approval is that Qwest’s cabinets meet all of the safety requirements which include clear sight lines, imposed by the Transportation Division.

Commissioner De Lay asked if the property owners receive enumeration for allowing Qwest to use a proportion of their property for the DSL cabinets.

Mr. Ralph Vigil, a right-of-way agent for Qwest addressed the Commission saying that they have negotiated with the private property owners regarding the placement of the boxes. Mr. Vigil referred to the proposed box at 589 North 1200 West saying that the current state of the site should not be altered by the additional box.

Commissioner Seelig referred to the Staff recommendation, she clarified that the portion that reads, “Conditions 6 and 7 below have recently been added, should be stricken”. She noted that there are conditions 1-5 in the Staff recommendation.

Mr. McCandless agreed.

Mr. Vigil noted that Qwest has worked with the community and have worked with the City to try to make the DSL cabinets as aesthetically pleasing as possible.

Commissioner Seelig applauded the Applicant’s efforts with regard to graffiti removal.

Commissioner De Lay asked for clarification regarding the purpose of DSL cabinets.

Mr. Vigil replied that the DSL cabinets will provide DSL service, which is a faster internet connection, to the City residents.

Mr. Eric Isom, Public Affairs Director for Qwest addressed the Commission. He noted that the five sites that were eliminated from the public hearing this evening were eliminated due to technological advances. He stated that this is evidence that there is ever evolving technology.

Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.

Mr. Dana Jeffs, a resident of the Jordan Meadows area addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He stated that DSL service has not been available to him due to an oversight by Qwest mapping engineers, who thought that his area was capable of receiving DSL service. He asked that Qwest rectify their mapping mistake by amending their proposal this evening to provide DSL service to those residents in the Jordan Meadows area.

Mr. Vigil stated that after discussing this issue with Mr. Jeffs they have been working to include the Jordan Meadows area in the conditional use process to provide service to the area. He added that they are working to supply Mr. Jeffs with a temporary solution until they can get permanent service to Mr. Jeff’s and the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Steve Gloght, Planning Manager for Qwest Communications addressed the Commission. He stated that he is given a certain number of DSL cabinets to install each year. He said that they are working to include the Jordan Meadows area in this process. He added that he will get additional DSL cabinets to install at the first part of next year. He stated that Mr. Jeffs will not be neglected; however, they have other sites to consider throughout the Valley.

Commissioner De Lay asked if there is a representative of the Community Council in the audience.

Mr. Jeffs replied that the Jordan Meadows Community Council Chair asked him to attend and represent the Community Council this evening.

Commissioner Seelig stated that she is a resident of the Rose Park area and she appreciated the additional option for service. She said that the west side of Salt Lake City is an area that should receive high priority in receiving DSL service.

Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.

Motion for Petition No. 410 – 678, 683, 686, 689, 690, 691, 693, 694, 695, and 696

Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the findings of fact and information presented this evening that the Planning Commission approve Petitions 410 – 678, 683, 686, 689, 690, 691, 693, 694, 695, and 696 by Qwest Corporation to install electrical utility cabinets measuring approximately 40 inches long by 48 inches high by 14 inches deep for Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services at the noted locations on the staff report with the following conditions:

1. The cabinets, including the cement pad, be removed within 90 days if they no longer needed or used and any lease with property owner terminated.

2. A surety bond or cash bond be posted assuring removal of the equipment and pad unless covered by the existing franchise agreement with the City.

3. All utilities and cables to and from the cabinets be placed underground.

4. Qwest agrees to retrofit this equipment as technology allows for small or underground cabinets based on reasonable criteria to be negotiated between Qwest and the City Planning Division within 14 days of this approval. (See attached Memorandum of Understanding) dated September 28, 2004.

5. All lease agreements with property owners shall contain a 'hold harmless' language to sufficiently protect the property owner from liability.

6. Qwest will include a sticker on each individual DSL box for the proper single point of contact for 24-hour response graffiti removal.

Commissioner De Lay made a motion to include the site specific conditions as noted in the staff report as part of this approval.

Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.

Petition No. 410-700, by Greg Larson, requesting approval of a 6-unit residential planned development called the “Bungalows of Sugar House” located at approximately 1850 East 1700 South in an “R-1-7000” zoning district.

This item was heard at 10:39 p.m.

Principal Planner Ray McCandless presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that Mr. Greg Larson is seeking Conditional Use / Planned Development approval and preliminary subdivision approval for an 8-lot single family residential subdivision located at approximately 1700 South 1850 East.

The proposal is to reconfigure four existing lots which are approximately 280 feet deep into eight lots. Three of eight new lots will front onto 1700 South Street. The remaining lots will front onto a new private street that extends south from 1700 South Street.

Mr. McCandless stated that there are four existing single family dwellings on each of the existing lots. The two centermost homes will be demolished to accommodate a new single family dwelling and a private street. The homes shown on the Preliminary Plat Drawing on lots 1 and 8 will remain as they are.

The proposed development requires Planned Development approval by the Planning Commission as the 5 interior lots will not have access on a dedicated public street. In addition, the Applicant is requesting that several zoning requirements be modified through the Planned Development process. The applicant is also seeking preliminary subdivision approval.

Mr. McCandless stated that the Applicant is requesting the following zoning modifications:

1. Modification of the minimum lot area requirement for Lots 2 and 8 from 7,000 square feet to approximately 6,401 square feet on lot 2 and 6,186 square feet on lot 8.

2. Modification of the minimum frontage of lot on a public street requirement for Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from 50 feet to 0 feet.

3. Modification of the minimum front yard setback requirement of Lots 2 and 3 from 20 feet to approximately 15 feet.

4. Modification of the Required Side Yard Setbacks of Lots 3 and 4 from 25 feet to 12.5 feet.

Mr. McCandless stated that the current design of the sewer station is to gravity feed the main and upper levels of the development to 1700 South and the use of ejector pumps only in the basements.

Mr. McCandless noted that the Sugar House Community Council reviewed the project and the vote was 10 in favor, 4 opposed, and 4 abstentions. He stated that Staff is recommending, based on the comments, analysis and findings, noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use/ Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision requests subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.

Commissioner De Lay noted that the Planned Development Subcommittee reviewed the proposal and requested modifications to the site plan.

Mr. Greg Larson, the Developer addressed the Commission saying that they have made three significant changes as requested at the Planned Development Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Larson stated that since the Planned Development Subcommittee meeting they have modified the architectural feature of the entry gate. The fire turn around was moved further north from its original location. The third modification was to minimize the use of stucco as a building material. He added that there has been overwhelming support from the adjacent property owners and community.

Mr. Tom Crismon, the property owner of the three western lots, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He stated that the community has been supportive of the project.

Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.

No one was forthcoming.

Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.

Commissioner De Lay stated that she feels that the proposed modifications are sufficient.

Motion for Petitions 490-04-28 & 410-700

Commissioner Noda made a motion with respect to Petitions 490-04-28 & 410-700, based on the comments, and findings noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission approve the requested Conditional Use/Planned Development approval subject to the following conditions:

1. Modification of the minimum lot area requirement for Lots 2 and 8 from 7,000 square feet to approximately 6,401 square feet on lot 2 and 6,186 square feet on lot 8.

2. Modification of the minimum frontage of lot on a public street requirement for Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from 50 feet to 0 feet.

3. Modification of the minimum front yard setback requirement of Lots 2 and 3 from 20 feet to approximately 15 feet.

4. Modification of the Required Side Yard Setbacks of Lots 3 and 4 from 25 feet to 12.5 feet.

Commissioner Noda made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Subdivision request, subject to the following conditions:

1. Recordation of a final plat including necessary cross access easements and utility easement dedications.

2. Meeting all City Departmental Requirements.

3. Implementation of a Homeowners Association that addresses the enforcement of "No Parking" areas and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, entry features utilities etc.

4. Inclusion of a Fire Department access easement on the private street and turn around area on the Subdivision Plat.

Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.

Petition No. 410-706, by Dru Damico, representing HOWA Properties, Inc. requesting a conditional use to allow for the construction of a new building and associated parking lot at 279 West South Temple in the “D-1”, Central Business District. The conditional use is required because a portion of the building exceeds the maximum front and corner side yard setback (5 feet) and the building does not meet the minimum height requirement (100 feet) for corner buildings located in the “D-1” zone. The proposal also does not meet the zoning code relating to parking lots that must be located behind a principal building or setback at least seventy five feet from the front and corner side lot lines. The use is considered an interim commercial service use to support the Downtown Community, which is specifically allowed as a conditional use in the “D-1” zoning district.

This item was heard at 10:53 p.m.

Principal Planner Wayne Mills presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that the subject property is located on the corner of 300 west and South Temple Street, in the “D-1” zoning district. The subject property is currently a surface parking lot.

The “D-1” zone requires a minimum building height of 100 feet for buildings located on corner lots and requires buildings to be setback no more than 5 feet from front and corner side property lines. In addition, parking lots located on corner lots must be behind principal buildings or setback at least 75 feet. The Planning Commission may grant modifications to these requirements as a conditional use.

The Applicant is proposing a 7,099 square foot, single-tenant office building. The structure is one-story and ranges from 25 feet to 21 feet in height. The Applicant is requesting a lower building than what is required because current Downtown market conditions make it unfeasible to construct a 100 foot tall office building.

Mr. Mills stated that based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report and on the submitted plans, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use at 279 W. South Temple Street for a principal building that is under the minimum height requirement and is setback further than five feet from the front and corner side property lines. The Planning Staff further recommends conditional use approval for a surface parking area that is not located behind the principal building and is not setback at least 75 feet from front and corner side property lines, subject to the following condition:

1. The final landscape plan is approved by the Planning Director in accordance with Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regulations.

Mr. Dru Damico, the Applicant, addressed the Commission asking that they approve the proposed request. He said that the proposal will improve the immediate community as well as the overall Downtown area in terms of business support.

Chair Chambless asked if the proposed site will be the main office for Howa Construction.

Mr. Damico replied that the tenant will be Fidelity Investments, which is a retail brokerage firm.

Mr. Zunguze asked the Applicant if they are proposing this use as a temporary use.

Mr. Damico replied that the structure will not be a temporary structure; however, the use will be an interim use for something in the future that can provide more density when the area is ready for that.

Chair Chambless asked the Applicant to define interim use.

Mr. Damico replied that the proposed structure will allow them to eventually replace it with one that would economically justify the current zoning for the site. He felt that the zoning for the site is out of place with respect to the main core of the business district of the City. He added that there is a sea of parking lots as well as a number of different factors which do not allow for the high density uses to be feasible.

Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.

No one was forthcoming.

Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.

Motion for Petition No. 410-706

Commissioner Galli made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Petition No. 410-706 for the reason noted in the staff report and subject to the following condition:

1. The final landscape plan is approved by the Planning Director in accordance with Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regulations.

Commissioner Muir seconded the motion.

Commissioner Scott stated that she is opposed to the motion based on the standards for conditional use. She said that the proposal is not one of the conditional uses specifically listed in the title, and the proposed development is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the title. Commissioner Scott said that she realized that the economic climate is such that it may not be feasible at this time to build a structure in accordance with the “D-1” requirements; however, the area is in a state of flux. Commissioner Scott said that she felt it would be hasty for the Commission to approve the proposal on the basis that they are tired of looking at a sea of parking lots. She said that it would be hasty to approve a structure that flagrantly disregards what is envisioned for that area.

Chair Chambless called for the question.

Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Nay”. Three Commissioners voted in favor and three Commissioners voted against.

Chair Chambless suggested more discussion prior to voting to break the tie.

Commissioner De Lay indicated that she agrees with Commissioner Scott.

Commissioner Galli stated that the proposal is particularly well suited for the reasons noted in the staff report. He noted that the proposal is admittedly an interim use. Commissioner Galli indicated that the current land use is not productive with respect to support for the Downtown area. He felt that the proposal will be an improvement and will be consistent with the Downtown business community. He stated that he did not agree that the proposal violates the standards for conditional use.

Commissioner Scott reiterated that she is not in favor the proposal because she felt it is not compatible.

Commissioner Muir referred an example of a previous petition where the Applicant requested to demolish one story buildings on the corner of West Temple and 300 South to be replaced with surface parking lots. The Planning Commission denied the petition based on the concept that the structures reinforce the pedestrian way even if the structures were empty. He indicated that the discussion regarding that current petition may be inconsistent with past Planning Commission decisions. He stated that the current proposal is certainly in accordance with the progression of what is buildable within the current zone as well as what is envisioned for the area.

Commissioner Seelig stated that she agrees with many of the points raised. She added that this issue supports the need for Staff to move forward with the evaluation of the master plans. She noted that the proposal seems to fit within the area; however, it also seems contrary to some of the zoning parameters that have been established.

Commissioner Scott reiterated her concern that this proposal may change the complexion of the streetscape.

Motion for Petition No. 410-706

Commissioner Galli made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Petition No. 410-706 for the reason noted in the staff report and subject to the following condition:

1. The final landscape plan is approved by the Planning Director in accordance with Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regulations.

Commissioner Muir seconded the motion.

Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Tim Chambless as Chair did not vote. Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”. Five Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner voted against, and therefore the motion passed.

Petition No. 400-03-34, by the Salt Lake City Council, requesting review of the Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures section of the Zoning Ordinance related to the limitations for reconstruction, improvement or expansion of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures; to establish refined standards, public notification, and review processes. The proposed text amendment will require amendment to the Avenues Community Master Plan policy regarding nonconforming uses.

This item was heard at 11:09 p.m.

Principal Planner Everett Joyce presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that many members of the community received a notice which caused confusion regarding the intent of the current proposal. He noted that he and Cheri Coffey met with interested people prior to the public hearing this evening to respond to questions or concerns. Mr. Joyce stated that the 31 people filled out cards indicating support for the proposal; the cards have been retained for the public record. Mr. Joyce noted that there were also 10 people who joined that meeting which will not be affected by the requested action.

Mr. Joyce stated that the request is a legislative action by the City Council to amend the Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures section of the zoning text related to the limitations for reconstruction when structures are damaged or destroyed. He stated that this change would apply to people who cannot get financing for their residential properties with four units or more within a single family zone. The driving force of the proposal is when a private property owner attempts to get financing, the financing entities are not giving loans; are charging higher rates; or they are requiring excessive amounts of money upfront. Mr. Joyce noted that it is difficult for the City to maintain housing stock if the public cannot get financing to invest in their properties.

Mr. Joyce stated that the proposed text change would restructure the nonconforming text to allow for reconstruction of properties that are damaged by fire or natural causes; however, if there is a voluntary demolition of the property, the nonconforming use is discontinued. Staff is looking at allowing 100 percent rebuild of residential properties which would be reviewed administratively. Commercial properties would be required to go through the Board of Adjustment for review for 100 percent rebuild. Mr. Joyce stated that there is a proposed option that refers to expansion or enlargement of nonconforming commercial uses which would go through the Planning Commission process for conditional use review. Mr. Joyce said that concept would allow nonconforming commercial properties to enlarge or intensify the use through a conditional use process rather than rezoning the property; which can then be developed under any of the uses in the zoning district.

Chair Chambless opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cindy Cromer addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. She noted that if one owns a nonconforming property and would like to sell it, the buyer needs to leverage one property against another, by taking out the accumulated equity of the other property and apply it to the first property. She said that the result of that scenario usually does not produce the revitalization of both properties because one was purchased at the cost of the other. Ms. Cromer said that the other way to obtain a nonconforming property is to sell it to a buyer who will pay cash. Ms. Cromer stated that there are ways to obtain nonconforming properties; however, they are not healthy for the community, because they involve robbing from other properties that need reinvestment or they involve the issues associated with the 1031 financing process. Ms. Cromer indicated concern with the commercial nonconforming uses expansion component of the proposal saying that it is problematic. She said that she felt that page 3, exhibit 1, items A & 1 are not clear and seem to contradict each other. She said that she feels that the Commission should revisit this item at a later date. Ms. Cromer noted that commercial nonconforming uses are not distributed evenly throughout the City. There are neighborhoods that have different characters and there are no standards for determining what is compatible with the character of the neighborhoods.

Mr. John McDonald, a real estate consultant addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He noted issues associated with trying to finance nonconforming uses, and added that the statistics show that those who are purchasing properties are small investors who are purchasing one or two properties. Mr. McDonald stated that Utah is rated number one in the nation for loan fraud and foreclosures. He stated that lending institutions are scrutinizing every loan that is requested in Utah. He indicated that there is a need for the City to allow property owners to refinance and improve their properties.

Chair Chambless closed the public hearing.

Commissioner De Lay stated that she agreed with the comments expressed as a real estate professional. She added that she has dealt with a lot lf seniors who rely solely on the income generated from their rental properties which may be nonconforming uses, and if they are destroyed by a natural disaster the property owners have no way of recouping that loss.

Motion for Petition No. 400-03-34

Commissioner De Lay made a motion with regard to Petition No. 400-03-34, based on the findings of fact, that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures zoning text changes. In addition that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation to amend the Avenues Community Master Plan to support reconstruction of nonconforming uses destroyed by fire or other natural causes as defined in the proposed nonconforming use and noncomplying text amendment.

Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.

There being no other business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:24 p.m.