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 Jeff Jonas, Vice-Chair Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs Delay, John Diamond, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planners Doug Dansie, Everett Joyce, and Greg Mikolash; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace; and Kevin Young, Traffic Engineer.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:49 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.
Approval of the minutes from Wednesday, September 24, 2003
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as stated are reflected in the September 24, 2003 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Muir made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner Noda abstained. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. Therefore, the motion was approved.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the discussion from the previous Long Range Planning Issues meeting on September 30, 2003. She commented on the Sugar House Business District Small Area Plan that was presented at that meeting, and asked Staff to further examine the uses of transition spaces between zones. She said that the Commission is in need of direction in the cases where different zones meet. She said that the point at which different zones connect may continue to create community discord.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to complete the Main Street transaction between the LDS Church and the City. He referred to the Main Street easement abandonment project which has been approved by the City Council. Mr. Zunguze stated that there is a need to amend the major street plan of the City to reflect that the City no longer owns that portion of Main Street. He said that the initiated petition would be an amendment to the Transportation Master Plan. Chair Jonas initiated such a petition.
Commissioner Diamond inquired if this petition would focus solely on the Transportation Master Plan.
Mr. Zunguze answered that yes it would, Staff does not anticipate an impact from a land use standpoint apart from the fact that that portion of Main Street is now owned completely by the LDS Church. He said that the City records still list that portion as part of City owned Main Street and those records need to be updated.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
a. Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Heritage Foundation – Salt Lake City Corporation intends to grant a perpetual open space and preservation easement to the Utah Heritage Foundation over the City owned property known as Gilgal Gardens, to ensure continued open space use and protection of the Garden’s property, located at 749 East 500 South in the middle of the block. This property is located in Salt Lake City.
b. Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Sandy City Corporation – Sandy City is requesting a standard utility permit from Public Utilities, to cross City owned property located at 9750 South Wasatch Boulevard, with water pipelines for the purpose of diverting water to the Little Cottonwood Creek for treatment at the Metropolitan Treatment Plant. This property is located within Sandy City.
c. Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Cerrito Development L.C. – Cerrito Development is requesting that Public Utilities lease to Cerrito Development, City owned property located at the rear of 4060 South Highland Drive, to be used as a parking lot in connection with a nine-plex multiple family residential use on adjoining property. The parking lot use would not interfere with the subsurface Big Cottonwood Lower Canal use. The property is located in the un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
d. Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District – Jordan Valley Water is requesting a standard utility permit from Public Utilities to allow an overflow connection from a new well located at approximately 6400 South and 1350 East to enter the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal. The property is located in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
Commissioner Daniels moved to approve the items on the consent agenda. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Scott referred to item B of the consent agenda and asked if there is a provision in the utility permit process to restore vegetation of the area that will be affected.
Mr. Zunguze said that Staff will raise the issue if there is a disturbance to the vegetation to insure that there will be restoration.
Commissioner Scott asked if item C of the consent agenda is near an Open Space area or a public access to the canal.
Mr. Wheelwright clarified that the surface use is a parking lot and the canal is underground.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
View City Plat A Amendment, by The Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting to modify the property lines of Lots 8, 9, & 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B located at 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East. The properties are zoned Residential/Office RO. The existing duplex at 1977 South 1300 East will have a reduction in lot size, and the Highland Dental Center Building will gain the area currently used as a parking lot.
This hearing began at 6:07 p.m.
Commissioner Seelig recused herself and left the room due to conversations she had with neighbors regarding the petition subsequent to the November 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting when she thought the issue was finished. She did not feel that she could be totally objective about the issue after having the conversation.
Commissioner DeLay stated that her Dentist’s office is located in this plaza and she has never had a conversation with anyone regarding this petition.
Mr. Wilde stated that his Dentist’s office is also located in the plaza.
Chair Jonas stated that this petition has come before the Planning Commission several times and the Planning Commission decision was appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board, which they remanded back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission to address the request, by the neighbors to postpone the public hearing this evening.
Chair Jonas stated that the Planning Commission would be setting a bad precedence to postpone a hearing every time someone could not make the meeting. He said that it is difficult enough to get items scheduled on the agenda and this particular item has been on the Planning Commission agendas many times before. He said that as the public hearing proceeds the Commission may make a determination as to whether the final vote will be made tonight or at a later date.
Commissioner DeLay asked Chair Jonas if the request was from several people. Chair Jonas replied that the request is not specific, it simply says from the neighbors that are most effected. The hearing proceeded.
Planner Everett Joyce presented the petition as written in the staff report. He gave a description of the lots to be amended and a history of the properties affected by the proposal. He gave a brief history of the petition before the Commission. He said that the conditional use was approved with the condition that the alley has no access. The Petitioners acquired the property, and at that time, they felt that the offsite parking was no longer a conditional use, but rather a permitted use, which was correct. However, the Applicant did not obtain the permits for a driveway and did not get subdivision approval. After an enforcement case brought those issues to the Applicants’ attention, they made those applications and that is why the subdivision amendment is before the Commission. He said that one of the key issues of this case is the driveway access to the alley way and that additional traffic will travel through the alley and affect View Street. The properties in the area are a Mixed-Use zoning designation. He stated that the Planning and Transportation Divisions conducted a 12-hour survey of traffic through the parking lot and the alley and they identified that the maximum amount of traffic noted was 9 vehicles per hour. Staff feels that this is not excessive. Staff is recommending approval based upon the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the staff report. Staff is further recommending that the Planning Commission request that the City initiate a petition to vacate the east segment of the alley. Mr. Joyce stated that the Planning Commission should make a finding based on the traffic count presented and other information given this evening that there is no material harm to the public created by the subdivision, and still allow access to the alley without alley way closure to View Street.
Commissioner DeLay asked for more detail regarding the material harm.
Mr. Pace replied that the standard for a subdivision amendment is that there is good cause for the amendment and that it will not cause material harm by approving it. He said that the decision rests with the Planning Commission based on the staff report and testimony given this evening.
Commissioner Daniels inquired if the traffic study indicated additional noise or high speeds.
Mr. Kevin Young of the Salt Lake City Transportation Division replied that the study just counted vehicles and noted where they were entering and exiting. He added that nothing was conveyed to him about excessive speeds during that study. He felt that the amount of traffic on that street was low during the time of the survey.
Commissioner Muir referred to the recommendation in the staff report and asked Mr. Joyce what process is required for the alley closure. He asked if the use rights of the adjoining property owners would be extinguished in a vacation process or would the City relinquish responsibility for adjudicating the alley.
Mr. Joyce stated that both adjoining property owners would need to support the petition and the alley would then be given to them to decide if they would gate it or allow private access. The City would give up the alley as far as public use and only maintain utility easements.
Commissioner Muir referred to the other property owners along the alley and asked if they would lose rights to access the alley if they disagreed with the decision of those two adjoining property owners. Mr. Joyce answered that once the alley is given up as public use they lose the right to have access; it is no longer a public way.
Commissioner Muir referred to the Land Use Appeals Board minutes and asked what their issue was with the Planning Commission’s due process.
Mr. Pace answered that it is his understanding that the issue was with the irregularity to which the Planning Commission allowed the Petitioner at a separate hearing to provide a rebuttal testimony without opening the hearing generally. The Attorney for the Applicant simply offered to bring the issue back to the Planning Commission and the Land Use Appeals Board agreed.
Chair Jonas stated that he is frustrated with this case coming back because he feels it is clear in the discussion and in the Planning Commission minutes that there were policy changes in terms of rebuttal time that were not offered in this case.
Chair Jonas referred to the paragraph after condition number 4 in the staff report and asked why Staff recommends the closure of the alley based on the existing land use patterns and equal access to the alley by existing businesses and multi-family developments. Mr. Joyce answered that land use patterns and equal access leads to the right of access to the alley and that action actually conflicts with the land use and alley way policies in the Master Plan.
Mr. Zunguze referred to page two of the staff report which discusses the Sugar House Community Master Plan and said that there is clearly a mixed use element in the plan. At the same time, there is a need for a separation of commercial vehicle movement into residential areas. The east-west connection of the alley clearly shows a pattern of more residential development. Staff is suggesting that that portion of the alley be closed to eliminate conflict. In the event that the Commission makes a finding that the traffic count in that area is not of significant impact, then the Commission needs to cite that finding. Mr. Zunguze said that Staff does not make policy; Staff implements the policy and there is a definite conflict that needs to be rationalized with the prevailing conditions.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Zunguze how does the Commission deal with the issue of whether or not the alley is consistent with the urban form. He said that the use of alley ways was in many cases, precisely so that vehicles had another pattern to move in other than what might be provided by the streets. He said that this alley seems to be consistent with the urban form.
Mr. Zunguze agreed in theory, but from a practical standpoint, the alley policy equally states that in the event there is a conflict between commercial and residential use and there is a predominance of residential land use, commercial traffic is discouraged.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing
Mr. Bruce Baird, Attorney for the Applicant, addressed the Commission by saying that during the Land Use Appeals Board meeting, it became clear that they were going to send this item back to the Planning Commission to make a decision that would require his client to appeal back to the Land Use Appeals Board, which they then indicated would be a certainty that his client would win and require them to send the item back again. He stated that his intention was to turn this item into one additional hearing rather than two. He stated that there is no way that this amendment will in any way increase the traffic and there is no rational way that his client can be denied the right to access the abutting public alley. He stated that under the conditions imposed by the staff report, this proposal has made the situation safer. He added that there is no legal way that this petition can be denied.
Mr. Rich Bennett, who resides at 1990 South View Street, spoke to the Commission saying that he feels the traffic study is inaccurate in that there are more cars using the alley than the study listed. He said that he accepted the original proposal for the alley closure because he thought it would eliminate traffic and now there is more traffic due to the area designated for parking having access to the alley.
Chair Jonas referred to a statement made by Mr. Bennett at the Land Use Appeals Board meeting regarding Mr. Baird and Chair Jonas’s friendship. Mr. Bennett implied that the case was reopened due to that relationship and he felt that it was a conflict of interest. Chair Jonas stated that he took great offense to the statement, and that the case was reopened because of a majority vote of the Commission.
Mr. Bennett apologized and said that he felt frustrated because he attended several meetings without being given the opportunity to argue or debate anything that was said by the Applicant.
Ms. Michele Hutchins, who resides at 1990 South View Street, spoke to the Commission saying that she believed a conditional use followed the property not the owner; however, she is now aware that properties can change continually. She said that she has noticed an increase in traffic since the dental clinic has been using the alley. She said that when the dental clinic takes out the proper permits, she believes there will be a greater increase of commercial traffic in the alley. She feels that the amount of cars using the alley is excessive and is cause for material injury. She said that she would be content with the alley closure.
Mr. Eric Strain, who resides at 1984 View Street, spoke to the Commission. His main concern was with the time the traffic count was taken. He said that the traffic count would only be accurate if it was taken for a 24 hour period. He said that the commercial traffic in the alley is excessive and the future is sure to bring an increase of traffic.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Strain his opinion regarding the closure of the east section of the alley to View Street. Mr. Strain felt that it would be the ultimate solution.
Mr. Baird spoke to the Commission to rebut the public comment. He said that the issue for the Commission to decide this evening is a subdivision not the alley. The alley is a different matter that can be considered at a future time.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Diamond referred to condition number 4 and asked Mr. Joyce if he had entered into dialogue with the adjacent neighbors of the alley regarding the alley closure. Mr. Joyce said that he had not spoken to the neighbors.
Commissioner Muir stated that he is in favor of the option to close and vacate the alley. He feels ill-equipped to make a finding that this rises to a level of material harm. He felt that the appropriate remedy would be to vacate the alley, which would be heard by the Commission at a later date.
Motion
Commissioner DeLay made a motion to approve the amendment of Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B Subdivision based upon the findings of fact and with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Muir seconded the motion.
Initiated Petition
Mr. Zunguze stated that the conditions 1-4 are the technical elements of the petition. There is a need to initiate a petition to address the policy matter related to the alley.
Commissioner DeLay amended the motion to include a condition number 5, which would request the City to initiate a petition to vacate the east segment of the east-west alley that connects to View Street. Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Muir requested to add a finding which states “that the amendment does not pose a material harm that would preclude the approval of the amendment of the lot consolidation.”
Amended Motion
Commissioner DeLay made a motion to approve the amendment of Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B Subdivision based upon the findings of fact with the additional finding “that the amendment does not pose a material harm that would preclude the approval of the amendment of the lot consolidation”, with the conditions as listed in the staff report, and with an additional condition number 5 that “requests the City to initiate a petition to vacate the east segment of the east-west alley that connects to View Street.”
Conditions of approval:
1. That the Applicant takes out a public way permit to: improve the driveway approach accessing the alley to City standards, to repair and replace sidewalks on 1300 East Street, to replace the dead end drive on 1300 East with curb and gutter, and to repair a damaged piped drive approach on 1300 East.
2. That the Applicant pays any fines required by Salt Lake City Engineering for doing work in the public way without a permit.
3. That the Applicant files City approved final amended subdivision and condominium plats with the Salt Lake County Recorder and that the public way improvements are completed prior to recording of the amended plat.
4. That the City records a rescission of Conditional Use 410-266 and its conditions with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s office.
5. The Planning Commission requests that the City initiate a petition to vacate the east segment of the east-west alley that connects to View Street.
Commissioner Muir seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
Chair Jonas said that he felt it is safe to say that all among the Planning Commission were confident that the vote would not have changed had the Commission waited for comment from the neighbors who requested the postponement.
Commissioner Seelig rejoined the meeting.
Petition No. 410-642, a request by Post Office Properties, for conditional use approval of a commercial surface parking lot at 43 and 45 West 300 South, in a Downtown D-1 zoning district.
This hearing began at 7:04 p.m.
Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that the petition was originally heard by the Commission on July 9, 2003 and the petition was denied. Subsequently, on August 13, 2003, there was a motion to rehear the issue. He stated that commercial parking lots are a conditional use in the D-1 zoning district. He explained the use of commercial parking in that it is for profit and it is not required parking for a specific use as oppose to an accessory parking lot that has a designated use. He said that the proposed parking lot is at a mid-block location and there is a restriction that the lot must be behind a building or structure. He said that since the July hearing, the two structures that were there have now been demolished. The motion from the August hearing was to have the Petitioner come back to the Commission to discuss their long range plans.
Commissioner Noda referred to the statement in the staff report that no information was available at the time of packet distribution and asked why no information was available. Mr. Dansie replied that when he spoke to the Petitioner about the rescheduled hearing, they conveyed to him that they would like to come and present their information at the meeting.
Commissioner Chambless asked how many parking spaces the proposed parking lot would accommodate. Mr. Dansie answered 28 spaces. Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Dansie where the nearest Trax station is to that location. Mr. Dansie answered one-half block.
Commissioner Muir referred to the restriction of a mid-block location that the parking lot must be behind a building or structure and asked what is meant by a building or structure. Mr. Dansie answered that it would include anything that would physically screen the parking lot.
Commissioner Muir asked why Staff is willing to accept a landscape buffer as a substitute for that requirement if it is in the Ordinance. Mr. Dansie replied that through the conditional use process, the Planning Commission has had the authority to waive or modify different requirements and has done so on previous parking lots in the D-1 zone. Commissioner Muir restated that this is an exception and the City would not be setting precedence. Mr. Dansie said that that is correct.
Commissioner Muir referred to surface parking lots in general in the City and asked at what point does the City find these lots a cumulative negative effect.
Commissioner Diamond stated that he feels the City has reached that point now and Salt Lake is becoming a city of asphalt.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the Downtown Master Plan, which states “one of the strategies is to develop a coordinated system of parking to maximize convenience and minimize land area use,” and asked Mr. Dansie if that was ever pursued. Mr. Dansie answered yes, through the token program where many can share in the profit and the validation program. One of the problems that the City has had historically regarding private parking lots is that each parking lot is operated differently.
Chair Jonas opened that public hearing.
Mr. David Bernolfo, General Manager for the Post Office Properties spoke to the Commission. He said that Salt Lake City is vibrant along 300 South after 5:00 P.M. and parking is a big component to the success of that area. He said that people prefer to park in a surface parking lot rather than a parking structure. He referred to the new GSA Courthouse that is proposed to be built in that area, and said that it will put a large strain on the parking currently there. He said that according to conversations he has had with GSA, they do not intend to build a structure dedicated to parking because they are concerned that someone may park a car with a bomb inside. Mr. Bernolfo spoke about his properties and said that the two structures were demolished due to the economic hardship to remodel them. He spoke of other plans to develop a market once the Zephyr Club is relocated. The building might also house a post office for the community in that area. He spoke of a dispute with the University of Utah regarding the wall that separates the University property from his property. The University of Utah is very concerned with back filling against the wall. Mr. Bernolfo said that Post Office Properties is currently in discussions with them and unfortunately he expects that there will be a delay in finding a solution. He said that light rail is great, but many businesses downtown such as restaurants, night clubs and hotels depend on surface parking. He said that Post Office Properties is certainly not trying to take down buildings and put in parking lots. They removed the structures because they were a hazard. Now they have a dirt lot that is an eyesore for the community. He stated that 300 South is a great area that is growing and will need more parking for future development.
Commissioner Scott asked how long Post Office Properties has owned the two lots for the proposed surface parking lot. Mr. Bernolfo answered about 15 years.
Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Bernolfo had made efforts to contact the City to preserve the one structure that had more integrity. Mr. Bernolfo answered that they had not explored that. He added that they would like to develop something major on that corner.
Chair Jonas informed Commissioner Scott that Mr. Bernolfo, with his various entities, is one of the largest property owners in the City. Chair Jonas felt that it is safe to say the City has been in regular discussion with him regarding the development of a number of those properties.
Commissioner DeLay said that as a patron of the businesses that were demolished, those buildings were frightening structures to be in. She said that it is unfortunate those buildings were demolished, but she has faith in the developer and what they have in mind.
Chair Jonas noted the vibrancy on 300 South and said that many wish this were the case on Main Street.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Bernolfo to give details with regard to his comment about discussions and delay on the part of the University of Utah.
Mr. Bernolfo stated that the University of Utah received notice of the demolition of the two structures and never responded.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Bernolfo who specifically he spoke to at the University. Mr. Bernolfo said that he did not have that information with him. He said that the University stated that the wall which separates his property from the University property is a common wall. He said that when the Post Office Properties took down their wall, the University wall stayed standing. Mr. Bernolfo said that he is concerned with the duration of time to resolve the issue with the University.
Commissioner DeLay referred to the request by Mr. John Huish, Director of the University of Utah Campus Design and Construction, to include the resolution of the wall as a condition of approval. She asked if it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make such a condition. Mr. Dansie answered that it would normally be a building code issue but because this is a conditional use process it may be appropriate to raise the issue in terms of its effect on the parking lot design.
Chair Jonas said that all parties involved are now aware that this needs to be dealt with.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the statement in the staff report that the demolished structures were not listed on the Historic Register. She asked the Applicant why he did not list the structures. Mr. Bernolfo stated that he did not think the structures were worthy of a historic designation. He said that if they were worthy, then he would have been contacted by the historic preservationist.
Mr. Bernolfo stated that he is concerned with the Planning Commission’s position regarding the letter from the University. He said that if the Planning Commission denies the conditional use petition, the negotiations with the University will be one-sided. He said that the University may argue that it is the responsibility of Post Office Properties to shore-up the University structure because Post Office Properties demolished their structure. He said that his position is that Post Office Properties did not interfere with the University structure because they received notification regarding the demolition.
Ms. Grace Sperry addressed the Commission to say that at one time she was the Chairperson for the Downtown Preservation and Development Subcommittee. She said that their purpose was to list the one hundred most historic buildings still remaining in Downtown Salt Lake and among those buildings still standing was the Salt Lake Stamp Building. She said that the Subcommittee made specific attempts to get the owners to list the Stamp Building on the register and the owners refused because they had other plans.
The Applicant declined the opportunity to rebut the public comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scott said that at the July meeting when the Commission denied the conditional use petition, she felt that it was very clear the buildings were eligible for Historic Register. She said that it needs to be made apparent to all of the property owners in the Downtown area that the revitalization of Downtown should be a priority. Allowing buildings to deteriorate or force viable businesses to move are not conducive to the revitalization. Commissioner Scott said that the need for additional parking in that area is lessened due to the loss of two viable businesses. She said that it is not the intent of the Master Plan to allow more parking lots. She said that the Planning Commission should not accept a surface parking lot just because they do not want to see a vacant lot. She said that she encourages Post Office Properties and all other Downtown land owners to be more responsible in maintaining their properties. Commissioner Scott stated that if the Commission makes the decision to deny the petition, she felt that the Commission should trigger a landscaping provision for empty lots. She said that the Planning Commission should send the message that they will not accept dirt and weed covered lots as an alternative to surface parking lots.
Commissioner Daniels said that he is not in favor of more surface parking lots. He is in favor of the Downtown revitalization and he believes that getting people to come Downtown to enjoy the night life is an integral part of the plan, and part of that plan is providing places for people to park. He said that there is a market for a parking lot in that area.
Chair Jonas said that he agrees with the idea to initiate landscaping on the vacant lots Downtown. He said that he disagreed with the idea that revitalization can not happen when structures are demolished. Chair Jonas said that he does not think new construction is always bad. He said that from a safety standpoint, the Applicants made a reasonable and rational decision to demolish those two structures. He said that with this approval, a large part of that street will be landscaped.
Commissioner Noda said that she agreed with Commissioner Scott in that the City is turning into a sea of asphalt in many of the areas of Downtown. She said that there is plenty of parking allowed and another parking lot will not have a positive impact on Downtown. She encouraged the Applicant to develop a market as he suggested.
Commissioner DeLay felt that the Commission did not have the right to force a financial burden on the Applicant to build a restaurant or market. She said that she believed the Applicant is positively trying to change that area, but it is in transition right now.
Commissioner Muir said that the Commission did impose a financial burden on the Hamilton Properties located on Main Street. They had to construct a building that had no tenants just to maintain the street frontage. He said that he is not sure why that was imposed then and not now. He felt the problem is that the Commission has not been given good solutions. He said that he is prepared to accept the petition before the Commission. He said that the Planning Commission should make a request that Staff look at this issue and forward a recommendation to City Council to impose a moratorium on future demolitions without an immediate plan for a building project. He said that Downtown is not about surface parking lots, it is about streetscape and continuity.
Commissioner Scott reiterated that it is important that there be dialogue and thought before buildings are torn down.
Commissioner DeLay agreed with Commissioner Muir’s idea of a moratorium, she felt it would be a good solution. She asked if the Commission would agree to a moratorium on all parking lots.
Chair Jonas said that there are ways parking lots can be permitted uses; such as the case with the Hamilton Partners Properties on Main Street. They did not want to go through the conditional use process, so they put in the structures to avoid it.
Commissioner Seelig said that she appreciated Commissioner DeLay’s comment regarding a moratorium on all parking lots; however, since a Coordinated Parking Plan is referenced in the Downtown Master Plan, the Commission should follow it. If a Coordinated Parking Plan does not exist, then the Commission should request such a plan.
Chair Jonas said that in the meetings with the City Council Chair and Vice-Chair, they have asked that the Commission send smaller, more specific issues to City Council. City Council has expressed concern with the Planning Commission initiating petitions with many massive elements.
Mr. Zunguze said that the issue here is that through the conditional use process, the Planning Commission has the ability to approve parking lots without the benefit of an overall strategy. He said that the City Council is expected to take action due to on-going concerns that a number of buildings are in danger of potential demolition and may become parking lots; the City Council will be taking a look at changing that policy. Typically, parking should be associated with a principal use, absent of a coordinated parking plan. He said that it is disastrous to allow stand alone parking lots to be permitted in an adhoc fashion.
Commissioner Chambless said that he is concerned with the approval of a parking lot located so close to Trax station. He also does not agree with the demolition taking place without communication or dialogue.
Commissioner Diamond gave Mr. Bernolfo advice on how to develop his properties to be more walkable. He said that Mr. Bernolfo may want to take a look at the space he is proposing to develop and possibly develop a beer garden or something to the effect that would increase the streetscape and public presence. He said that he feels the two buildings that were demolished were a loss of two interesting structures; however, he understands the economic hardship. He said that something should have been recognized at the point of filing for the demolition permit regarding the wall dispute.
Mr. Bernolfo responded to the development suggestions given by Commissioner Diamond. He said that if Post Office properties could do something different at this time, they would. He said that the Commission is going to be very pleased with the outcome of that corner. He said that when and if the GSA Courthouse is built, a majority of the parking there will be lost.
Commissioner Muir said that the dispute between the University of Utah and Post Office Properties is not germane to the Planning Commission, and is a legal dispute between two land owners.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the Planning Commission’s discussion regarding initiation of a petition to conduct a formal evaluation of parking needs in the Downtown area. She noted that the Commission was presented the choice of either a vacant lot or asphalt, and said that it would be relevant to investigate opportunities that would mitigate negative impacts on the communities in the Downtown zoning district and City-wide; as well as investigating opportunities where a vacant lot could provide enhancements.
Motion
Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny Petition No. 410-642 requesting a conditional use for a commercial surface parking lot at 43 and 45 West 300 South, based on the standards for conditional uses items B-K as listed in the staff report, that the proposed development is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and based on testimony heard this evening and the fact that the vitality of Downtown could be negatively impacted. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, and Commissioner Muir voted “Nay”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted in favor and three Commissioners voted against, and therefore the motion was approved.
Initiated Petitions
Commissioner Seelig initiated a petition to investigate potential opportunities to mitigate any negative impacts and enhance any positive impacts of vacant lots in the “D-1” Downtown zoning district.
Petition No. 410-649, by Smith's Food and Drug Stores represented by Bret Wahlen of Great Basin Engineering, requesting Conditional Use approval for the redevelopment of the of the building and site located at 2135 South 900 East, in a Community Business (CB) Zone. The proposal will entail demolition of the existing structure and development of a new building for a new Smith's supermarket.
Commissioner Muir recused himself from this petition and left the room.
This hearing began at 8:35 p.m.
Planner Greg Mikolash presented the petition as written in the staff report. He explained that this item has been before the Planning Commission twice before and to the Land Use Appeals Board; however, this is a new petition. The petition consists of modifications to site design and building drawings that came out of Community Council and Subcommittee meetings with representatives of the Sugar House Community Council and the Planning Commission Subcommittee. He gave a history of the project, as well as an explanation of the issues related to the denial of the previous petition, which are listed in the staff report. He said that Staff feels all of those issues have been solved by way of the Community Council, Smith’s and the Planning Commission Subcommittee. He described the façade changes as listed in the staff report, as well as, the site elevation changes to the previous plan. Mr. Mikolash described the additional landscaping and the design of the new proposed structure. He read through the standards of conditional uses B and K and described how the Applicant has met those findings. Staff is recommending approval based upon the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the staff report.
Commissioner DeLay asked Mr. Mikolash if the Community Council is in agreement with this plan. Mr. Mikolash replied that Staff received a letter to confirm that that they are, which is included in the staff report.
Commissioner Diamond inquired how all the parties involved worked together to arrive at the current proposal. Chair Jonas said that there have been several Subcommittee meetings which involved Smith’s, two or three representatives of the Community Council, as well as neighbors of the immediate Elm Street area. He said that there was a great effort by the Community Council and Smith’s to work through their concerns.
Commissioner Diamond inquired how the community reacted to the building location, as well as the loading dock location which would face the residential properties on Lincoln Street. Chair Jonas answered that Smith’s only presented the building location at the South of the lot. He said that everyone acknowledged that and accepted it. The loading dock location was never a concern. Chair Jonas felt that the Applicant has screened the dock very well.
Mr. Bret Wahlen with Great Basin Engineering located at 2010 North Redwood Road; and Mr. Jack Robertson, with Prescott Muir Architects located at 171 West Pierpont Avenue, addressed the Commission representing the Applicant. Mr. Wahlen said that they are back before the Commission in large part due to the Community Council who asked them to work through the project issues. He said that the Community Council has been great to work with. Mr. Robertson referred to the tiered effect of the rear of the building, adjacent to Elm Street, and said that that is the most significant change that Smith’s was willing to make. He said that they have articulated the façade in an attempt to break up the building to scale it to the adjacent residential properties. He said that this proposal will greatly improve the view that the residents currently have. Mr. Robertson further described the new design of the structure which will improve the safety and appearance of the streetscape.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the east elevation of the structure and asked if delivery trucks are pulling behind the lowered wall. Mr. Robertson answered that is correct.
Chair Jonas stated that this is a remarkable change from the first proposal. He noted that SEPTED was involved with the design of frontage on Elm Street in order to create an inviting environment. He said that the change in lighting and the incorporated glass blocks have made a significant difference.
Mr. Wahlen referred to 900 East which is currently a 4-lane road, Staff recommended that it be modified to a 3-lane road, thus allowing Smith’s ample space to integrate a bus stop and parallel parking on the west side of the project. He noted that Commissioner McDonough suggested the tiered design of the rear of the structure during a subcommittee meeting.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Ms. Judi Short representing the Sugar House Community Council spoke to the Commission saying that they are in complete support of this proposal. She said that the Applicant has made significant efforts to appease the Community Council. She noted the integrity of the structure on the northwest portion of the lot and asked that it be maintained. She added that they are pleased with the architectural changes in the current plan.
Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Short if she recalls the Community Council vote for this proposal. Ms. Short answered that it was 9 in favor, 3 against, and 0 abstaining.
Ms. Tina Rowell representing the Sugar House Merchants Association spoke to the Commission saying that Smith’s has come a long way within the last two years to meet all the concessions. She said that the Association supports Smith’s totally.
Mr. Gary Lloyd, who 944 East 2100 South owner of the Goodyear Store, addressed the Commission saying that he is appreciative of the product the Smith’s has produced. He said that he is looking forward to the change.
Mr. Rawlins Young spoke to the Commission representing the Coalition for Livable Streets. He gave the Commission three handouts. The first handout was the Planning Communities with Transit Coordination document, which gives recommendations to local government on how to develop transit oriented projects. He gave an example of the guidelines that are suggested in the handout which state, a person using the public transit system should not need to walk through a parking lot or further than a person who parks in the closest parking space to the main entrance of a market. The next item he discussed was an article regarding Urban Supermarkets which was presented to the Planning Commission in the previous Smith’s staff report presented December 5, 2002. Mr. Young referred to the Land Use Appeals Board Minutes from May 5, 2003 in which they upheld the Planning Commission decision to deny Smith’s petition. He asked the Commission to deny the petition before them saying it is not in conformance with transit oriented development guidelines.
Mr. Tom Judd, who resides at 956 Elm Avenue, addressed the Commission saying he is in support of the petition. He said that his comments from the previous hearing are a matter of record and have not changed. He asked that the Commission allow Smith’s to build the beautiful structure that they propose. He said that those that oppose this petition do not shop there.
Ms. Tina Rowell spoke to the Commission to address the comment that this development is not a transit oriented design. She stated that the new plan has been modified to include a west entrance to the store. This would address the Master Plan requirement that pedestrians can enter form the sidewalk. She said that those that would be riding the bus would not have to walk further than approximately ten feet from the bus stop.
Chair Jonas said that that was a request from the Community Council to address the public transit issue.
Ms. Joann Jolly, who resides at 856 Forest Park Court, spoke to the Commission saying that she lives near the market and she and her family shop there. She said that this is a wonderful proposal and they as residents are very excited for it to be constructed.
Commissioner DeLay said that she was not a member of the Commission to hear the previous proposal. She said that as a member of the community it has been a brilliant process to see that when the community had issues the developer worked with them to create solutions.
Chair Jonas said that the only down fall is that it took two and a half years to get this item through the process. He said that in some respects the lengthy time it takes to get projects finished drives developers away from Salt Lake. He feels that the intent is to welcome those that have good projects.
Commissioner Daniels addressed the comment that this is the same plan that was presented last year; he said that it absolutely is not. He said that this is a greatly improved plan.
Commissioner Noda agreed that there are significant improvements to this plan. She stated that she had been contacted by the Smith’s Attorney approximately three months ago, after the Planning Commission denied the petition. The Attorney informed her that Smith’s was planning to file a lawsuit challenging the denial of the petition. She informed the Attorney that she was not the Salt Lake City Attorney and it was not appropriate for him to be contacting her, it was appropriate for him to contact the City Attorney Lynn Pace. He said that he was aware of that but continued the conversation. She wanted to make it clear to Smith’s that is not appropriate for them to be calling the Planning Commission. She said that if there are future concerns they should contact the Planning Director.
Commissioner Scott referred to the design of the pedestrian crossing through the parking lot and asked if it would be painted or made of a different material. Mr. Wahlen stated that that portion is expected to be painted.
Commissioner Scott asked the Applicant what their intention is for the building in the Northeast corner of the lot. Mr. Wahlen said that Smith’s intends to find a tenant for that building or turn it into a monument to Sugar House.
Chair Jonas reopened the public hearing.
Commissioner Scott asked Smith’s what type of tenant they anticipate for a structure of that size. Mr. Davis Nielson said that they anticipate possibly a jewelry store, food user, or coffee shop.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas said that his concern was the mid-block connection to Commonwealth Street. He noted that a connection there may be more of a disruption to 900 East which is a fairly busy street. Mr. Mikolash agreed with Chair Jonas and has found that that is a very difficult area to cross. He suggested that the connection be included as part of the traffic impact study to explore if that is a workable scenario.
Mr. Mikolash referred to the raised walkway as a condition of approval. He said that Staff has identified a need to add to that condition “subject to Fire Department approval”. He said that he is not sure that the Fire Department would allow a lipped curb.
Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff is concerned with that condition because it may compromise the Fire Department’s ability to react to emergencies. He said that he does not want to put the Applicant in a difficult situation without concurrence with the Fire Department.
Chair Jonas referred to the walkway coming off 2100 South and asked Mr. Mikolash if it could be modified to be a straight walkway into the main entrance. Mr. Mikolash said that he is in favor of that approach in order to keep pedestrians from walking too close to the vehicle approach.
Commissioner Diamond said that the architectural team should not take the character and spirit of the building on the northwest corner of the lot lightly. He said that he feels that it will have a tremendous impact on the community.
Mr. Zunguze noted that information submitted by the public is always taken into account; however, it is always important that whatever is learned from other communities is put into the context of prevailing situations. He said that this project is unique in which it is bound by four roads. He said that it is not good enough to say the Master Plan says this or the Master Plan says that. The Master Plan is in place to give a blueprint. It is very important that immediately after adoption of Master Plans that there are ordinances that are prepared to actually say here is how the Master Plans will be implemented. He said that the struggle here is that everyone has a different view of how the Master Plan should be implemented which is what happens absent an ordinance.
Commissioner Scott asked if now was the appropriate time to initiate a petition to define the ordinances. Mr. Zunguze stated that there is a forum through the Long Range Planning Meetings for that. He said that once it is decided which direction the Commission is going they may review the current Master Plans and initiate the ordinances to make them more implementable.
Motion
Commissioner DeLay made a motion to approve Petition No. 410-649, for a Conditional Use to demolish and redevelop the existing Smith’s supermarket site located at 2135 South 900 East in a “CB” zoning district based on the findings that the proposal: 1) does meet, in general, the Conditional Use Standards for consistency with the Sugar House Master Plan; 2) has adequate circulation and access for both pedestrians and vehicles; 3) has adequate landscaping and buffering, while preserving existing large growth park strip trees; 4) compliments architecture of the surrounding neighborhood through the use of modern building materials; 5) meets all preliminary site design aspects of the Zoning Ordinance under the “CB” zoning district criteria; and, 6) is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have an cumulative, adverse negative impact to the neighborhood or City as a whole. This approval; however, is subject to the following conditions with the following addition to condition number 6 “ subject to Fire Marshall review and approval.”
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Chair Jonas noted Commissioner Diamond’s comment and Judy Short’s comment regarding the architecture of the new Smith’s that should be designed in harmony with the building in the northwest corner of the lot. He suggested amending the motion to require the Applicant to get architectural input from the Community Council and Staff. Chair Jonas also asked to amend the motion to include in the Traffic Impact Study a mid-block connection to Commonwealth Street. Commissioner DeLay accepted the amendments. Commissioner Daniels accepted the amendments as well.
Commissioner Scott asked to amend the motion to require that both of the future retail pad sites be designed and completed prior to occupancy of the grocery store. Commissioner DeLay did not accept that amendment. She felt that the retail pad should be designed carefully and she did not want the Architects to be rushed.
Amended Motion
Commissioner DeLay made a motion to approve Petition No. 410-649, for a Conditional Use to demolish and redevelop the existing Smith’s supermarket site located at 2135 South 900 East in a “CB” zoning district based on the findings that the proposal: 1) does meet, in general, the Conditional Use Standards for consistency with the Sugar House Master Plan; 2) has adequate circulation and access for both pedestrians and vehicles; 3) has adequate landscaping and buffering, while preserving existing large growth park strip trees; 4) compliments architecture of the surrounding neighborhood through the use of modern building materials; 5) meets all preliminary site design aspects of the Zoning Ordinance under the “CB” zoning district criteria; and, 6) is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have an cumulative, adverse negative impact to the neighborhood or City as a whole. This approval is subject to the following conditions with the following modifications: the addition to condition number 6 “subject to Fire Marshall review and approval.” The Applicant shall obtain architectural input from the Community Council and Staff. In addition to the Traffic Impact Study the Applicant shall include the mid-block connection to Commonwealth Street.
Conditions of approval:
1. The Petitioner shall submit a complete Traffic Impact Study to the Transportation Division along with preliminary construction and improvement drawings, and the Applicant shall include the mid-block connection to Commonwealth Street in the Traffic Impact Study.
2. The Petitioner shall submit a Street Tree Protection Plan, simultaneous with a landscape plan, to be approved by the Planning Director, or his/her designee.
3. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The plan should identify the style, height and output of each lighting fixture in the parking area and park strip. All light fixtures shall be shielded to prevent uplighting/light pollution. To eliminate any light trespass issues, bulb wattage, or foot-candle power should be kept to a minimum, and no light fixture should be in excess of 16-feet (16’) in height.
4. Light colored, reflective roof-top material should be used to mitigate the negative environmental impact of urban heat islands.
5. The building pad site on the northwest corner of the parcel should be constructed and finished prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the supermarket. This northwest corner building shall be a prominent gateway feature to the Sugar House Business District, and the Planning Commission may stipulate that the Petitioner provide for architectural enhancements to the corner building. Such enhancements can include flagging, pre-cast and lettered lintels (which spell out “Sugar House”), and/or illumination of any gateway feature.
6. The Petitioner shall extend and raise the center pedestrian walkway to slow vehicular traffic and delineate a pedestrian walkway, while still allowing for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The grade of the walkway should be only slightly higher than that of the parking area – the sidewalk can gradually roll into the grade of the parking lot, so as to not act like a curb. This portion of the walkway should be striped or dyed to adequately delineate the area just outside the entrance as a main pedestrian thoroughfare. The Petitioner should also consider extending the concrete area outside the walkway (shown on the site plan as the yield area). Installing this area in dyed concrete will further enhance the entry way as a no parking zone and better define a drivers need to yield. Subject to Fire Marshall review and approval.
7. Consideration that all hard-surfaced parking and driveway areas include white or gray gravel to reduce heat-island effects associated with black-top.
8. The Petitioner shall address and adhere to all departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.
9. That the landscape plan and final site plan drawing approval be granted to the Planning Director or his/her designee.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless voted “Nay”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. Seven Commissioners voted in favor and one Commissioner voted against, and therefore the motion was approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Union Pacific Railroad Company is requesting a one year extension of time for Case No. 410-528, which was granted Conditional Use approval in August 2002 to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility located at approximately 800 South 5600 West in a Light Manufacturing “M-1” zoning district.
This item was heard at 9:48 p.m.
Motion
Commissioner Diamond made a motion to extend the one year request for Union Pacific Railroad Company. Commissioner Delay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Delay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the new Downtown General Plan Subcommittee and asked when that subcommittee is expected to meet.
Chair Jonas answered that he and Staff are working to compile lists of all of the different Planning Commission subcommittees and then formulate the new Downtown General Plan Subcommittee to ensure that the responsibilities are evenly disbursed.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.