SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, and Prescott Muir. Commissioners Jennifer Seelig and Kathy Scott were excused.
Present from the Staff were Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director, Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Ray McCandless, Principal Planner, Lex Traughber, Principal Planner, Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner, and Maggie Tow, Planning Commission Secretary.
A roll is kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless 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 MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, August 24, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:50 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless asked for a motion to approve the minutes of August 24, 2005. Commissioner De Lay moved to approve the minutes.
Commissioner Noda asked that the sound recording of the minutes for August 24, 2005 be checked to verify statements made by Greg Gardner, Boyer Research Park Associates and Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, regarding Petition No. 410-755. The Planning Secretary verified the sound recording of August 28, 2005 and the ratified minutes of August 28, 2005 and found that the information Commissioner Noda was questioning was heard on the sound recording and had been included in the minutes.
Mr. Gardner did state that Boyer Company had received a grading permit the week before the August 24, 2005 meeting was held and they began grading work when they received the permit. Mr. Gardner also stated they had not and would not begin the work, as it related to this petition to allow additional building height for a proposed research laboratory, unless or until the petition was approved..
Doug Wheelwright did make the statement regarding the City’s list of recognized community councils and the attendance at the Yalecrest meeting. He stated that Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association was listed in the City’s list of recognized community councils and that the information on meeting dates indicated that the Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association did not hold regular meetings. He stated that the applicant must call the chair of the association for the meeting date. He said that Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association was notified of this agenda item. Mr. Wheelwright said that the planning staff called the Mayor’s Office of Community Affairs, told them they had a project in Research Park and were directed by the Mayor’s Office of Community Affairs to Yalecrest Community Council Association. He stated that staff was not directed to Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association. He understood that a Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association representative was at the Yalecrest meeting and took notes.
Commissioner Seelig also asked Commissioner McDonough to request an update on the status of the Banner Sign regulations. It was noted that this update was scheduled on the agenda for this meeting, 09-14-05, under the Report of the Director.
Commissioner Diamond stated his reservations regarding Petition No. 490-05-10 and the building height as stated in the staff report. He asked that this height issue be revisited by the building department. Mr. Wheelwright stated that he could do that for Commissioner Diamond.
A motion was made by Commissioner De Lay and seconded by Commissioner Noda to approve the minutes of August 24, 2005 with the conditions stated by Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner McDonough. Commissioner De Lay, Commission Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Muir abstained. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig were excused. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(5:55 P.M.
None.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:56 P.M.)
Mr. Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director, introduced the petition for Mapping Fine Tuning Round II, and stated he would have Cheri Coffey give an update. Ms. Coffey said that the first round of Mapping for Fine Tuning Round II was adopted by the City Council one week ago. A list of about twenty (20) map issues had been selected and the process would begin if the Planning Commission voted to initiate a petition. Commissioner De Lay initiated the petition for mapping Fine Tuning Round II.
The meeting was turned back to Mr. Ikefuna. He stated that the director was to provide an update on the Banner Sign Regulation. Staff sent a letter updating the Planning Commission on the proposed banner regulations. Staff was sent a draft of the banner ordinance to City departments and had received comments back from several departments, including the City Attorney. Mr. Ikefuna stated that corrections had been made to the ordinance and it would be presented to a representative from the Advisory Board. A representative from the Business Advisory Board is scheduled to speak to the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on September 28, 2005. He recommended that the Planning Commission consider appointing a representative to attend the Business Advisory Board meetings.
Chairperson Chambless heard a motion from Commissioner De Lay and she agreed to serve as a representative to the Business Advisory Board.
Mr. Ikefuna moved to the last item under the Report of the Director. He stated that the last Planning Commission meeting, held August 24, 2005, was highly contentious regarding the issue of a Conditional Use petition at Research Park. He stated that the Planning Commission requested that the Planning staff establish a working group that would consist of representatives from the City, the Research Industrial Park area, UDOT, appropriate City and the Community Councils. On September 6, 2005, Mr. Ikefuna sent a letter under the signature departments and the Community Councils. of Tim Chambless, Chair of the Planning Commission, to Mr. Evans of Research Park, requesting that they participate in this working group. Staff put together a working group of sixteen (16) representatives from the Mayor’s Office, City Council, and the Planning Commission. Also included were representatives from Research Park, Mike Perez, University of Utah Physical Facilities, UDOT, East Central Community Council, Yalecrest Community Council, Foothill Community Council, Oakhills Community Council and Sunnyside East Community Council. Staff would then schedule a meeting. Mr. Ikefuna reported that the City’s Director of Transportation Division, Tim Harpst, responded in writing to the comments submitted by Mr. Larry Spendlove, representative of Sunnyside East Community Council at the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 2005. That letter was distributed to the Planning Commission.
Doug Wheelwright asked if there was a volunteer from the Planning Commission to participate with the working group. Chairperson Chambless volunteered to represent the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ikefuna introduced Doug Wheelwright and asked him to brief the Planning Commission on the Redman Condominium Project in Sugar House. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the construction on the building was nearing completion internally and soon work would begin on the site development requirements. Site plans had been submitted to the Permit Office that modified some parking and maneuvering space on the proposed development. He stated that Planning staff was asking the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed changes to the site layout were significant or not in terms of the Conditional Use approval.
Mr. Wheelwright distributed two site plans to the Planning Commissioners. The first site plan showed the existing layout. He briefly discussed the ingress and egress possibilities, the garage structure and its impact on the landscaping on the original plan. The second site plan proposed changes that would add a fourth (4) two-car garage structure. The garage structure affects the landscaping area. He stated that the side yard area originally proposed would be an open area and is now proposed to contain a dumpster, generator and electrical utility boxes. The new plans would include an eight (8) foot decorative wall and landscaping to cover the items, as shown on the plans he handed out. The plans were made a part of this record. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the internal site maneuvering plan was analyzed by the Traffic Engineering Department and were found to be adequate, sharing both the ingress and the egress on the west side. Sidewalk and landscaping would be built on the City owned alley that lead to Hidden Hollow.
Discussion with the Planning Commission centered on clarifying the issues of car traffic in the City owned alley and if the new garage would have the east hammerhead extended onto the City easement. Mr. Wheelwright said there would be a sort of hammerhead in the space but that isle space was three to four feet wider than the minimum requirement and Transportation had determined that anyone entering the garage would likely be pulling into a stall, and there would not be a need for a maneuvering hammerhead space.
Commissioner McDonough asked if there was a barrier at the end of the drive between the easement landscape and the pavement. Mr. Wheelwright replied that there was an existing retaining wall that started at the rear of the building and got progressively taller as it proceeded south. The surface of the alley would actually be considerably below the parking lot. There are eight (8) residential units on site.
Mr. Wheelwright recommended to the Planning Commission that all changes were minimal and not significant to the site plan, and therefore did not require a re-approval. The Planning Commission agreed, with Commissioner McDonough commenting that she felt that the proposed changes to the site plan actually improved the project.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
Douglas Bagley and Salt Lake City Property Management Division—City Property Management Division is requesting that the City convey to Mr. Bagley, the fee title interest to vacant property that the City owns, which is located at the approximately 471 West 500 South Street (the Southeast corner of the intersection of 500 West and 500 South Streets) which is zoned General Commercial CG. The subject property is approximately 13,412 Square feet in area (0.308 acres) and represents excess property that the City is not utilizing. The subject property results from a prior purchase by the City of a larger property from Mr. Bagley to accommodate a new railroad spur line to the Cereal Foods property, as part of the Interstate 15 reconstruction project, wherein the City sought to have the freeway off-ramps shortened. The original purchase agreement contained a provision to allow any remainder property to be re-sold to Mr. Bagley, after construction of the railroad spur. Portions of the original purchase agreement have been in legal dispute and the City has now agreed to terms which include the transfer of this property to Mr. Bagley, as part of a settlement agreement.
Chairperson Chambless asked if the Commissioners had any concerns or questions with regard to the item on the Public Notice Agenda. None were heard.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-05-20, the Salt Lake City Council requesting to create a new zoning district limited to natural open space (Natural Open Space, NOS zone).
At 6:09 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition Number 400-05-20 and Ray McCandless, Principal Planner. Mr. McCandless stated that this petition had been tabled from the August 24, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. At the public hearing for the North Salt Lake City disconnection request on May 31, 2005, the Salt Lake City Council initiated a legislative action and requested that the administration create a new zoning district specifically limited to natural open space. In response to that request, the Planning Division developed a new Open Space Zoning District. Mr. McCandless read the pertinent parts of the proposed ordinance. Mr. McCandless stated that the permitted uses in the zoning district were listed on the table that was included in the staff report, and Land Uses allowed in the new Open Space Zoning District would be limited to natural open space, conservation areas and nature preserves, both public and private. It was a restricted zoning district that provided protection for the foothill areas.
At the public hearing for the proposed North Salt Lake disconnection, the City Council requested that staff look at rezoning properties on the high bench areas east of Beck Street. However, the Planning Commission was not considering rezoning properties at that time but was only considering the creation of proposed natural open space zoning district.
Chairperson Chambless asked if anyone had questions for Mr. McCandless. Commissioner Diamond asked if Mr. McCandless would explain the zoning of parcels on an individual basis by the Planning Commission. Mr. McCandless stated that the matter before the Planning Commission was the adoption of the ordinance only; a creation of the new zoning district. He said rezoning specific pieces of property, or any property, is not being considered at this point. Cheri Coffey then said that the text change was all that had been advertised in the agenda.
Chairperson Chambless stated that everything received by the Planning Commission would be entered into the official record. He asked for further questions. No response was heard. Mr. McCandless was also speaking for the petitioner and the Salt Lake City Council. He had nothing to add. Chairperson Chambless asked for a representative of the Community Council, and no one responded. The matter was then opened up for public hearing comment.
Mr. Scott Hughes, owner of Lakeview Rock Products located on Beck Street, stated he was against the zoning change on his property because the property was private and not public land. He felt the City was changing his property use, which was a gravel pit. Mr. Hughes said his property was not a pristine wildlife area with trees and water and it was not a public area that could be accessed for jogging, walking or viewing. The property was completely fenced off and was not a valued piece of property for open land. The land had been purchased for use as a gravel pit when first purchased by his family. The use of that land had never changed. He further stated that the zoning for his property had been changed several times and the owner of Lakeview Rock Products had not agreed to any of the rezonings. Mr. Hughes stated that he had tried meeting and working with the City several times to develop a reclamation plan but had not been able to reach an agreement. He felt his eighty eight (88) acres adjacent on the east had been held hostage between North Salt Lake and Salt Lake City. His land was surrounded by gravel pits, and there were no neighborhoods within sight. Mr. Hughes said that on the maps mailed out from Salt Lake City Corporation, his property had been specifically listed as a natural open space.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Hughes. Commissioner De Lay asked if maps had been sent out as stated by Mr. Hughes. Mr. Wheelwright stated that a notice had been mailed Friday, September 9, 2005 for an open house to be held September 27, 2005. At that open house specific rezoning would be discussed. After that meeting Planning would approach the Planning Commission with that issue sometime in October.
Greg Simonsen spoke to the open space issue and proposed a modification to the ordinance. He realized that just the ordinance and not specific properties, was being considered, but said it did seem strange to him that at that time, before the ordinance was even recommended by that body and passed upon by the City Council, invitations had been sent out to an open house. He stated that in the general plan it said that the only use for the property would be to maintain eco systems. He stated that it was appropriate to limit it to just public properties. He again proposed that the ordinance be modified to be appropriate only for public properties. Mr. Simonsen sent City Attorney, Lynn Pace, a letter to which Mr. Pace responded. Mr. Simonsen wanted the Planning Commission to know that he would be at each and every meeting to address the open space issue so the City would know of his concern and the money involved “up there on the hill”.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for Mr. Simonsen. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless asked Mr. Cliff Porter to come forward and speak.
Mr. Cliff Porter stated that he was a long time real estate broker for forty (40) years and was crying foul. He said he received a copy of the letter from Rick Graham, of Salt Lake City Corporation, to Ray McCandless (as part of the staff report), that specifically identified the North Salt Lake City properties of Staker, Lakeview, and Hunter-Bates as subject to this proposed zoning change. He stated that the map he had, that had been included with the open house meeting, specifically named those properties as being affected by the new Open Space Zone. He stated the City had wanted to acquire this property for years but had failed. Now the City was attempting to acquire it through a zoning change and thus accomplish a taking of the economic value of this property.
Mr. Porter stated that this property had been rezoned in 1995 to the current open space status. That rezoning had been marginally legal under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. This zoning, as proposed, would strip all economic value out of the property except for the aesthetic value and aesthetic value is worthless to anyone other than the public. The proper course of action would be to take the property through a condemnation action and pay fair market value at that time.
Chairperson Chambless asked it there were any questions for Mr. Porter. No response was heard. No one else in the audience wished to speak to this matter. Chairperson Chambless closed the public meeting and asked if there was a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Muir had a question for staff pertaining to language under definitions. He stated that the categories were listed and separated by semi-colons. He concluded that the intent would be that only one of the categories had to be met, but not all of them. Commissioner Galli stated that the clause read “and may include” which meant that it could include any of the categories, but may not.
Chairperson Chambless asked for a motion and a vote.
Motion for Petition No. 400-05-20:
Commissioner Muir moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-05-20, based on the analysis and findings outlined in the staff memorandum. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig were not present. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-757, by Mike Davie to construct a new LDS church at approximately 1401 West 700 South in an R-1/5000 zoning district. A church is a conditional use in this zone. The existing church will be demolished in order to construct the new church
Petition No. 490-05-39, by Mike Davie to amend the Poplar Grove Addition Subdivision for property located at approximately 1401 West 700 South in an R-1/5000 zoning district. The lots where the existing church is have not yet been combined. These lots must be combined in order to construct the new church.
At 6:28 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 410-757; Petition No. 490-05-39 and Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director. Ms. Coffey stated that the two (2) petitions would be discussed together but voted on separately.
Ms. Coffey stated that the first petition was the Conditional Use. She said that churches were allowed as a Conditional Use in the R-1/5000 zoning district and this was basically a demolition of a church and the rebuilding of the church on the property. This particular site had frontage on all four (4) sides. On June 20, 2005 the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow parking, a dumpster location and accessory structures to be in the front and side yards. The departments had no issues with this request. The Poplar Grove Community Council did not meet in August. They were meeting the night of the Planning Commission meeting. However, the Secretary of the Community Council did send comments of support. Ms. Coffey stated that this proposal met the Conditional Use criteria, and staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use with the following conditions.
1) The approval was conditioned upon compliance with department comments, as outlined in the staff report.
2) The final site plan and landscape plan be approved by the Planning Director or his designee prior to the issuance of the building permit, and
3) The final amended subdivision plat be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Ms. Coffey stated that this request required a subdivision amendment to the Poplar Grove addition to combine lots one (1) through forty (40). Ms. Coffey stated that the Building Services and Licensing would not allow a new building permit to be issued until the subdivision lines were vacated because the building could not straddle a property line. Subdivisions could be approved administratively, but because a Conditional Use was also required, the Planning staff put the two petitions together so there would only need to be one public hearing. The combined lots would total 3.13 acres and the zoning requirements for the R-1/5000 zone would be met. City departments consented to the amendment, and found that the sub-amendment was in the best interest of the City. Ms. Coffey recommended that the Planning Commission grant preliminary subdivision approval for this amendment with the following conditions.
1) Compliance with departmental comments as outlined in the staff report.
2) Installation of public-way improvements, including curbs, gutters, and drive-way approaches, as required to meet Salt Lake City Engineering, as well as repair of any curb, gutter or sidewalks damaged during the construction and,
3) Completion of final subdivision approval and final plat recordation prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for Ms. Coffey. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless asked for the petitioner.
Mike Davie of Dennis Butler Architects spoke. He stated that two minor revisions to the site plans had occurred after the plan was submitted. Four and one-half (4.5) feet had been added to the front of the building to make the transfer of an existing pipe organ from the existing building into the new building possible. The setback was decreased to thirty four (34) feet, but was still within the setback requirements. He stated that two (2) of the landscape islands in the parking lot were moved to accommodate utility poles and grading issues. There were no major changes.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for Mr. Davie. Commissioner De Lay asked how old the building was and was the capacity of the new building changed. Mr. Davie stated that the building was built in the 1950’s. The church contemplated remodeling it but because of the seismic issues and the age and condition of the building, decided to put a new building in its place. Square footage would be less in the new building. Currently there were two (2) stories. The new building would have one (1) story. Square footage was reduced from thirty two thousand (32,000) square feet to twenty four thousand (24,000) square feet. Parking was inadequate. The new area would provide increased parking, and adequate handicap parking.
Commissioner De Lay asked when the church building would be considered a historic landmark. Ms. Coffey commented that the building had to be fifty (50) years or older and be designated by City Council. It was determined that there was no historic issue.
Chairperson Chambless then asked if there was a representative of the Community Council present that wanted to speak. No response was heard. He then asked if there was anyone from the community that wanted to speak. Again, no response was heard.
Chairperson Chambless closed the public meeting and asked for a discussion or a motion on Petition No. 410-757.
Motion for Petition No. 410-757:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-757, based on the analysis and findings outlined in the staff report subject to the conditions on page eight of the staff report. Commissioner Galli seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig were not present. The motion passed.
Motion for Petition No. 490-05-39:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval for Petition No. 490-05-39, based on the analysis and findings outlined in the staff report subject to the conditions on page ten of the staff report. Commissioner Galli seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig were not present. The motion passed.
Petitions No. 400-01-32 and Petition No. 400-02-08, to amend the text of the C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District) zone and the corresponding Sugar House Community Zoning Map, as well as the text of the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001) and corresponding Sugar House Future Land Use Map. In addition, several rezones are proposed for specific properties located adjacent to the area currently zoned C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District). The area affected by these amendments is approximately 2100 South from 900 to 1300 East, and along 1100 East/Highland Drive from Hollywood Avenue to I-80, including the Granite Furniture block, the Sugar House Commons, and the Sugar House Center
At 6:49 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petitions No. 400-01-32, Petition No. 400-02-08, and Lex Traughber, Principal Planner. Mr. Traughber stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed the project on June 8, 2005 and received a detailed staff report of the Sugar House Community Master Plan and corresponding Sugar House Future Land Use Map. It had been discussed and examined in detail. He stated that he would now discuss how the proposed amendments would implement the goals and policies of the Sugar House Master Plan (2001).
Mr. Traughber gave a power point presentation titled “Getting to Yes”. The presentation is made a part of this record. The first goal was to maintain the Sugar House Business District as a unique place. To reach that goal he suggested incentives for mixed use development, including a residential component and a requirement to promote “walkability” to include maximum building setbacks, and “active” uses at the street level. Also required would be “step backs” for taller buildings in order to maintain the sense of historic scale and massing at the street level and an incentive for structured parking in order to minimize unattractive and non-pedestrian oriented surface level parking.
The second goal was a creation of a walkable, pedestrian friendly community. To implement that goal he suggested maximum building setbacks, a requirement for “active” uses at street level, incentives for mixed use development, including a residential component and for structured parking in order to minimize unattractive and non-pedestrian oriented surface level parking. He also suggested a minimum requirement on first floor glass use.
The third goal was a creation of a “24/7” community with live/work opportunities and mixed use development. To implement this he suggested incentives for mixed use development including a residential component to increase residential density in the area and a requirement for “active” uses at the street level.
The forth goal given was the creation of multi-modal transportation options to better serve the Sugar House Business District (SHBD). The suggested implementation tool for this was incentives for mixed use development and increased residential development in the SHBD in order to create “critical mass”, such that providers of transportation services would be able to economically justify the cost and subsequent benefit of providing the services.
The fifth goal was the protection of adjacent low-density residential neighborhoods. Mr. Traughber suggested a “sliding scale” building setback for those buildings in the area zoned C-SHBD that abut low-density, residentially zoned areas and incentives for structured parking in the SHBD that could potentially reduce street parking in residential neighborhoods.
The sixth goal was maintenance of economic vitality and a healthy tax base; support for locally owned businesses. The implementation tools would be a requirement for “active” uses at the street level that would attract clients, consumers, pedestrians and visitors. He also suggested incentives for mixed use development to augment residential density in the area; and an increased residential population to support businesses in the SHBD. Additional implementation tools included multiple options for developers to satisfy the residential components requirements in a mixed use development and building height incentives for the inclusion of structured parking. Mr. Traughber also mentioned elimination of the mandatory “planned development” process currently in affect in the C-SHBD zone and said that giving options for “over the counter permits” and/or the “Conditional Building and Site Design Review” process could potentially save a developer/business owner time and money. The last tool suggested was the inclusion of the “Regional Shopping District” (Sugar House Center) into the SHBD, and the recognition of this use as important to the City in terms of tax base. He suggested that options for redevelopment of this area be used rather than the elimination of this use as currently outlined in the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001).
The last goal was preservation of the historic characteristics of the SHBD. Mr. Traughber listed two tools needed in order to implement this step; requirements be given for “step backs” for taller buildings in order to maintain historic massing and scale at the street level, and maximum building setback from the street to maintain historic streetscape and to insure compatible architectural construction.
Mr. Traughber then made a recommendation. He stated that based on the comments, analysis and findings and facts noted in the original staff report, which was distributed at the last hearing, June 8, 2005, the Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance as presented, the Community Sugar House Zoning Map, the Sugar House Community Master Plan and the Sugar House Future Land Use Map as presented at the meeting held on June 8, 2005.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Traughber. Commissioner McDonough asked to have Mr. Traughber clarify the height issue on the corner of 2100 South and Highland Drive. This was in regards to the height allowance of up to one hundred five (105) feet, as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on June 8, 2005. Mr. Traughber referred the Commissioners to the staff report, stating there were several ways that building height could be achieved; maximum building height in that zone would not exceed fifty (50) feet for those buildings used exclusively for non-commercial development. He then stated that additional building height could be obtained if a developer proposed to include a residential component. For every floor after the fifty (50) feet of non-residential, a developer would be required to provide one residential floor up to a maximum of one hundred (100) feet. He stated that the next option would be that a developer could transfer the increase of building height allowance to another building or parcel within the Sugar House Business District if the developer was not inclined to do any kind of residential development. Building residential density would still be the goal. The last option, and the one that had been changed since the last discussion, would be that maximum building height of non-residential use could be obtained up to one hundred five (105) feet if criteria was met. The criteria was that 90% of all parking provided for the building would be in the form of structured parking, and off-site residential uses would be provided that was equal to or greater than the square footage of the non-residential building that exceeded fifty (50) feet.
Commissioner Muir then asked Mr. Traughber why the proposed CSHBD-1 was applied, which allowed for a higher density and height, along 1100 East going North, whereas the CSHBD-2 zone was imposed going West along 2100 South, which was a lower height, when a greater height could have been accommodated. Mr. Traughber replied that there were several answers to the question. He said that the higher zone was applied to those parcels going up 1100 East because in terms of their development potential, they would probably not be able to realize a one hundred (100) foot building. In answer to the second part of Commissioner Muir’s question, “why not further west along 2100 South and why the cut off at McClelland Street”, Mr. Traughber said that the current Future Land Use Master Plan Map classified that property west of McClelland Street as Neighborhood Mixed Use Scale and it was not proposed to amend that. He stated that the new zoning corresponded to the Master Plan Map that was already in effect. He stated that many of the properties west of McClelland Street did abut the biggest area of low-density residential area that currently surrounded the business district, especially on the north side.
Chairperson Chambless asked for any other questions. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless again stated that the two petitions were being discussed together, and after receiving clarification from Mr. Ikefuna, said that a vote could be done separately or together.
Chairperson Chambless called for representatives of the Community Council. The first to respond was Susan Petheram. She stated that she did not submit a card.
Susan Petheram, Vice-Chair of the Community Council, stated that she realized this had been a lengthy and timely process and hoped that all could move forward. She stated that she appreciated and commended all the hard work that had gone into finding a suitable compromise to forward on to the City Council. In general, Ms. Petheram was in favor of passing on the recommendation to the City Council. She had a few discussion points that she hoped could be touched on tonight.
Ms. Petheram said that she was remiss in not handing out an updated letter for this latest staff report, but she did have a handout of the discussion points that she would cover tonight. The first point Ms. Petheram discussed was the design and technical criteria that she stated had been removed from the Master Plan and asked for clarification on where those items had been placed. She stated that some items were obviously in the ordinance and some were defaulted to the City ordinance, but she was not clear whether the numbers were the same as used in the Master Plan or if it was defaulting to City standard requirements.
Ms. Petheram said the second point was the “Walkable Community Ordinance”. She stated that Sugar House was a new, existing walkable community and she wanted to ensure that the needs of Sugar House would be met or exceeded in the ordinance, specifically in regard to parking lots not being located on the street frontage and that design criteria be developed for items like maximum length of blank wall on the street level. She asked if those provisions would be in the Sugar House ordinance as they were in the walkables. She stated that now the provisions were in the appendix of the Master Plan and wanted to know how they would be enforced in conjunction with the ordinance and if there was a way to incorporate more of the design criteria into the ordinance for stronger enforcement rather than having them be policy statements. She then asked how the design guidelines would be enforced for buildings less than 20,000 square feet. She stated a concern that too many of the smaller structures would compromise the over-all character of Sugar House.
Ms. Petheram stated that presently there was no language regarding maximum size of development for project size or for combining parcels to make larger scale projects and she was concerned with the possibility of a larger scale planned development turning the area into something other than the distinctive Mixed Use business district that now exists. She stated that in general the community favored the look and feel of individual developments that led to a small town Main Street feel in Sugar House. She stated that the additional buffering requirements were not for all residential zones, but were for single family zones.
Ms. Petheram said that the book on historic preservation talked about preserving historic character, but no incentive for preserving historic structures was given in the ordinance. The proposed building height limits that basically allow tripling of the current development pattern and height of buildings, was a deterrent to retaining, reusing and restoring historic structures in Sugar House. She concluded with support for the Planning staff’s recommendations on certain issues, including the location of the residential zones in the Elm Avenue area that had retained the current residential aspect of that neighborhood. She supported moving forward and concurred with Mr. Zunguze and his comment at the June meeting when he said that we need to get something on the books and then refine it as we go.
Chairperson Chambless asked that Ms. Petheram distribute her hand outs to the Commissioners and asked if there were any questions for Ms. Petheram. No response was heard. Ms. Petheram then noted that the handout was an outline of the issues she had discussed and was also a pictorial collage of the Sugar House area showing Historic Sugar House in the last fifty (50) to one hundred (100) years and as it was now.
Chairperson Chambless stated he had 15 cards from people that wished to speak. Cheri Coffey asked if the Stakeholders were going to speak and Chairperson Chambless responded that Stakeholders were not a part of the Community Council but were adjunct. Chairperson Chambless asked Ms. Nancy Stark to speak.
Nancy Stark, a spokesperson for the Sugar House Stakeholders Committee, stated that she had been at the issues hearing and the Stakeholders were concerned about allowing sufficient development intensity regarding the Master Plan Goals and realizing the density of development and flexibility in the planning approval process because the proposed zoning ordinance had not been tested anywhere in Salt Lake City. She stated that development intensity and allowable building height was the best representation and measure for development intensity and the Stakeholders believed that the staff had arrived at an acceptable and creative compromise and solution for the building height for the Sugar House Business District 1 Zone. She stated that by going up to one hundred five (105) feet and allowing single use structures, both goals were accomplished because it allowed the development community to have a scale of building large enough to support the cost of structured or underground parking, and also provided the City with the potential of up to sixty five (65) feet or the equivalent of sixty five (65) feet of residential units. She said that allowing a straight commercial alternative for the developers to follow had a potential of creating 100+ units, depending on the floor plate size and was a good compromise that still retained the incentive for true Mixed Use buildings. It also created an incentive for the Stakeholders to work together, thus creating more dialogue and a more cooperative spirit.
Ms. Stark was still concerned with the density issue. She referred to page six (6) of her handout that showed density, and stated there were very few parcels left for development in the Sugar House Business District. She stated that the Sugar House Stakeholders would like the Planning Commission to consider expanding the Sugar House Business District 1 Zone throughout the whole business district so that critical mass of a single zone could be formed. Ms. Stark said that McClelland Street had been the dividing line, but now the store front placements and the facades between the east side and the west side of McClelland Street were almost identical. She said the rear of the properties had very deep parking lots and not a lot of difference was seen because they buffer the residential uses. She stated that the Lincoln Tower Building was nine stories and was a visual backdrop to the streetscape in the area. She stated that surface lots could be used as a visual, or a Mixed Use project could be used that would keep the intensity and density of zoning less abutting the neighborhood to the north with the higher density on the street edge of 2100 South.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions. No questions were heard.
Lynne Olson, Sugar House resident, stated she was on a field trip with her daughter in 1990 when the children discovered an abandoned park in the middle of the Sugar House business district. They subsequently named it Hidden Hollow and worked for more than ten (10) years to have it preserved as an urban open space out-door classroom and demonstration garden for the community. When the process was started they were told by the Planning and Zoning Division that the property had been zoned commercial and was slated for redevelopment. She stated that in 2000 the property was protected with a Conservation Easement and now served as an out-door classroom for students of all ages throughout Salt Lake City. In recognition of the special character of the property called Hidden Hollow, language was included in the Master Plan. On page sixty (60) of the Town Center Scale Mixed Use, it said “building height shall be limited with the appropriate step backs incorporated into the design to avoid completely shading pedestrian areas along the north side of 2100 South and Hidden Hollow Nature Preserve on a Winter Solstice day”. Ms. Olson stated that on December 18 a two hundred four (204) foot shadow would be cast if a one hundred (100) foot building were built right to the property line on the south edge of Hidden Hollow. That would cover both of the sidewalks and creek, and go up the other side of the bank in Hidden Hollow. For a good part of the winter, a building of that size would shadow all of this fragile and sensitive area. It would have a devastating effect on the plant communities that were recently established there. Even with the recommended setbacks for the properties that abut single family residentials, a one hundred five (105) foot building would only be set back twenty five (25) feet in addition to the seven (7) foot landscape buffer. With the fifteen (15) foot set back for the height above thirty (30) feet, it would still cast a shadow of one hundred fifty (150) feet. Ms. Olson stated that there were strategies that could be employed to ensure that any buildings built on the site south of Hidden Hollow would be sensitive to that unique piece of property and would protect it from shadows, whether it was set backs, step backs or limiting the height of anything that goes next to an open space in the business district. She asked that a solution to protect this property be found.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for Ms. Olson. No response was heard.
Stephanie Duer introduced herself and stated she was a not a resident of Sugar House, and was at the Planning Commission meeting in the capacity as the City’s Water Conservation Coordinator. She stated she was also a member of the Steering Committee for Hidden Hollow and a member of the board for Tree Utah. She said she had been involved as a subject expert for Hidden Hollow because of her horticultural and landscape background in sustainable landscapes. The concern she addressed was the new language that allowed buildings as high as one hundred five (105) feet on properties adjacent to open space and park space. She said the potential negative impact would be devastating. The area primarily represented some of the open space areas in the mid Alpine foothill areas; areas that were open grasslands, scrub oak, and scrub juniper. The areas required a great deal of sunlight even during winter months. Ms. Duer said that if a building the size that was being proposed was allowed in the area adjacent to the property on the south side of the Hidden Hollow, it was fairly certain that over time the carefully crafted and now established landscape in the hollow would die. She stated that Hidden Hollow did maintain the unique character of Sugar House. She stated that she had sent a letter to the Planning Commission with specific recommendations that would help protect the Hollow, and hoped it had been received.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Ms. Duer. Commissioner Galli asked if she could give an idea of a maximum height of a building adjacent to Hidden Hollow that could be allowed that would not impact the vegetation. Ms. Duer said she hoped the maximum height would be limited to thirty (30) feet. She stated that initially, Ballet West had planned to occupy that space. She had worked extensively with them, even turning the building footprint around. She asked that the height restriction of thirty (30) feet only pertain to abutting properties on open space and public lands.
Commissioner Galli asked if there were shadows currently cast on Hidden Hollow and Ms. Duer said no, not from that direction. She said there was one building on the east that was tall, but the step back was such that the angle of the winter sun was farther to the south and it did not negatively impact that portion of the Hollow.
Mr. Zunguze asked Ms. Duer if she still worked for Public Utilities. Ms. Duer replied that she did. Mr. Zunguze then addressed the Planning Commission, stating his frustration. He said that the Planning Division did not receive Ms. Duer’s comments and that the Division took great pains to contact each division and department in the City to request comments. He stated that when one department does not communicate with another department the public is failed. He asked the Commission to empower him to speak with authority to all departments and divisions in the City so landmines like this could be avoided in the future.
Commissioner Galli stated that perhaps Ms. Duer, in mentioning her role in the City as a Water Conservation person, meant to provide some background. He stated that his understanding was that Ms. Duer was speaking as a board member of Tree Utah, a citizen with some technical interest, and to the extent she was specifically asked, in her position in the City, to comment, and failed to do so. He stated he could understand that, but the last thing he wanted to do was to somehow discourage citizens who happened to work for the City or who happened to have memberships on boards or other organizations, from being involved in the active and intellectual life of the community and the City.
Mr. Zunguze stated he did appreciate that sentiment and he was not in any way trying to deny that opportunity, but because the Planning Division was a coordinating body for comments that came in, the recommendation may have been different if they had known that information ahead of time. He stated that maybe more discussion could have happened. Mr. Zunguze went on to say that the Planning Division had sent a request for comments to virtually everyone in the City and did not receive a response from Ms. Duer. He said comments and concerns were requested so they could be incorporated into the report of the Planning Commission. He asked, “What are we to do with these comments at this stage, go back to the drawing board and then come back to you for another meeting?”
Commission Galli responded and said that Mr. Zunguze had raised the issue and he would address it. Mr. Galli stated that he understood Mr. Zunguze’s frustration, but in his line of work he had met with federal agencies who had similar comment processes and it was very common for sister agencies within the federal government, even sometimes within the same department, to offer comments in a public process and in a public hearing very similar to this. He said Mr. Zunguze’s goal to provide early input from within the City was a laudable goal, but it didn’t happen all the time. He did not see a problem with Ms. Duer expressing her view, not withstanding the fact that she was an employee of the City, particularly when she was a board member of an institution that had some proprietary interest in planting and maintaining the trees in Hidden Hollow. He stated it was not that unusual a situation and he did not think it was anything to ruffle feathers about.
Commissioner Noda stated that Ms. Duer had made it clear that she was representing Tree Utah and she did understand Mr. Zunguze’s concerns. She said that generally most government agencies had policies regarding their employees being on boards and declaring those affiliations to the management relative to any kinds of conflicts that they might have relative to City business. She said it would be a labor issue for the City. Commissioner Noda felt that technically Ms. Duer was there for Tree Utah and was not representing the Department of Public Utilities. She felt the Planning Commission could take her comments.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he wanted to be fully understood. He did not say that Ms. Duer did not have the right to come and speak, but that he would have preferred to have had Ms. Duer’s comments sent to the Planning Division and stating that she would be attending the meeting. He stated that his frustration was in not knowing until the last minute what her comments were. Mr. Zunguze said the Division took great pains with the community councils to encourage them to meet together and then give the City their comments, thus avoiding the last minute comments that could affect the meetings and have such a weighty impact. It involved the ability to coordinate information.
Commissioner Galli then stated that the Planning Commission deliberation was a fact finding board. They had heard interesting facts. He stated that they could deal with those facts then or they could send those facts back to the department to review; that was the way it was when you had a public hearing and people came to provide new facts.
Commissioner Muir asked a question as to compatibility. He stated that Hidden Hollow and the surrounding area had long been designated as a commercial district. He asked what the appropriateness was of putting sensitive, high alpine native plant materials into the center of a commercial district that would be putting them at risk, and then argue that the commercial district should reconsider because of something introduced into it.
Ms. Duer stated that she had not been a part of the process that created the Hollow and identified it as a conservation easement. It was approved and established by the City Council. She said that the plants introduced into the area were not sensitive if they were not in shade and that Hidden Hollow had originally been designed with the current code that limited building height to thirty (30) feet. It was designed as a full sun site because that was what it was.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any other questions. No questions were heard.
Vic Ayers, a property owner, stated that he was concerned about the wording that described the acquiring of additional residential sites by allowing higher buildings by bringing in a residential component. Mr. Ayers recommended that the Planning Commission step back and look at how the residential component could be revised to expand the outside of the business district by acquiring property. He referred to his project; the Redman mixed use development, and stated it was a tough project to put together in an area like the Sugar House business district.
Commissioner Diamond and De Lay asked questions regarding the complexity and the natural breaks that occurred in the Sugar House Business District. Mr. Ayers recommended that the plan be revisited and revised.
Mark Petersen stated there was a good concept for a mixed use area in Sugar House. That concept was driven by residential density and structured parking, which were the two issues needed to make it work. Outside of the Granite Block there was very little land that was not developed and not going to be available for development in the near future. There were very few remaining properties available to support redevelopment that could give residential density and the structured parking. He asked the Planning Commission to consider extending the CSHBD Zone 1 west on 2100 South, past McClelland Street.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Petersen. No response was heard.
Bob Plumb, property owner, expressed the view that 2100 South was a much more commercial street than 1100 East on the west side. Mr. Plumb had been a resident in Sugar House for thirty (30) years and saw it as looking better than it had been, but now feared it was becoming one big strip mall.
Barbara Green, land owner, said that this project had been worked on for a long time and she appreciated the Community Council, Cheri Coffey, Lex Traughber and the Planning Commission. She wanted diversity and more housing for the people who lived in Sugar House. She wanted increased parking in the buildings so people coming to Sugar House could find a place to park.
Craig Mecham, owner of a portion of the Granite Furniture block, said that he believed that his block was the key to the development of Sugar House. He commended the change in the recommendation and was in favor of it.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Mecham. No response was heard.
Judy Short stated that she had a hard time getting the material in a timely manner and had still been writing her comments two hours before the meeting. She distributed a hand-out that described the points that she felt were missing or left out of the recommendation. She said that many people had worked very hard on the Master Plan. She stated that she was not in favor of these amendments.
Cabot Nelson, secretary of the Community Council, spoke on behalf of his neighbors. He wanted to emphasize the need for a low density area, to keep the area residential, and to have transitional zones between the residential and commercial areas.
Sarah Carlson stated that she was a member of the Sugar House Community Council. She said she was in opposition to the text amendment of the C-SHBD Zone. She had a concern with maintaining the historic character of Sugar House. The idea seemed to be to tear down, rebuild, and put parking underneath, instead of maintaining the historic character.
Philip Carlson, member of the Community Council, stated that what happened in Sugar House affected the quality of his life. Homes would be in shadows. The historic character of the neighborhood should be preserved. He recommended that the Master Plan not be changed.
Russ Callister stated that he worked for Craig Mecham in one of the buildings on 1300 East. His concern was that a residential component would be required for the building. He said that requirement created issues such as security. He appreciated the effort to make that issue more flexible. He suggested the same flexibility be allowed in the CSHBD-2 Zone.
Derek Payne, architect and resident of Sugar House spoke. He talked about the allowable heights contained in the proposed rezoning. He said he understood the development pressures that people were under. He said the Community Council had asked the Planning Commission, on several occasions, to show the community what the heights being proposed would look like. He did not get a response so he proposed his own drawing. He stated that one of the goals of the zoning modifications was to honor the historic scale and mass of the buildings along 2100 South. He felt that was not being done in this proposed amendment.
Ruth Price, resident of Sugar House, Stakeholder and trustee of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that she did not want more height in buildings but realized that there was growth and if Sugar House could not grow out it must grow up. She said to not impose the public part onto the private part of Sugar House.
Dennis Glass did not wish to speak. Chairperson Chambless read his card. It stated that Mr. Glass supported the request to include more area to the west on 2100 South in the high density district (CSHBD-1).
Mark Holland, Chair of Sugar House Community Council, briefly referred to the comments of Derek Payne, and stated that Mr. Payne had given the discussion texture by showing what a one hundred (100) foot building would look like. Mr. Holland then referenced the traffic problem in Sugar House and what it would be like with buildings one hundred five (105) feet tall. He asked if anyone would want to shop in an area like that. He asked what the vision truly was. He said the Community Council had a vision and asked that the Planning Commission proceed with caution.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions of Mr. Holland. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing. Discussion was closed. Chairperson Chambless asked for comments from staff and Cheri Coffey then stated that, for the record, she wanted to acknowledge that the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake had submitted a letter in support of their property on Wilmington Avenue being zoned with the Sugar House Business District 1 Zone. She further stated that the Redevelopment Agency had owned that property longer than the Hidden Hollow trail had been developed and that the current zoning on their property allowed for a ninety (90) foot high building. The Ballet West proposal was designed for a building of about thirty (30) feet, but that there was no restriction on the property that only a thirty (30) foot high building could be built.
Chairperson Chambless asked for any questions for staff. Commissioner De Lay asked if the letter was separate from the letter received from the Director of the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Coffey said there were two (2) letters. The first letter related specifically to the property on Wilmington Avenue. There was also a memo that had been submitted September 14, 2005 that talked about the Redevelopment Agency’s goal of working to implement the policies of the Master Plan. Commissioner Diamond then referred to a memo from Judy Short. Commissioner Muir addressed Commissioner Diamond, stating that some people were equating a lack of being heard by not seeing the final document directly reflecting their position. He felt that what the Planning Commissioners ought to get to was the idea of “had people had an adequate hearing”. He stated it was an impossibility to hope that all people would see their position reflected in the final document.
Commissioner Diamond referred to Mr. Traughber and asked, regarding the issue of design guidelines as it related to the proposed zoning and developer that came into the City, what his thinking was and did he discuss it with staff. He asked if he felt there should be a guideline for the people that came into the Planning Office to see what their option were with their property Mr. Traughber stated that staff did just that with the public on a daily basis. Copies of the ordinance and the Master Plan were available to give to the public.
Mr. Zunguze asked Chairperson Chambless to have Ms. Coffey address the issues of the design guidelines and the Master Plan. Ms. Coffey reiterated that one of the goals was to take the guidelines out of the Master Plan and codify them in the zoning ordinance. The second item was that money had been received to develop the Sugar House Business District Small Area Plan. That project was wrapped into what was done with the Master Plan Amendment project but money was still available to publish design guidelines. She stated that after the amendments were adopted by the City Council, the guidelines would be refined to meet the changes that had been adopted and something similar to a visual pamphlet would be printed to help people who wanted to know what the vision of Sugar House was in terms of the guidelines.
Mr. Traughber stated that there was development language in the Master Plan and it had been proposed to remove that language and put it in the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commissioners, Mr. Traughber, Ms. Coffey and Mr. Zunguze then discussed what had been removed or should have been removed from the Master Plan and the Guidelines regarding issues such as height, sidewalk width, and terraced buildings. Mr. Traughber stated that the City would hire a person to draw the design guidelines in the form of diagrams to reflect those guidelines in the handbook. Mr. Zunguze stated that the regulations had been moved from the Master Plan because the Master Plan was a policy document and he wanted the regulation accessible for the general public to see.
For the purposes of the motion, Mr. Zunguze said that the guidelines in the appendix at the end of the Master Plan, should be taken verbatim, as stated, and be the guiding requirements for any development in that district.
Ms. Coffey stated that if the Planning Commissioners recommended approval of the staff recommendation, it would be approval of staff recommendation except in reference to the adopted design guidelines, which would not be changed.
At this point there was again general discussion among the Planning Commissioners regarding the number of years that work had been done on the Master Plan.
Commissioner Galli proposed that certain conditions and language be required and made a part of this report and approval.
Commissioner McDonough asked for clarification on the issue of modification regarding 1) how the language would actually be adopted into the ordinance so parcels affecting the shadow lines around Hidden Hollow could be reviewed and 2) who would review them. Ms. Coffey stated that everything in the Sugar House Business District was under the Conditional Building and Site Design Review. Commissioner Galli said that his language stated it applied to all future construction.
Chairperson Chambless then asked for discussion and/or a motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-01-32 and Petition No. 400-02-08:
Commissioner Galli moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-01-32 and Petition No. 400-02-08 based on the analysis and findings outlined in the staff memo and subject to the specific stated conditions by the Planning Commissioners, hereby made a part of this report. 1) A recommendation was submitted with language that staff prepared which indicated that it was the sense of the Commission that the proposed zoning amendment be further amended to prohibit shadow length of future construction from encroaching on the Hidden Hollow natural area to the degree that vegetation could be unreasonably adversely impacted and 2) That language be modified to clarify that the design guideline handbook should either be incorporated by reference or otherwise insured that the future development was consistent with the design guidelines. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, and Commissioner Muir voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Nay”. Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig were not present. The vote was tied requiring a vote by the Chair.
Discussion by the Planning Commissioners continued. Commissioner Noda stated that she had concerns about reneging on the Master Plan that had been worked on for five years or more. She felt that the zoning ordinance over rode everything and further study was needed. She had concerns on the impact to Sugar House. A building height, as proposed, would negatively impact 2100 South in particular and traffic would be a major concern.
Commissioner McDonough stated she understood the compromise but did not like the potential impact. She felt the zoning map should be changed.
Commissioner Muir said that on the original Master Plan there was a distinction as you move north on 1100 East that could be returned to. He asked if that would be an amendment if we had a transition from Zone 1 to Zone 2 along the line that was pre-existing at that point.
Commissioner De Lay reiterated concerns stated by the Commissioners. The major points of concern were the Guidelines, shadows, and height of buildings. She stated she was amazed at those concerns because of the amount of work, hearings and input that had occurred. She asked Commissioner McDonough if she would propose an amendment or would just flat out reject it. Commissioner McDonough stated that she had already flat out rejected the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Diamond stated that he had already strongly voiced his concerns regarding this amendment and he agreed with Commissioner McDonough on the area along 1100 East, going north past the Wells Fargo Building. He said that careful consideration was needed as that zone goes towards the west on 2100 South and abuts residents.
Commissioner De Lay asked Commissioner Diamond if he could recommend an amendment. Commissioner Galli asked if a circle could be drawn around the area in question on the map. The area center was 1100 East and 2100 South. Commissioner Diamond stated that his other issue was height. Commissioner Galli asked Commissioner Diamond to draw circles around the areas on the map where he had height concerns. The Commissioners discussed the areas in the circles that had been drawn, areas of concern, height concerns and the amount of time and work that had gone into the amendment.
Commissioner De Lay questioned whether they were out of order with the discussion after the vote and was told by the Chairperson Chambless that they were not out of order. Mr. Zunguze suggested that Chairperson Chambless vote. Chairperson Chambless stated he was waiting to determine if a subsequent motion would be put forward. He stated that if he were to vote he would find that there was a reasonable doubt and would therefore vote “No”. After further discussion and no resolution by the Commissioners, Commissioner Galli called for Chairperson Chambless to vote. Chairperson Chambless voted No. The motion failed.
Commissioner Noda moved to table the items and form a subcommittee, members to be determined, to further discuss the height and traffic issues. Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Diamond vote “Yea”. Commissioner Galli and Commissioner De Lay voted “Nay”. The motion passed. The subcommittee would consist of Commissioner Noda, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Diamond.
Ms. Coffey asked if it would be a public hearing or be the Planning Commission discussing the subcommittee’s recommendation when it comes back to the full Commission. Chairperson Chambless stated that it would have to be a public meeting. Ms. Coffey said it would have to be a “public meeting” but it did not have to be a “public hearing”. She stated that Chairperson Chambless had closed the public hearing. Commissioner De Lay asked if the subcommittee would be open to the public so that the public would be aware of what was happening. Chairperson Chambless said it would be on the agenda. Ms. Coffey summarized, stating that it would be a public meeting, the public hearing was closed and the discussion would be the subcommittee’s recommendation.
Petition No. 400-04-46, to amend the text to allow indoor recreation as a conditional use in the Business Park District.
Petition No. 410-708, to request approval for West Pointe Business Center for four lot Planned Development Subdivision to allow rear lots without frontage onto a City street and modifications to setbacks and landscaping. The project is located at approximately 1490 North 2200 West and is located in the BP Zoning District.
Petition No. 410-746, to allow Winners Motorsports at approximately 1490 North 2200 West, to have indoor go-cart racing and interactive entertainment in the BP district.
At 9:28 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-04-46, Petition No.410-708, Petition No. 410-746, and Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner. Ms. Gasparik stated that this was a text amendment to allow in-door recreation in the BP zone. The applicant, Press Realty Advisors, proposed three (3) petitions. Staff had researched the proposed use of adding in-door recreation to the PB zone and had also reviewed similar facilities around the county. When the BP zone was created, in-door recreation was not included because that type of adult entertainment use had not been heard of. The Planning staff supported the addition of in-door recreation to the BP zone as a Conditional Use. Staff felt that Conditional Use balances the comments received from other City departments and from the community; that in-door recreation could be reviewed on a case by case basis. Ms. Gasparik further stated that in-door recreation was allowed in the commercial zone and in the downtown Salt Lake City. However, those areas in the existing fabric of the City did not allow for large enough lots or buildings for the types of uses that they were being proposed. Staff supported the in-door recreation as a Conditional Use subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Ms. Gasparik stated that the Planned Development Subdivision could be developed as a typical subdivision. However, the two (2) rear lots would not have frontage onto a public street with the proposed plan. Following the City standards for proper ingress and egress to get to the back of the building on the property would create a very large cul-de-sac that would use a significant portion of the applicant’s property. She stated that was why the petitioner proposed a business park design. The site had been particularly difficult for the applicant because this rear area was actually a regional detention pond. Because of freeway landscaping requirements, the applicant had requested that two (2) modifications be made through the Plan Development approval.
1) Freeway landscaping that would normally be required be relocated to Lot three (3), and
2) Remaining landscape would be included in the front set back area of Lot two (2).
Ms. Gasparik stated that the subject property was located within the West Valley Fault Zone. The applicant had previously dug three (3) trenches to study the location of the fault on his property and found it did run near the regional detention area. Salt Lake County’s fault recommendation stated that the buildings would have to be set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet from that fault. The applicant’s plan exceeded that distance. Staff recommended approval.
Ms. Gasparik said that through the Community Council process, the site was identified as possibly having Native American Indian archeological artifacts or human remains. When contacted, the State recommended that a consultant be hired to submit a monitoring plan for those types of archeological remains and if any were found, the applicant would work with the State through the necessary procedures before continuing with the construction process. The applicant agreed. Staff recommended that the condition stated be followed closely on this project.
The applicant had a tenant to rent Building #2 and stated that the tenant would complete some internal improvements. As required in the BP zone, all uses had to be completely enclosed. The use would be for in-door miniature NASCAR racing. Conferences and special events would also be held.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for staff. Commissioner Diamond asked Ms. Gasparik if the three (3) buildings were currently standing. She stated that the only building on site was building #1 that would be on proposed Lot #1. The project would be completed in phases. The rear building would be Phase two (2), in which they would now construct buildings and occupy. Phases three (3) and four (4) would come when the owner had tenants for those buildings.
Chairperson asked for comments from the petitioner.
Dave Murdock, owner of Press Realty, and the petitioner for the project, spoke. He asked if the Planning Commissioners would like to ask any questions. The Commissioners asked the speed of the go-carts and the age limit requirement for driving. Mr. Brandon Burton responded that the carts could reach speeds of forty (40) miles per hour, and they had a height requirement instead of an age requirement because of coordination skills needed to maneuver the carts.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any Community Council members who wished to speak. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-46, Petition No.410-708, and Petition No. 490-05-39:
Commissioner Noda moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-04-46, Petition No. 410-708, and Petition No. 410-746, based on the analysis and findings outlined in the staff memorandum. Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig were not present. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Commissioner McDonough stated that for the record, she would like to disclose that she lived very close to the Sugar House zoning that had been discussed. It was the opinion of the other Commissioners that is was unnecessary to disclose or disqualify herself on this issue.
Commissioner Diamond stated that he felt all material for the meeting should be included in the packet given to the Commissioners before the meeting and not distributed to them during the meeting. Chairperson Chambless stated that the timing of handouts and letters was a technique used by various committees, and businesses to inundate the Commissioners with information.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Commission had received a report regarding the Research Park Conditional Use petition. He said certain parties were getting together to talk and he felt that the issues being discussed were more long range than originally thought. He would like to suggest that the Commission consider the last motion passed that stated that until all issues were resolved, the Commission would not entertain any other Conditional Use for review for that neighborhood. Mr. Zunguze was concerned about the potential impact of the perception of Research Park being shut down for further business. He asked that the Planning Commission lift the hammer and staff would report what progress had been made at every meeting or every other meeting, because the whole area had to be looked at in a comprehensive and long-range way.
Chairperson Chambless stated that he had some ambivalence with this issue because in the 1980’s that very issue had been raised with Charlie Evans and the University of Utah. At that time it was decided to roll ahead, not be concerned with traffic, get as many businesses in Research Park as possible, and not meet the concerns that were being raised. Chairperson Chambless stated he was reluctant to remove the hammer.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the issue would not be resolved today or tomorrow, but perhaps would be next year, with major improvements required for the streets involved in the Park. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to shut down Research Park until all issues had been resolved in two or three years. Chairperson Chambless responded that he would leave the hammer on and talk about the issue at the September 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. by Chairperson Chambless.