SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Judi Short, Gilbert lker, Carlton Christensen, Andrea Barrows, Craig Mariger, Aria Funk, Fred Fife, Max Smith and Jim McRea. Diana Kirk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Everett Joyce, Robert Glessner and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:15p.m. by Mr. Young. Minutes are presented in agenda order,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
Mr. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, September 4, 1997 subject to the minor corrections being made. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Christensen, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. Smith and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Request by University Courtyard for approval of a condominium conversion application for a 34 unit. five building apartment complex located at 31 0 South 800 East. 320 South 800 East. 808 East 300 South. 818 East 300 South. 319 South 800 East in a Residential "RMF-35" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Wright stated that preliminary approval allows the petitioner to proceed with the concept of condominium ownership assuming that all improvements are made. Prior to final approval, all improvements will need to be completed or bonded.
Mr. Keith Meade, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
The Planning Commission asked questions of Mr. Meade regarding the information contained in the engineer's report, a copy of which is attached to the staff report. Some of the concerns addressed were the electrical upgrading to allow for dishwashers and disposals, roof repairs and the age of the boilers. Another concern that was discussed was regarding whether or not the project could be divided into more than one condominium association.
Mr. Meade stated that the owner is willing to comply with the Planning Commission's reasonable demands.
Mr. lker stated that he would like to see, as part of the preliminary approval, a specific disclosure prepared for potential buyers so that they will be aware of any future problems that could arise.
After a suggestion being made to hire an independent engineer to prepare another report, Mr. Smith stated that he feels that the Planning Commission may be overstepping their bounds. He then stated that the Planning Commission should rely on the City staff and their ability to review the report and make their recommendation.
Mr. Wright stated that perhaps the Planning Commission could ask the Building Official to review the engineer's report again and carefully assess each item and make a specific written finding for each item. Mr. Smith agreed with Mr. Wright's suggestion.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Drew Ross, a resident in the area, wanted to know if the driveway repairs will stop people from parking in the alley way, on the existing sidewalk, because the parked cars make it difficult for people to access the rear units.
Mr. Wright stated that one way to discourage parking on the sidewalk is to have a raised lip so that the roadway and the sidewalk are not the same grade.
Mr. Ross would like to see the majority of the units owner occupied and asked if there is a requirement that states how many units will need to be owner occupied. Ms. Pahl stated that there is nothing written in the bylaws as to how many units would need to be owner occupied. Some types of financing would require 70% of the units to be owner occupied.
Mr. Jeff Taylor, owner of several rental properties in the area, stated that he feels that the condominium project, as opposed to an apartment complex, will increase the traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Taylor then stated that he would like the Planning Commission to consider the needs of the neighborhood before a decision is made. Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission,
Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for the University Courtyard condominium conversion:
Ms. Short moved, based upon information needed for a decision, to table the University Courtyard condominium conversion at this time and send it back to staff for further study with the following recommendations:
1. That the building official detail the condition of the properties and detail what may need to be repaired in the next five years and that the building official include some kind of a seismic report.
2. That staff consider if the condominium conversion project can be split into more than one condominium association.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye~~. Mr. lker, Mr. Christensen and Mr. Smith voted "Nay”. Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-278 by AirTouch Cellular requesting a conditional use for a cellular telecommunication antenna to be located on the roof of an existing building located at 150 West North Temple in a Residential "R-MU" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Barrows asked if the petitioner has approached the owner of the building to see if the antenna could be placed within the interior of the parapet making the owner aware that it would not change the facade of the building.
Mr. McCandless stated that he would have the petitioner answer that question.
Mr. Gary Jones, representing AirTouch Cellular, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. He stated that he has not approached the owner of the building in relation to putting the antenna in the interior parapet of the building.
Ms. Barrows asked if he would be willing to approach the owner to see if placing the antennae in the parapet would be acceptable due to the fact that the residents do not want cellular antennae to be visible.
Mr. Jones stated that he would be willing to ask the owner, however, he feels that the owner will not be receptive to the idea.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-278:
Ms. Barrows moved to table Petition No. 41 0-278 with the following recommendation:
1. That the petitioner return to the property owner and attempt to have the antenna located within the interior of the parapet. If the owner agrees, the placement of the antenna will be a permitted use and will not need to be returned to the Planning Commission. If the owner does not agree, the petitioner will need to return to the Planning Commission for further discussion.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Christensen, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. Smith and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wright mentioned to the petitioner that, if they would like, Planning staff can arrange to be present at the meeting involving the property owner.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-66 by Jerry Hatch requesting Salt Lake City to rezone the property at 2529 Stratford Avenue from a Residential "R-1-7000" to a Residential "RMF-30" zoning district. Mr. Hatch is also requesting approval for a minor subdivision. combining three parcels into two lots. one fronting on Stratford Avenue and the other fronting on 800 East Street.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Jerry Hatch, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Paul Mecham, a resident in the area, stated that he supports the request. He then asked if the Planning Commission approval could be contingent upon Mr. Hatch's success in building what would be allowed. If Mr. Hatch does not build what is allowed, can the zoning be reverted back to the "R-1-7000"?
Mr. Lynn Pace, City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission cannot rezone a property and then have it revert back. The Planning Commission can require that conditions are met prior to the property being rezoned.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young
closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea excused himself from the meeting.
Motion for Petition No. 400-95-66:
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minor subdivision to create two lots, one fronting on 800 East and the other fronting on Stratford Avenue. Mr. Christensen further moved, based upon the findings of fact and the Future Land Use Plan of the Sugar House Community Master Plan, to recomn1end approval to the City Council to rezone the subject parcel from a "R-1-7000" to a "RMF-30" zoning classification based upon the following condition:
1. That the ordinance not be published until a building permit application for the proposed elderly residential health care facility is submitted and meets zoning requirements.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. Smith and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-276 by Sudweeks Development for approval of a 21 unit Residential Planned Development located at 625 N. Redwood Road in a Residentiai"R-1-5000" zoning district.
Mr. Smith noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Reconsideration of Petition No. 400-96-51 by Aline White requesting Salt Lake City to rezone the properties at 563 and 575 South 700 East and 703 and 705 East 600 South from a Residential "RMF-45" to a Residential "RB" zoning district.
Mr. Smith declared a conflict of interest on this matter, recused himself and left the room. He did not participate in the discussion or the vote.
Mr. Robert Glessner presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He stated that one item of concern for the petitioner is the duration of the Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions. The petitioner is requesting a 20 year time period where at the end of the time frame the Declaration would be reviewed and reconsidered by the Planning Commission. Staff believes that a 50 year time frame is more appropriate because of the unique nature of this proposal which is dependent on compliance by the property owner. Mr. Glessner continued by stating that another item of concern for the petitioner is the time frame allotted for completion of the improvements. The Declaration allows one year for the property owners to rehabilitate the property and the three structures prior to the zone change being recorded. The petitioner is requesting two years to complete the improvements after the zone change is recorded. An amended version of the Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions was distributed to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Lynn Pace, City Attorney, noted the changes that were made to the Declaration. The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of staff regarding the contents of the Declaration.
Mr. Eric Lee, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting. Also present were Mr. Lincoln White, Ms. Janet White and Aline White. He stated that he would like a few changes made to the Declaration. He then stated that one year to complete the improvements, given the costs the White family has incurred so far, may be financially taxing. Also, the petitioners are concerned with the Planning Director's discretion of complete authority over site and exterior building improven1ents.
Mr. Lee continued by stating that the petitioners are willing to comply on these issues but they feel that the 50 year duration of the CCR's is too long. Mr. Lee stated that the White family feels that, to be fair, the duration of the CCR's should be 20 years.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Lee if the White family had the financial means to complete the improvements within the one year time frame. Ms. Janet White responded by stating the financial means has been possible because the entire family has pooled their money together.
Mr. Wilde commented on the 50 year duration time frame. He stated that the main concern of the Planning staff is the preservation of the buildings, which is the reason for the 50 year duration.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Rosemary Kappes, President of the Housing Development Corporation, (owners of the three story building directly behind the White's property) stated she is in favor of the agreements and the rezoning and that she is not pleased with the current use of the buildings. Ms. Kappes is concerned about the abandoned cars, the weeds and other zoning enforcement issues and feels that having the agreement include oversight of the maintenance is a good idea. She stated that she would like to see the rehab done in a quality fashion with daily maintenance so that the buildings can be successfully preserved.
Mr. Ron Love, representative for the East Central Community Council, stated that the council supports the rezoning and that they regret that there is no adequate zone to allow the White's to do what they would like to do with this property. The East Central Community Council's approval was hinged upon the Planning staff developing a zoning district that will be adequate for the White's and that will protect the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilde stated that he feels that the East Central Community Council is wanting a new zoning district that would allow some business use that does not include a provision for new construction. The Planning staff will be working to research options.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young
closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Short asked what would happen if the petition was approved and the improvements were not made within the one year time frame. Mr. Pace stated that if the rezoning is based upon the improvements being completed within a one year time frame, and it is not met, the rezoning could not be finalized because the condition was not met.
Mr. Wilde then stated that the Planning Director has to accept and approve the improvements before the rezoning can be finalized.
Ms. Funk asked if the White's were allowed to work on one building at a time, could they be able start using the building before the zoning is changed?
Mr. Pace stated that this concept has been explored and there was a concern that the entire site would not be landscaped. The safest way to handle staggering the building improvements would be to recorr1mend to the City Council that there be three separate ordinances, each of them contingent upon landscaping of the entire site.
Motion for Petition No. 400-96-51:
Mr. Mariger moved, based upon the findings of fact, to reconsider the Planning Commission's previous recommendation to deny the petition and recommend approval based on the following:
1. The Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions will preserve the existing structures, limit the types of commercial land uses, require building and site improvements, and property maintenance as stated in Exhibit and the Conditions of Approval. The duration of the Declaration shall be attached to the land for 50 years and all improvements completed in one year.
2. The "RB" zoning district would allow new opportunities to rehabilitate the properties by permitting commercial uses.
3. The "RB" zoning district perrr1its single family and two family dwelling units which is consistent with existing structures and will continue to be permitted land use types.
Mr. Mariger further moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for Petition No. 400-96-51 with the following conditions:
1. The zone change will occur after the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions is recorded and that a certificate of occupancy is issued. The property owner has one year to complete the improvements.
2. The property owner shall comply to the recommendations of the property owner's structural engineer.
3. The property owner shall comply with the requirements of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
4. All building and structural improvements as shown on Exhibit 5 must comply to commercial uniform building code standards.
5. All landscaping and exterior building improvements must be approved by the Planning Director prior to commencement of the improvements and must be completed prior to certificate of occupancy.
6. All asphalting and paving for the parking lot, curbs, sidewalks and ramps for ADA accessibility must be constructed prior to certificate of occupancy.
7. The Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall be in effect for a period not less than 50 years.
8. Failure to comply with the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall initiate the process for a zone amendment to change the zoning.
9. The property owners waive their right to protest a City initiated zone change if the City determined that the property owners failed to comply with the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions or becomes a nuisance to the neighborhood. The property owner also waives their right to protest as a non-conforming use.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted "Aye". Mr. Smith was recused. Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Federal Way Closure Update
Mr. Wright and Ms. Pahl led the discussion. Mr. Wright stated that at the August 7, 1997 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider whether or not to close Federal Way. The Planning Commission's decision was to table this request and that there needs to be further study in relation to traffic counts, other possible options and traffic mitigation. Mr. Wright continued by stating that at the request of the Planning Commission, the Transportation Division reviewed their traffic study which concluded that the best approach will be to proceed with the street closure.
They reaffirmed their original position. The East Central Community Council has also reviewed this request after it was initially heard at the Planning Commission. The East Central Community Council had no objection to the closure. A few letters have been sent from neighbors stating their opinion of what should be implemented. Copies of those letters are filed with the minutes.
Discussion included topics such as changing Federal Way to a one-way street instead of closing the street, traffic mitigation and considering the needs of the neighborhood.
Ms. Mary McDonald, Chair of the Traffic Committee for the Avenues Community Council, was present and briefed the Planning Commission regarding the progress that has been made since the last meeting. She stated that a meeting has been held to gather the concerns from the neighborhood and that a Traffic Calming Forum will be held in November. All the neighbors that live within the boundaries of the Avenues Community Council will be invited to attend to learn about traffic calming procedures. It was decided that the Planning Commission will hold another hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Federal Way Closure petition at their October 16th meeting.
Continuation of discussion of Gateway Master Plan Issues
This discussion was postponed until the October 2"d Planning Commission meeting. Discussion concerning Homeless Shelters.
Mr. Wright distributed a staff report prepared by Ms. Cheri Coffey in response to a Legislative Action by Salt Lake City Council for analysis of homeless shelters. Mr. Wright stated that there will be a discussion in reference to this staff report at a future Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Funk asked Planning staff to review the conditional use regulations and discuss the options to change the density language in the ordinance.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.