SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Laurie Noda. Jeff Jonas was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; and Planners Ray McCandless, Jackie Gasparik, Joel Paterson, and Doug Dansie.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, September 5, 2002
Prescott Muir referred to Page 18, bottom paragraph, and noted that references to RP should be changed to RFP.
John Diamond referred to Page 2, last paragraph, second sentence, and noted that reference to the proposed changes being discussed should read, underlined bold text rather than underlined bold. He referred to Page 4, third paragraph, and noted that 300 South should be changed to 3rd South. He referred to Page 5, last paragraph, the sentence reading, “Mr. Love asked the Planning Commission to take a good look at the Planning Division..” and asked that the sentence be corrected to read, “Mr. Love asked the Planning Commission to take a good look at the Planning Division Staff..” Arla Funk noted that the word “division” was misspelled in the text.
Mr. Diamond referred to page 11, second paragraph near the bottom, and asked that the sentence reading, “Mr. Diamond felt that 120 feet was appropriate within a few blocks” be changed to read, “Mr. Diamond felt that 120 feet was appropriate within a few blocks of the center of the City.” He referred to Page 15, last paragraph, and asked that the second sentence reflect that “Mr. Diamond did not believe any restriction should be placed on the property.”
Motion
Prescott Muir moved to approve the minutes as amended. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr Jonas was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-607, by Airport Valet Parking, Inc., requesting a Conditional Use approval for a commercial parking lot located at 25 North 2400 West in a Corridor Commercial “CC” zoning district.
Planner Ray McCandless used an aerial photograph to orient the Planning Commission to the site and reviewed the petition as presented in the staff report. He stated that this property is the at the end of the commercial corridor zoning which extends along North Temple for some distance. The entire 15-foot frontage of the property will be landscaped as required in the zoning ordinance. Building materials will be stucco, brick, and a rock veneer. The entire site will be enclosed with a fence, and the petitioner is considering using vinyl slats within the fencing. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this request subject to meeting all applicable City department concerns, including Planning Director approval of the final landscaping plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
Brent Parrish, the petitioner, stated that his vision for this project was based on convenience rather than the need for more parking spaces for the airport. The airport has plenty of spaces, and there are currently two competent off-site airport parking facilities. This project is for the convenience of the traveler getting to and from their destination. Ms. Funk asked if a new fence would be installed or if vinyl slats would be added to the existing fence. Mr. Parrish replied that the fence will be chain link and slatted so it will not look junky. He explained that this will be the only 100% covered parking facility available at or near the airport, and the parking canopies will be corrugated aluminum. The building will have the same covering, so when travelers arrive they will have a more pleasant view than the flat, weed-filled area that now exists. Mr. Parrish remarked that extensive landscape plans have been submitted, including a sidewalk. The existing fence is in generally good repair, but it needs to be altered to match their plans. Anything that is not in good repair will be fixed.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Milton Drake, representing Park and Jet, an airport parking facility on North Temple, asked if the Planning Commission was aware that the Salt Lake City Airport master plan calls for a service similar to the one proposed by Mr. Parrish. If the airport plans a high-level valet service in the future, it seemed that Mr. Parrish would be in direct competition with the airport plans. Mr. Drake stated that the covered parking at both Park and Jet and Diamond Airport Parking on Redwood Road result in an excess of covered parking that is not being used. Since September 11, 2001, airport parking usage has been down significantly. He noted that another company which offered covered parking for half their parking went out of business earlier this year because the market could not support either covered or long-term parking. Mr. Drake stated that he wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of the problems that already exist in airport parking and the ability to survive in that business.
Richard Daems, the project architect, responded to the question regarding fencing. He stated that the fencing will be new because slats cannot be installed adequately in the old fence. In response to the comment about the parking provider that went out of business, he believed location was the main reason it went out of business because it was hard to find and difficult to get to.
George Paulson, also with Park and Jet, remarked that this parking project is not needed due to the excess capacity in the two existing parking facilities. He stated that Salt Lake Airport already has adequate covered parking with a lot of excess capacity in their own facility. He reiterated that valet parking is part of the airport master plan. He was concerned about the safety issue that would be created by people trying to turn left onto North Temple.
Jim Schmick, representing Diamond Airport Parking, commented on the national organization from Atlanta, Georgia, that was in Salt Lake for two years and spent a lot of money trying to make their operation work. He stated that he had extensive conversations with them while they were here, and one thing they were very pointed about was that this market is not ready for a third off-site parking facility. He was told that they made a miscalculation in coming to Salt Lake, and maybe in five or ten years when the community grows, they may consider it again. Mr. Schmick noted that Mr. Parrish was proposing canopy parking, which is different from covered parking. He had offered covered parking in two enclosed buildings. Park and Fly went with that concept and found it was not a workable situation. Mr. Schmick stated that it has been a tough market since September 11, 2001, and combined with the economic downturn, the airline industry has taken a hit. He commented that adding another facility to compete in this already saturated market would not help the community at this time. He believed the Planning Commission should look at the impacts to the community and existing businesses and stated that it is not about losing money, it is about taking care of the businesses that are already here.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Funk felt it was appropriate to explain to those who testified this evening that it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission to decide whether someone does or does not open a new business. That is their choice and their risk. She explained that the Planning Commission can only evaluate whether it is a proper land use for the location. She stated that she was asking about the fence because she was concerned that 15 feet of landscaping would be obscured by a fence. It was explained that the fence will be behind the landscaping.
Motion for Petition 410-607
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition No. 410-607 for airport valet parking based on the findings of fact in the staff report, including that it meets all department concerns and that the Planning Director will have final approval of the landscaping. Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed development requires conditional use approval by the Planning Commission.
B. The proposed development is consistent with the zoning on the property provided all conditions of approval are met.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures in the area.
H. The proposed landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural, and environmental features of the property.
J. The hours of operation are similar to those of adjoining uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development must meet all applicable City codes and ordinances prior to issuance of a building permit.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Chair and Vice-Chair Nominations
Time permitted the Planning Commission to discuss nominations for chair and vice-chair prior to the next petition.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that, when he reviewed the bylaws, he noticed that the Planning Commission has been operating under the old October 1 rule, and the Planning Commission voted last year to change the bylaws to September 1. If nominations are made this evening, they will be on schedule for a vote on October 3.
Ms. Arnold asked whether the Planning Commission voted to approve the bylaws. Mr. Goldsmith replied that the only thing not approved were the amendments, and the amendments do not relate to nominations or voting.
Ms. Arnold nominated Tim Chambless for Chair. Mr. Chambless accepted the nomination. Ms. Funk nominated Jeff Jonas in absentia since he was not present.
Chair Daniels understood that Ms. Funk had less than a year left on her term and asked if it was appropriate to nominate someone who could serve for less than a year. Mr. Goldsmith was unaware of anything in the bylaws that would keep that from happening. It would create a gap, and the Vice-Chair would take over until the following September. Ms. Funk stated that the outcome of the Chair’s election would affect her decision on the Vice-Chair, and she preferred to keep the voting separate.
Chair Daniels nominated Arla Funk for Chair and noted that her learning and experience could benefit the Planning Commission. Ms. Funk asked the Commissioners how they felt about nominating the same people for Chair and Vice-Chair. Chair Daniels felt an appropriate procedure was to nominate a person for all the offices, and they could choose to accept or decline.
Ms. Funk nominated Tim Chambless, Jeff Jonas, and herself for Vice-Chair.
Ms. Arnold nominated Prescott Muir for Chair and Vice-Chair.
Ms. Arnold moved to close the nominations.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that a ballot will be prepared for voting on October 3. Ms. Funk reiterated her earlier preference and recommended that the ballots be kept separate, with the first ballot electing a Chair and the second ballot electing a Vice-Chair. She asked for an announcement of the results of the vote for Chair before voting on the Vice-Chair. The Commissioners concurred.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING - Preliminary Foothill Subdivision, requested by Amir S. Cornell, for a preliminary subdivision approval of a one-lot foothill subdivision, located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive, in a Foothill Residential “FR-3" zoning district.
Planner Jackie Gasparik reviewed the proposal as presented in the staff report. She noted that the staff report names Von Brockbank as the property owner; however, Amir Cornell has recently purchased the property, making Mr. Cornell the applicant and the property owner. She explained that this is an issues only hearing, and the purpose this evening is to hear comment from the neighborhood or community. She reported that a number of calls have been received from the neighbors supporting this project. A letter was faxed to the Commissioners from Diane Nielson expressing concerns about wildlife crossing the property, and Ms. Gasparik faxed Ms. Nielson a copy of the ordinance which identifies the type of fencing allowed in the Foothill zone. Ms. Nielsen was unable to attend this evening but will have the opportunity to comment when this item is scheduled for public hearing and action. Ms. Gasparik noted that the staff report states that this parcel was originally proposed as a lot in the Perry’s Hollow Subdivision. In 1993, the Planning Commission removed this lot from the subdivision because the buildable area was narrow and small, and they were concerned about the type of home that could be built on it. She explained that when the applicant came in with this proposal, the Staff suggested that he propose a home on the site to show its buildability and to address questions that were raised when this lot was looked at as part of the subdivision.
Amir Cornell, the applicant, stated that he currently lives 1,000 feet from this property. He likes the neighborhood, so he purchased this lot. The lot is small and has only .0395 buildable acre, which is about 1,700 square feet. The home will be two or three bedrooms, which is sufficient for him. He commented on the wildlife issue and stated that he would not block any wildlife from coming down the hill because the house is small and there will be no fences on the property. He identified a trail connection the City built for bicyclists and hikers on the Bonneville Trail between the Richland Drive cul-de-sac and the old dirt road, and commented that sometimes bikers park their cars for five to eight hours in front of his property on North Bonneville Drive and occasionally leave their animals locked in their cars. He noted that bikers can stand at the top of the hill and look inside everyone’s house, and his neighbors believe that if he builds his house, it will prevent bikers from going up the hill and provide more privacy for their houses. This would force bikers to use the trail connection provided by the City, which is further from their homes.
Mr. Chambless asked about the type of wildlife in the area. Mr. Cornell replied that deer come at night and pass through to the cemetery. Sometimes during the winter they see deer during the day. Mr. Chambless asked if there was wildlife as large as elk. Mr. Cornell replied that he had never seen elk in the area.
Ms. McDonough asked Mr. Cornell about his plans for the rear portion of the lot and how the slope would meet the house. Mr. Cornell stated that he intends to have a rock wall at the back of the house. Ms. McDonough asked if he planned to excavate and terrace. Mr. Cornell replied that he would not excavate anything more than what is allowed under the zoning ordinance. He noted that the backyard will be very small and accessible from the first level.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Dona Sario, a neighborhood at 299 East North Bonneville, commented that Mr. Cornell may not be aware of the fact that moose and elk do come down into the area. Mr. Chambless explained that his question came from an awareness of elk and moose being large animals and that this lot has traditionally been open space. Mr. Cornell noted that a “No Hunting” sign has been posted on the property, and he would not have a problem keeping that sign.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Diamond asked about the different drawings of schemes that were provided to the Planning Commission. He asked if Mr. Cornell was looking to the Planning Staff to provide direction on what plan would fit best on the site and with the zoning. Ms. Gasparik clarified that the previous owner and Mr. Cornell have consulted with several design professionals to come up with a design that meets the criteria of the buildable area. The original owner brought in schemes that required variances for the front and back yards. Ms. Gasparik explained that her intent in providing the drawings was to show how the project has progressed. Mr. Cornell hired a designer, and they were quick in providing three different schemes of the same floor plan with different elevations and finish options. Mr. Diamond felt this addressed a point raised at the retreat about the Planning Staff helping the public with how the buildings fit within the environment. He was curious to see if that actually happened, because some schemes are stronger than others and more sympathetic to the landscape. Ms. Gasparik stated that she did speak with Mr. Cornell and his designer. The Staff has discussed this issue, and they do not feel they have the design background to work with the applicant in that capacity. She suggested the possibility of an architecture committee created by the Planning Commission to help the Staff with these matters. She noted that the Staff has turned to the Historic Landmark Commission Staff to help them make some decisions in the past, but that is not a general practice.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the Staff has been working with this applicant and the prior owner for a year and a half. The land creates such a small and unusual buildable area that it will take a specific design to work on this lot. This petition has been packaged in a way that, if the petitioner cannot prove the lot is developable, they cannot get the lot. If they can prove it is developable, it will be tied to one specific house to avoid a subsequent change with a new owner. Mr. Wheelwright noted that this is the house Mr. Cornell would like to build, and it fits within the zoning parameters, but they have not looked into architectural detailing.
Greg Larson, Mr. Cornell’s designer, explained that the main level is 1,700 square feet, the top floor is 900 square feet, and the basement is 1,000 square feet, including the garage.
Mr. Chambless asked if there was an intent for future expansion. Mr. Wheelwright suggested that approval be tied to this specific design, which would preclude any expansion in the future.
Mr. Diamond commented on his experience with the California Coastal Commission and admired their ability to say whether a structure is subordinate to the landscape, and the Commission has the authority to decide if the structure is compatible. He challenged the Planning Staff to do that and help people coming in with projects to understand what it is to have a structure that fits the landscape. Mr. Goldsmith suggested two options. One would be to establish an architectural subcommittee as part of the Planning Commission which may be tied to design review. The other option would be to provide more capacity within the Planning Department. He noted that there are no urban design specialists or architectural specialists on Staff, and the City is big enough now to accommodate both positions. Mr. Goldsmith believed the first option would be better for the short term until the City can move forward with more Staff.
The Commissioners discussed the merits of an architectural subcommittee and the architectural talent that exists on the Planning Commission. Ms. Arnold felt they were too late, because this is the last house on the block. Mr. Diamond disagreed and felt that type of complacency kept the built environment from improving. Chair Daniels stated that he understood Ms. Arnold’s point, but he felt this could be the beginning of the rest of the foothill development and a good example of what could come about through liaison between the petitioner, designer, and subcommittee.
Chair Daniels directed the Staff to move ahead with this petition and expressed his interest in forming an architectural subcommittee and using the experienced people they have available.
Fine Tuning Discussion
The Planning Commission was able to discuss fine tuning issues prior to the next petition.
Mr. Wilde asked the Planning Commissioners if they were ready for more substantive discussion and whether to work with Staff or schedule a public hearing. He was looking for procedural direction before scheduling a public hearing.
Joel Paterson stated that the Staff has been working on fine tuning off and on since the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1995. They have tried to fix errors and change processes that do not match the actual process followed by the City. He noted that one item listed in the document distributed two weeks ago was a typo made when changes to the D-3 zone were adopted. There was a concern to en-liven the downtown in the D-3 areas, and private clubs were allowed and split between private club indoor and outdoor. Indoor private club were to be permitted, and outdoor clubs were to be conditional because of impacts on surrounding uses. A mistake was made, and the document listed indoor clubs as conditional and outdoor clubs as permitted. The City Attorney’s Office has indicated that the text can be changed without a zoning amendment, so that item is being pulled from the list.
Mr. Paterson reported that an open house was held in July 31, 2002 to discuss these issues with the community councils and the public. The turnout was low, but some comments were made. One issue was how to deal with expansion of conditional uses. The current ordinance does not have a threshold for expansions to go through the Planning Commission process for further conditional use approval. The same issue exists with uses that were approved, as permitted uses in the past but are now conditional uses. Mr. Paterson noted that in this phase of fine-tuning, they have proposed adding some thresholds and proposed a threshold of an expansion of 25% of either the floor area or parking. Mr. Muir asked if that would affect any of the non-conforming use problems involving commercial in neighborhoods. Mr. Paterson replied that it would not unless one of the non-conforming uses would now be a conditional use. Mr. Muir felt that any expansion of non-conforming uses should be required to come back to the Planning Commission because they are so sensitive. Mr. Paterson noted that other provisions in the zoning ordinance address non-conforming uses and expansion of non-conforming uses. Mr. Wilde explained that the threshold is 50% of floor area or parking for non-conforming uses. That percent will be lowered to 25% with this proposal. Mr. Paterson clarified that public feedback has indicated that 25% is still too great, because many of these uses create impacts on the community. Mr. Wilde asked the Planning Commission to consider whether 25% is appropriate or should be decreased. Mr. Muir asked if the Staff was seeing a lot of these under the current threshold that the Planning Commission does not see. Mr. Wilde replied that they see LDS ward houses regularly and handle them administratively. That is a conditional use in all residential districts, and they seem to be subject to a modification or addition here or there. They also see a fair number of commercial uses. Mr. Wilde estimated that they deal with two or three a month. Mr. Diamond asked about the negative impact of the current 50% rule. Mr. Paterson explained that the problem from the community standpoint is that a non-conforming or conditional use can increase the floor area by 50% without a notification requirement, and no one knows what is happening until construction begins. The Staff is proposing something similar to the “Alteration and Modification” provisions contained in the Planned Development section.
Ms. Funk asked if the same public process could be used as is used for other administrative hearings and notify the public within 300 feet. Mr. Wilde suggested using the same approach that is used with cell towers. The community council gets signatures from the neighbors, and if it is uncontested, it can be handled administratively. If it is contested, it would come to the Planning Commission. That process is already in place and would accomplish their objective. Since this is the most substantive issue, Mr. Wilde suggested scheduling this issue for a public hearing and gauge the amount of time for other issues. He asked if the Planning Commission wished to go through the issues page by page. Chair Daniels preferred not to do so.
Ms. Funk referred to comments Cindy Cromer brought up at the open house which were not included in this report. Ms. Funk believed some of the comments are worth consideration, such as the definition of net cumulative impact. She asked if the Planning Commission should look at Ms. Cromer’s suggestions to determine whether they should be considered. Mr. Paterson replied that Ms. Cromer gave him a list at the open house, and he had explained to her that he already had a huge list of things to get through this process. He told Ms. Cromer that he would try to get to her list on the next round. Ms. Funk asked if the list being reviewed this evening is the total list. Mr. Paterson replied that it was only a partial list. On September 5, 34 pages were given out, and the total number of fine tuning items exceeds 80 issues. Ms. Funk felt that the list from Ms. Cromer contained pertinent issues that should be included in the near future. Chair Daniels requested that Mr. Paterson distribute copies of that list to the Planning Commission. Mr. Goldsmith suggested that the Planning Commission review the list and select the most urgent and important issues for consideration. Mr. Wilde offered to schedule a public hearing in October.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-30, by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, requesting approval of the proposed Salt Lake City Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. The document updates the existing Salt Lake City Bikeways Master Plan 1993-2000.
Dan Bergenthal, representing the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, noted that the updated bicycle and pedestrian master plan was presented to the Planning Commission at the last meeting. At that time the Planning Commission raised four issues that he has responded to in a memo contained in the packet. He reviewed the memo and explained how each issue was addressed.
Chair Daniels reiterated his previous request for extensive bicycle safety and education of people who ride bicycles. In addition to cyclists, he felt it would be helpful to educate others who share roadways and pathways with bicyclists. He commented on the number of people he has talked with who are unaware that there are rules and regulations for riding a bicycle. Mr. Bergenthal agreed and explained that there is a line item under Implementation Cost Estimates for planning, education, and promotion. The purpose is to develop additional promotion and educational programs. They hope to find a way to educate everyone; children and adults.
Ms. McDonough asked how the master plan document would be distributed. Mr. Bergenthal replied that copies would be available through the Transportation Department. Mr. Wheelwright explained that it has typically been available in the Mayor’s Office of Community Affairs and the libraries. Mr. Bergenthal noted that it will also be available on the web site. Mr. Diamond suggested distributing it to school PTA’s.
Ms. McDonough commented that bike riding is an amenity which can be integrated into the community safely with proper awareness. She cited the Baby your Baby program as an example of educating and promoting awareness. Diane Atkins, a consultant hired by the City, explained that the document includes some ideas from other jurisdictions interviewed and suggestions from the public process. Table 7-1 outlines all the implementation, including planning and engineering. They are asking for $175,000 per year for planning, education, promotion, and pilot projects. It is up to the City Council to decide how that money is allocated.
Ms. Funk referred to Objective 1-2, Action Item 4, and suggested the following language to strengthen that item: “Implement roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian pathways and designations that are appropriate for adjoining land use.” She believed this language better emphasized that the roadway, bicycle path, and pedestrian path all should match what is along the street. Mr. Bergenthal was comfortable adding that language.
Mr. Chambless recalled conversations a few years ago about adding more rotaries or circles in Salt Lake City. He asked how bicycles would be considered as part of the vehicles on the roadway and felt that would require an education by itself. Mr. Bergenthal replied that, if the City implements a circle on a road with a bike lane, that would have to be taken into consideration when looking at the design. That would pass through his office, and he would make sure it is part of the design plan.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Sue Armitage, representing the Sugar House Community Council and Trails Committee, stated that she is an avid bike rider. She supported bike lanes and bike routes and believed serious education was needed about bike safety from a car driver’s viewpoint and a cyclist’s viewpoint. She stated that she lives at the corner of 1700 South and 1500 East and continually sees cyclists ride through the stop signs at high speeds. She shared concerns that bicyclists need to obey traffic signs and laws. She was concerned about cars climbing up her back when she is in a painted bike lane. She stated that Sugar House is one of the more beautiful areas in the Valley, and they have worked hard to make the community pedestrian friendly with trails, sidewalk improvements, and stores that front the street. She was involved in establishing an annual bike race in Sugar House Park, and Sugar House has a lot to offer cyclists and pedestrians. She stated that the Council is concerned about the crossing under 1300 East. They are trying to make a trails system that connects the Bonneville Shoreline Trail with the Jordan River Parkway which would go along Parley’s Creek to Sugar House Park. There is a plan for an under-street crossing on 1300 East from the Park into Hidden Hollow and Sugar House Commons and along the rail spur from Granite Furniture west. Ms. Armitage believed this trail would provide a way to get cyclists off the street and out of harm’s way and would greatly increase customers for Sugar House businesses. She stated that she and her fellow cyclists need more bike routes and designated bike lanes. She favored any onus the City might place on bikers to force them to obey stop signs and other laws. She offered her services to help as a representative from the Community Council, the Trails Committee, or as a private citizen.
Mark Smedley, Chair of the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, stated that the committee encourages and supports this master plan and hopes that it will stimulate the City to do a number of things. One would be pilot projects, and he stated that he always makes suggestions of things they could try. He remarked that the primary needs are in the downtown business district and the need for cyclists to get across that part of town on striped lanes. Currently there is a proposal to complete striping on 200 South, which is in the previous bicycle master plan, but there is opposition to the loss of parking along that street. He stated that he encourages bike lanes in the downtown business district and in the neighborhoods and believes more people would ride bicycles if they had lanes to ride in. Even though most members of the Advisory Committee are experienced cyclists, they have tried to look out for the interests of riders who are not as experienced. He believed they should consider opportunities for all levels of cyclists. Mr. Smedley stated that education is a big part of the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, and he named a number of events held throughout the year to encourage people to cycle and provide safety tips and information. He stated that there are two rules for bicycling. First is to obey all the traffic rules, and second is to watch out for every vehicle. He hoped this master plan would spur the City to come up with a good bike system.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition 400-02-30
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 400-02-30 by the Salt Lake Transportation Division and approve the proposed bicycle and pedestrian master plan with the change in language under Objective 1-2, Goal , “To implement roadway designations, bicycle and pedestrian pathways that are appropriate for adjoining land use.” Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-605, by David Morris, requesting a conditional use to reuse an existing building at 1492 South State Street as a private club. The property is located within a CC Commercial Corridor Zoning District.
Planner Doug Dansie reviewed the petition as presented in the staff report. The applicant, David Morris, is in the process of purchasing the building at 1492 South State Street which was recently occupied by an art gallery and a constable’s office. Private clubs are a conditional use in the CC District primarily because the district is located throughout the City, and some places are closer to and have more interaction with neighborhoods than others. In this case, the CC District covers the entire block from State Street to Main Street. The land uses between State and Main are all commercial. On the east side of State Street the frontage is commercial. Residences start on Edison, one block east of State Street. Mr. Dansie noted that the primary issue expressed by callers is parking. This is an existing building, and since parking requirements for a restaurant/private club are different from retail, the City requires that parking be upgraded. The building occupies the majority of the site on three sides, with three parking stalls in the rear. About 17 stalls are needed for the private club, based on the square footage of the building. The petitioner has made arrangements with a nearby property owner to lease 14 additional stalls. An approval this evening would not excuse the petitioner from the shared parking requirements, and he would have to prove to the Zoning Administrator that he has a sufficient lease for the parking. The parking lot the petitioner will lease is 400 feet away, on the corner of Kensington Avenue and Major Street. The Staff discussed requiring landscaping in the existing parking lot and determined that, historically, an upgrade has not been required for shared parking because it would require an individual to invest in the property of another landowner. Mr. Dansie explained that the petition has been reviewed by the development review team. The Business Licensing Department and Police Department believe it generally meets all the criteria for a private club. The establishment must be at least 600 feet walking distance from schools, churches, and parks. A school is defined as elementary, junior high, or high school, and colleges are not included in the criterion. There is no conflict in terms of the number of private clubs on the block or adjacency to other uses. Mr. Dansie noted that two issues raised by the development review team were a dead driveway approach in front of the building that needs to be removed and a grease trap required by public utilities. The petition was reviewed by the People’s Freeway Community Council in August who support the project and the Liberty Wells Community Council last week who did not take a vote. The Staff recommended approval of the conditional use with the conditions that the club must meet building code and complete shared parking requirements and that the club must remove the dead driveway approach in front of the building.
Mr. Diamond asked if the required distance of a club from a school applies to day care. Mr. Dansie replied that a school is defined as elementary, junior high, and high school, and there is no mention of day care. Another issue is seminaries and institutes and whether they qualify as churches.
David and Shelli Morris, the petitioners, stated that they attended two community council meetings, and the only major issue was parking. Mr. Morris stated that he spoke with other neighbors on the street and found that Utah Title Loan is only open until 6:00 p.m. He has worked out an arrangement to use their parking in the evening for an additional 13 stalls, in addition to the 14 already leased.
Ms. Funk asked about the capacity of the private club. Mr. Morris replied that he had purchased 50 chairs and a dozen bar stools, but the official capacity is set by the Fire Marshall. He hoped the capacity would be more than 50 people.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
John Francis, Vice-Chair of the People’s Freeway Community Council, stated that the petitioner presented this proposal at their August meeting, and at that time the vote was unanimous to approve, which surprised him because a previous club in the area met with unanimous denial. Mr. Francis believed the unanimous approval showed that the site was appropriate for this type of facility. Subsequent to that, he has received several phone calls from business owners on State Street requesting that time-limited parking signs be reinstalled in the area. Before the I-15/State Street reconstruction, time-limited parking was enforced, but those signs were removed when the road was re-striped. The same problem exists in the area south of the Cameo Beauty College, and the Transportation Department has installed time-limited parking. Chair Daniels asked Mr. Francis what the time limit would be. Mr. Francis replied that in the past it was one hour parking between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Diamond asked about the hours of operation. Ms. Funk noted that, according to the staff report, the club will open at 6:00 p.m.
Betty Eatchel, representing the Liberty Wells Community Council, stated that when Mr. Morris attended their community council meeting, the council voted 8 to 2 to deny this use. They were concerned about the use of beer and liquor in the neighborhood, as well as parking. Ms. Eatchel commented on the number of students who live in the area and the number of activities that occur in the evening at the elementary school and at Salt Lake Community College. She stated that other taverns in the area have had problems, and the police come through the area frequently. In the past, drunks have been found sleeping in parking areas, and the neighbors are fearful that this will happen again if this private club opens. Ms. Eatchel stated that the Community Council asked Mr. Morris to come to their next meeting with more information, but they later learned that this Planning Commission meeting would occur before the Community Council would meet again. Ms. McDonough asked if the 8 to 2 vote was a vote against this proposal or a vote to not vote until a later meeting. Ms. Eatchel replied that the majority did not want this club to open until the Council could get more information regarding parking and the total capacity. Mr. Morris provided a count of 60 people and as many as 200 in his facility. Ms. McDonough clarified that the staff report states that the Liberty Wells Community Council deferred the petition but voted to postpone the approval or disapproval to a later meeting. Ms. Eatchel stated that she contacted all the members of the Community Council by phone today to get their vote, and they all voted “no.” Even the two who voted “yes” the first time changed their mind when they found out there would be a beer and liquor license.
Art Lafeber, representing Prime Commercial Real Estate, stated that he had been in the business for 20 years and was familiar with community councils, city councils, and planning commissions. He explained that the real appeal for this club is the fact that Mr. Morris is purchasing the property for his club. Most club owners prefer to rent, and if things do not work out, they can just leave. The Morrises have committed to putting this property under contract, and if they receive an approval this evening, they are prepared to close on the property tomorrow. They have committed several hundred thousand dollars and their livelihood to make this work. Mr. Lafeber believed the People’s Freeway Community Council recognized the magnitude of this commitment, which was one reason they unanimously voted to approve. He stated that this would be an upper-end establishment that serves food and caters to business people, and it will be good for the neighborhood. He clarified the voting issue with the Liberty Wells Community Council. He stated that they were first on the agenda and sat for an hour before being heard. At the end of the meeting he asked the chairman if they were going to vote, but the chairman did not know if they were supposed to vote. That was when the issue came up about voting to defer. Mr. Lafeber stated that the issue was raised that no one from the Council had seen the building, but they were given a month’s notice that the building was available to look at. Mr. Lafeber remarked that proximity to the college and the issue of alcohol are regulated by law, and Mr. Morris has made the effort to locate more parking to accommodate the parking issue.
Anthony Bernard, representing Quality Stamp and Sign Company at 1470 South State, stated that parking has always been a problem. He did not believe this business would fit into the neighborhood because people who come into the existing businesses come to pick up or drop something off. He was concerned about what a come-and-stay business would do to their businesses. If people park and stay for any length of time, his business would be dead in the water. He understood that the private club would operate in the evening, but some young ladies work for him after dark, and he worried about their safety with a bar nearby. Mr. Bernard believed the City should allow the neighborhood to maintain its current environment so people would not feel threatened.
Tom Bohle, representing the Bohle Company at 1484 South State, expressed concern about this proposal and a business using non-adjacent parking and business hours starting at 6:00 p.m. to accommodate code requirements for expanded parking. In the case of restaurants and clubs, customers stay for an extended period of time. Mr. Bohle noted that there are five businesses in that area, including the one being proposed, that share seven parking places. In fact, the business being proposed does not have parking on the street. He believed he had an average turnover of approximately every 25 minutes during a work day to effectively accommodate his already limited customer base. He stated that this proposal to limit the starting time to after 6:00 p.m. was threatening to those neighbors who, because of competition, have already been experimenting with night openings, in addition to overtime problems. It is extremely threatening to the five people who own their buildings, which represents part of their retirement, because they would be limited due to the parking issue when it comes time to rent or sell their buildings. A 6:00 p.m. starting time does not help, because it would limit their ability to rent to an evening business.
Richard Forsythe, from Westerra Corporation at 150 South 600 East, stated that he represented the ownership interest of the Midtown Plaza at 1465 South State. On their behalf, he objected to the proposed use because the overflow parking would spill onto their property. They are located approximately 200 feet closer to the subject property than the proposed leased premises. His clients believed that this establishment would bring more debris to their parking lot and create possible disturbances because of the clientele, which could cause a major expense to his client. Mr. Forsythe cited Liquid Joe’s as an example of what could happen to property adjacent to a drinking establishment, and he believed the same problems would occur in this instance. People choose parking closest to where they want to go, and his clients could not afford to lose any more parking on their property.
Phyllis Montgomery, representing a manufacturing company on Kensington Avenue directly behind the property in question, expressed concerns about parking and crime in the area. Her company’s property is immediately adjacent to the rear of the subject building, and most of the night shift employees would be severely impacted as well as employees who leave equipment and vehicles on their property. She distributed copies of crime statistics received from the Police Department regarding the kinds of responses they have to private clubs in the 10-block area on State Street. She had not expected a five-page report of incidences, and she was informed that the statistics relate only to the clubs themselves, not anything outside the club. In addition, the Utah Criminal Justice website indicates that less than half of the crimes in this area are reported. Ms. Montgomery disagreed with Mr. Dansie’s report that the police can handle this and urged the Planning Commission not to approve this petition.
Marilyn Oblad, representing the Liberty Wells Community Council, stated that the Council was not given the information or details they hoped to get. They were told that there were no other like establishments in the area, but after checking, she could name five other clubs. She believed there were already too many clubs in their neighborhood, particularly considering the community college and other schools.
Pam Carson disagreed with comments from the real estate agent that this is an upper end business and would be good for the neighborhood. She did not understand how it could be good for their neighborhood. This is their home; their children walk these streets, and they are concerned about their neighborhood. She believed the owners were nice people, but she questioned who would be responsible for their patrons when they leave the door. The neighbors wish to preserve their neighborhood, and she asked the Planning Commission to consider their opposition to this business.
Sauny Buster, a concerned neighbor, objected to the petition. He measured the parking arrangements as presented in the proposal and found that there was not room for the required 14 stalls. Measuring the distance from the proposed establishment to the proposed parking area, he came up with 568 feet. Watching people in the neighborhood, it is evident that people choose the closest parking spot. It is only 400+ feet to the front of his house. Mr. Buster agreed with comments from the businesses on State Street and believed all the overflow parking would spill into the neighborhoods. He asked how the owners could be assured that their patrons would use the established parking. Mr. Buster stated that the back parking is outrageous, and there is no room for this type of business. He urged the Planning Commission to keep this from moving forward.
Barry Muldover, a resident on Kensington Avenue, stated that his 12-year-old daughter takes the city bus to Bryant school and gets off the bus directly in front of this proposed business. He commented on existing problems in the neighborhood, which include prostitution, drug dealing, and other undesirable activities. There are plenty of pawn shops, rent-to-owns, and magazine shops, and they do not have enough art galleries, antique shops, or health food stores. He believed the Morrises would have a harder time locating their business in Sugar House or in the Avenues. He stated that the neighbors are trying to improve their neighborhood, and they do not want to see it go downhill.
Tamara Wharton, a resident on Edison Street and former chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council, asked to read comments submitted from other people before making her comments. She submitted a letter from the HoHo Gourmet opposing the petition. She submitted a letter from the new Executive Dean of the South City Campus of Salt Lake Community College requesting that this decision be postponed because he was not aware of the proposal and had not had an opportunity to review it against the college master plan. Ms. Wharton made her comments as a 20-year area resident, neighbor, criminal justice major, and concerned citizen. She stated that they struggle on a daily basis in a working class area. They have people who often work two jobs and have children. She stated that crime is prevalent in their area, and she had a year-long summary of the crimes committed in a 1.5-block radius of the address in question. She noted that these are actual cases, not just call-in complaints or responses. There were 48 cases of prostitution and 36 drug-related cases. In one year, the Salt Lake City Police are dealing with 558 cases in a 1.5-block area. This happens in their neighborhood, and the problems on State Street reflect onto their neighborhoods. The neighbors circulated petitions for restricted parking, but after 9:00 p.m. and on weekends, anyone can park in that area. They have had many problems in the past, and this will continue to be a problem. Ms. Wharton commented on the times she has had her home broken into and that all of her neighbors have had something stolen from their property. She believed the Planning Commission needed to consider these things. This is a crime-infested neighborhood at risk that needs some relief, not additional burdens. Ms. Wharton stated that the college is less than 600 feet from this property, the LDS Seminary is less than 600 feet from this property, and the Christian Door Church is less than 300 feet from this property. These will all influence whether this business gets a license. Ms. Wharton used a photo of the bus stop to show how night-time college students will be standing in front of this business waiting for their bus. She stated that she is not being judgmental of the type of business, but there is a time and a place, and this is not an appropriate business for this facility in this area of the community.
Natalie Muldover, a resident on Kensington Avenue, stated that she moved into the neighborhood four years ago because she liked the diversity and the fact that it is a walkable neighborhood. She was concerned about her 12-year-old who travels by herself and gets off the bus in front of HoHo Gourmet. Having attended community council meetings, they know what their neighborhood is like, and this is one risk that concerns her. Having people in a bar in close proximity to her child and other kids in the neighborhood was something she did not want to see happen.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Chair Daniels asked Mr. Dansie to clarify some of the comments heard this evening about distances, proximity to the community college, and parking. Mr. Dansie explained that the measurement in the liquor license approval process is 600 feet entrance to entrance, not property line to property line. He reiterated that a college is not listed under the definition of a school for liquor license purposes. In terms of the church, he was unaware of the church issue until today, and that is being checked out. He noted that the church can be waived by the hearing officer. In the past there have been several incidents where a church did not object, and a letter was submitted to that effect. Chair Daniels asked about the distance between the club and the parking. Mr. Dansie replied that City blocks are 660 feet wide, and this parking lot is mid-block. Maximum distance is 360 feet away, and adding the width of the HoHo Gourmet parking lot puts it approximately 400 feet away. Mr. Dansie acknowledged there was a parking problem in the area and explained that the reason they can require the petitioner to acquire property for parking is the change of use. If the proposed use were retail, such as a beauty salon or day spa, the parking problems would be the same but would occur during the day when other businesses are open.
Mr. Diamond asked if the City and the Department of Transportation have analyzed the bus stop and crosswalk issues in terms of children crossing the road. Mr. Dansie did not believe a crosswalk was painted at Kensington Avenue, and there may not be added protection. In this kind of approval, a bus stop or crosswalk is typically not an issue. Mr. Diamond noted that it is an issue to the neighbors, and he would like to know how they could help solve the problem. Mr. Dansie replied that it would involve the Transportation Department working with the State to paint a new crosswalk or install a flashing traffic signal. Regarding the request for time-limited parking, that is a matter of working with the Transportation Division to post the signs again. Mr. Diamond asked how the club owners planned to encourage their clientele to use the parking around the corner 400 feet away. Mr. Dansie replied that signage is the best method, and the petitioner will be required to post signs regarding available parking. They have also discussed valet parking. Mr. Muir stated that valet parking for clubs and restaurants is not unheard of.
Ms. Arnold felt that some of the concerns expressed this evening were day concerns. If the establishment does not open until 6:00 p.m., she did not understand why it would be a concern for children getting off the bus after school. She noted that people are thinking of this as a bar rather than a private club where people will go in for dinner and a drink. It is not a tavern where people go in for no other reason than to drink and leave. She believed it was a matter of understanding the type of establishment being proposed, and because it would operate at night, she did not see why parking was an issue. Mr. Dansie explained the difference between a beer bar and a private club. A beer bar allows people to order a beer without food, and they do not control their clientele. At a private club, a drink can be ordered without food, but the owners must keep a record of their clientele. Mr. Diamond asked for and received clarification that a restaurant is proposed as part of this private club.
Mr. Muir asked if the Staff typically gets input from the Police Department on whether a certain use would exacerbate and compound a problem. Mr. Dansie replied that they do not consult the Police Department with a permitted use. If the use requires a special process, it is normal to contact the police. Mr. Muir stated that years ago the Planning Commission and City Council adopted the ordinance that disperses private clubs as a reaction to the congregation of clubs along west Second South. That dispersal also applies to this parcel. Mr. Muir believed that ordinance should be the mitigating factor that would eliminate the type of problem being debated this evening. Mr. Dansie explained that, last year when the City discussed eliminating spacing requirement for bars and private clubs, they contacted other cities and found that they eliminated spacing requirements but had other things in place that were more functional, including a requirement for a management plan before any bar or tavern could open. Mr. Muir asked if the Planning Commission could impose that condition with this approval. Mr. Dansie replied that they could. He stated that infractions of private clubs currently go through the criminal courts rather than civil courts, and the police department would rather that it be a civil case, because they only need a preponderance of evidence to shut down a problem club in civil courts.
Ms. Funk referred to the total number of police reports in a 1.5-block area and felt that 164 had nothing to do with what happens on the street. That reduces the number to 394, but it is still one plus per day. She believed 48 prostitution cases was a significant factor in this area, and it indicates that the neighborhood is at risk. She recalled that Chief Dinse testified before the Planning Commission that they do receive an increased number of phone calls when servicing a liquor-serving establishment. Ms. Funk believed this neighborhood was greatly at risk, and while she agreed that many of the concerns expressed take place during the day, who could say that this 12-year-old child would be home every day before 6:00 p.m. As a parent, she would be very concerned about children getting off the bus in front of a private club. She commented on the number of bars existing in the area, and even though they meet the spacing requirement, she felt the number was quite high.
Mr. Muir noted that the staff report indicates that this request is compatible with the master plan. If there was a fundamental problem unique to this area, he felt it would be appropriate to address it through the master plan, whether it be proximity of clubs or other establishments that contribute to the underlying problem, rather than deal with it on a case-by-case basis. They should look at the underlying master plan for guidance, but in this case, they do not have guidance. He believed reinventing the master plan via an interpretation applicable to a specific property was procedurally inappropriate.
Ms. Arnold pointed out that the crime statistics show that prostitution and domestic violence are very high; however, the vast majority of those crimes occur in the 900 block of State Street. In reading the list of crimes, she felt that most of the cases were not alcohol-related incidents. She stated that she has more concerns with a beer bar than with a private club. She was impressed with the ownership issue, because someone willing to spend dollars rather than just pay rent shows more commitment. If the club license were revoked, they would have nothing.
Mr. Muir felt the best control for quality of the establishment would be through a management plan. He found this to be a tough decision and noted that, regardless of their findings, if the community believed there was a fundamental issue, the most appropriate way to exact change would be to petition the City for re-examination of the master plan for the area.
Ms. Funk felt it was appropriate to honor the request from the Community College to postpone a decision until they have an opportunity to study it further. She also suggested that they continue this matter to re-look at the master plan. Mr. Muir stated that the Planning Commission could table the matter and request input from the college, but holding up the petition pending a change in the master plan would be inappropriate. He felt they should rely on Staff’s judgment in terms of interpreting compliance with the master plan. Chair Daniels stated that he was not willing to table this matter based on the premise that the head of the college was unable to attend. Other people who were unable to attend sent their representatives. Ms. McDonough pointed out that the college was not notified. Mr. Muir remarked that the college should participate in community council meetings to know what is happening in the area.
After further discussion, Mr. Dansie stated that he was unsure of the process to impose a management plan on this petitioner since the City does not presently have a mechanism in place. Other cities he talked to had a clear understanding of the responsibilities under the management plan and what constitutes an infraction for closure.
Mr. Chambless asked if the building in question had ever been a bar or club in the past. Mr. Dansie did not think so but was not certain. Mr. Chambless asked if there was ever a concentration of bars or clubs in the area. Mr. Dansie was not prepared to answer but noted that the list of bars mentioned during the public hearing runs from 900 South to 2100 South and includes clubs on Main Street. In terms of the alcohol ordinance, two per block face are allowed, and this block is from 1300 South to 1700 South on State Street. Business licenses indicate that there are no other private clubs on that block face.
Motion for Petition 410-605
In the matter of Petition 410-605 by David Morris, and based upon the findings of fact, Prescott Muir recommended approval of the conditional use to allow a private club in a CC zone district at 1492 South State with the following conditions: The Club still must meet building code and complete shared parking requirements; the club must remove the dead driveway approach in front of the building; the club owner should submit, as part of the building permit, a management plan acceptable to the Police Department and the Business Licensing Agency to be renewed on an annual basis.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Muir if he would accept an addition to his motion that the club must post signs on the business directing to parking lots and signs in each of the parking lots indicating that the business patrons have permission to park there, as well as signs in HoHo Gourmet stating that patrons cannot park there. Mr. Muir accepted the amendment to his motion. Mr. Chambless suggested that the motion address sufficient lighting in the parking area and around the club. Mr. Dansie explained that the Planning Commission can impose a condition requiring security lighting at the rear of the building and adequate lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Muir accepted this amendment, further stating that CPTED will determine whether the lighting is acceptable. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The Planning Commission is authorized to permit a private club as a conditional use in the CC zoning district.
B. As a small private club, the proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of applicable master plans.
C. There will be no significant negative impact to the street system by allowing the proposed conditional use. State, Kensington, and Major Streets are capable of handling the traffic generated by this use. The dead driveway approach should be removed.
D. The internal circulation system is adequate. The building is changing use and requires adding additional shared stalls off-site. The petitioner has a written agreement to allow fourteen shared parking spaces. The lease must meet requirements for the Zoning Administrator to approve shared parking.
E. Utilities are adequate in this area.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
G. The architecture is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
H. Landscaping meets the requirements.
I. The use will not affect historic structures or environmental features.
J. Operating and delivery hours will be compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposal will be reviewed for applicable building permits and shall comply with all other applicable ordinances.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Funk voted “Nay.” Jeff Jonas was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Muir felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Staff to follow up with both community councils to discuss the process for reviewing the master plan and dealing with the issues. He believed this neighborhood needed to go through that process. Mr. Goldsmith agreed and felt it would also fall under the Planning Commission’s cumulative impact discussion. The cumulative impact, as part of the master plan discussion, needs to be addressed. Ms. Arnold stated that a collection of pawnshops is an incredible draw for the problems they are having in the area, and she wondered if the neighbors were looking at the wrong issues that bring undesirable people into their neighborhood. The Commissioners agreed and felt this was a good example of a cumulative impact discussion.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request for a modification of the conditions of Planning Commission approval regarding Petition No. 410-587, by Ballet West. The new school and rehearsal facility proposed to be located at 1201 East Wilmington Avenue has been redesigned to eliminate the need for the temporary construction easement on Hidden Hollow, and the applicant requests elimination of condition of approval No. 4 which relates to the easement agreement.
Stephen Goldsmith noted that condition of approval 4 was a development agreement to amend the Hidden Hollow Conservation Easement. He explained that the building was set back 18 feet from the original plan, and the construction easement is no longer needed. Ballet West is requesting that the Planning Commission waive the condition.
Motion
Kay (berger) Arnold moved to waive Condition 4 from the original approval for a school and rehearsal facility for Ballet West located at 1202 East Wilmington Avenue. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Continued Discussion of Petition 410-586 by Total Property Asset Management, requesting a planned development subdivision approval to create a pad lot at 464 South 600 East as part of the Family Center (Fred Meyer) planned development. This is a request to modify the previous planned development (Petition No. 410-135) to incorporate the McHenry home site (11,730 square ft pad site). This planned development includes a request for modification of zoning ordinance standards. Ordinance modifications are reduction of the front yard landscaping and setback requirements, front yard parking and a change of grade in excess of two feet at the property line. This property is in a Commercial “CS” Zoning District and in the Central Community Historic Overlay District.
This item was postponed.
Annual report of subdivision and condominium activity
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the Planning Commission only received the bar charts, and he intended for them to receive the entire report. Since the Commissioners did not receive the detail, he suggested that this discussion be deferred. He noted that a year and a half worth of activity is reported. They are still seeing as many projects, but they are smaller and producing half as many lots. As mentioned in the transmittal, for internal purposes they are required to report quarterly. In an effort to keep the Planning Commission updated, when quarterly reports are completed they will be included in the Planning Commission packets.
Chair Daniels asked Mr. Goldsmith to comment on a memo from Gaylord Smith. Mr. Goldsmith stated that he assured Mr. Smith that his concerns would be passed on to the Planning Commission, and his memo was included in the packet. Mr. Goldsmith commented that Mr. Smith’s negotiations over the past six months were not as forthcoming as they should have been. He was not implying that Mr. Smith withheld any information, but it is a two-way process, and placing the onus on the Staff and Planning Commission was unfair. Mr. Goldsmith stated that it is not inappropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend construction hours of operation, and Mr. Smith’s outrage was an opinion that Mr. Muir’s motion would add four weeks to the construction time. Mr. Goldsmith reminded the Planning Commission that this project had been approved and moved forward, and suddenly Mr. Smith realized the error of his ways and came back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Goldsmith believed Mr. Smith was making sure his tracks were covered with his supervisors rather than owning up to his supervisors. If the project had been on schedule, this would not have been an issue, but they are six or nine months behind, and it is unfair to blame that on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Muir believed a reasonable compromise would be to keep all the work indoors with the doors shut prior to 8:00 a.m. Ms. Arnold stated that they cannot keep doing what they do. Living on 1300 South, she spends her life under construction, and contractors need to be sympathetic to neighbors when they are out at 7:00 a.m. screaming, ranting, and swearing. She did not believe the Planning Commission should change anything. Ms. McDonough agreed that the Planning Commission should not compromise on their decision. She believed it was a good judgment call at the time, and they should not back down on their ruling.
Ms. Funk disagreed and stated that everyone has things that disrupt their lives for periods of time. Only one family complained, and she felt they were very demanding. South Temple will be under construction for six months, and she did not think the City was granting any leeway on construction times there. Mr. Goldsmith stated that Ms. Funk’s point was well taken. He noted that the City was petitioned strongly to allow the South Temple contractor to start early and work late, but when they looked at impacts to residents living on that street, they felt the times he requested were excessive. He wanted Ms. Funk to understand that the City does get involved in these matters.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.