SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair, Prescott Muir; Vice Chair, Tim Chambless; Bip Daniels, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Babs De Lay and Commissioner Galli were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; Transportation Director Tim Harpst; and Transportation Planning Engineer Kevin Young.
Present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Chair, Joe Perrin; Vice Chair, Debbie Medina; Frank Algarin, John Richard deJong, Nancy Fillat, Kelly Gillman, Keith Jensen, Bonnie Mangold, Mark Smedley, and Suzanne Weaver. Mark Garfield and Jeanette Williams were excused.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:47 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.
Joint briefing with the Transportation Advisory Board and the Planning Commission regarding the Mountain View Corridor project.
This item was heard at 5:47 p.m.
Transportation Director Tim Harpst introduced the Transportation Advisory Board Members.
He noted that Nancy Fillat and Suzanne Weaver are retiring from the Board after the meeting this evening. He thanked them for their service on the Board.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to the Mountain View Corridor project noting that both the Planning Commission and the Transportation Advisory Board have been briefed on the project. He stated that the transportation study for the project is moving into a new phase with regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Mr. Wheelwright said that the Draft EIS process is expected to be complete about a year from now. Once the Draft EIS is complete another year is expected for it to go through the public process. He noted that there are four options being analyzed as part of the EIS study which effect Salt Lake City.
Ms. Eileen Barron, a representative from Parsons Brinckerhaff addressed the Planning Commission and the Transportation Advisory Board. She submitted an informational pamphlet outlining the power point presentation, of which a copy has been retained for the public record. Ms. Barron noted that the EIS study runs from the northern end of I-80 to the north-shore of Utah Lake. The proposed project will be a regional transportation facility which will service western Salt Lake County and north-west Utah County. Ms. Barron identified in the power point presentation four possible concepts for Salt Lake County and four concepts in Utah County. Ms. Barron indicated that the Draft EIS statement is anticipated to be available in the fall of 2005 at which point there will be a public hearing and formal public comments will be taken. She said that they anticipate a record of decision from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration in 2006.
Ms. Barron welcomed questions and comments from the Commission and Board.
Chair Muir asked how the two systems will be brought on line. He said that rail lines typically succeed when there is a certain amount of stress in the vehicle corridors which creates a pattern of use of rail lines as a viable alternative to traffic congestion. He said that if the freeway is brought on line prior to the rail, the rail will always be challenged for ridership.
Ms. Teri Newell, Project Manager, and representative of UDOT addressed the Commission. She said that at this point they are looking at a solution for the year 2030. She said that the implementation timeframe will be an issue that will be discussed at a later date. Ms. Newell noted that the combination of the transit rail and the freeway is a significant amount of money and it probably can not happen at the same time.
Mr. Wheelwright added that one of the goals is to finalize an alignment and then the Cities and County could adopt that alignment through their transportation master plans to preserve the corridor.
Board Member Mangold stated that by the year 2050 both alignments will be needed. She asked which of the two alignments is the easiest to secure immediately to preserve the corridor within Salt Lake County.
Ms. Newell stated that they will be more prepared to answer that question next year. She noted that over the course of the next year they will be exploring how the different scenarios will perform and what the impacts will be.
Board Member Perrin referred to the two alternatives and noted that at 7200 West the option of an arterial street becomes available. He asked if that is because the projected demand drops the further west the corridor runs. He also referred to the 5800 West alignment and asked how that will tie into the current 5600 West Street, Bangerter Highway, and the International Center. He noted that they are all close segments along “SR-201”.
Ms. Newell replied that beginning at 7200 West, heading west, there is less utilization of the freeway, in that case an arterial street north of the “SR-201“ works well. She stated that they explored a concept of an arterial street along the 5600 and 5800 West alignment and it did not work out. Ms. Newell referred to Board Member Perrin’s question regarding the “SR-201” interchanges saying that some of the current interchanges seem to have reasonable spacing between them; however, they are going to review those in detail within the next few moths.
Board Member Perrin noted that the earlier studies of this project rendered an arterial street north of the “SR-201” throughout the Salt Lake City area. He asked if the growth out west is greater than anticipated.
Ms. Newell replied that those earlier studies were based on earlier census projections which have been updated according to recent projection figures. She specifically noted an increase in the population and employment throughout the study area.
Mr. Tim Harpst, Salt Lake City Transportation Division Director addressed the Commission and Board saying that the study area growth projections are extraordinarily high in comparison to the previous study and past growth margins. Mr. Harpst stated that even if those growth projections do come about, do they really equate to the volume of traffic seen on “I-15”, of which is not used to its capacity. He said that they are trying to look at the entire County and how all of the projects and master plans for transportation facilities will absorb the growth over the 30 year planning horizon.
Chair Muir felt that the concern for Salt Lake City is that we are trying to increase housing; however, it will be invariably expensive in comparison to the single family homes which sprawl around the perimeter of the City. Chair Muir indicated that he hopes that the EIS study would include a land use analysis of the impacts that the Mountain View Corridor will have on the City.
Mr. Harpst agreed and reiterated that they would also like to see a stronger evaluation of the growth projections and the resulting traffic volume projections. He referred to Chair Muir’s question regarding which will come first, the transit or the freeway. He said that a lot of the project will be funding driven. Mr. Harpst stated that due to the Salt Lake City land use both current and projected, the City is faced with a lot of pass through traffic. He noted that as traffic heads northward through the City it tends to draw eastward toward the Downtown area. He noted that those are some aspects of the development that need to be observed as the EIS study continues.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the demographic projections from 2001 to 2030 which reflect an increase of 159 percent. He asked if those numbers have been revised to reflect the immediate pattern of the past three years.
Ms. Newell replied that they have not looked at that. She stated that the overall demographics are numbers that come out of the Governor’s Office and are based on the amount of people that the Salt Lake Valley is expected to support, and is then divided throughout the area.
Commissioner Chambless asked where the location of the Porter Rockwell link is, in relation to the State Prison.
Ms. Newell replied that it is north of the point of the mountain.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the State Prison was relocated about 50 years ago from the Sugar House Area to its current location. He asked if it is foreseen that the Prison will be relocated if the Porter Rockwell link is developed, to allow for a whole new region for development.
Ms. Newell said that that is not something that has been considered at this point.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the projected need for a soccer stadium and an arena football stadium. He asked if that has been considered in terms of transportation and planning.
Ms. Newell stated that they have not predicted those needs at this time. She indicated that they are working to keep up with the current attractions, specifically noting Cabela’s.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Harpst if the foothill area may be a projected route for light rail or a more formal freeway in the future.
Mr. Harpst replied that the foothill area is not projected for a freeway or major highway. From a transit perspective, the City’s Transportation Master Plan identifies that area as a corridor for potential to be a further extension of light rail. He stated that that is an idea that may be explored in the future.
Board Member Mangold referred to attracting ridership on light rail and asked if there is an advantage or disadvantage in planning light rail adjacent to the freeway.
Ms. Newell replied that they are planning to look into that with more detail. She noted that they are projecting that there will be about 12,000 boardings per day whereas the current light rail receives about 20,000 boardings per day. She said that they will explore the effects of the location in more detail.
Board Member Perrin said that he understands that the study area has to end at some point. He asked if the numbers for the reconstruction of “SR-201” and the recent reconstruction of the “spaghetti bowl” have been factored into the study. He noted that those modifications will surely have an impact on the new freeway.
Ms. Newell stated that they have used the long range plan, assuming that every project in the long range plan is built, as the backdrop of the EIS process. She said that is helpful in predicting what they need to do in completing this project.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the future education and collaboration of this study. He asked if there has been collaboration in placing future education facilities.
Ms. Newel noted that at this point they have met with Granite School District and have been talking to Jordan School District, regarding where their existing facilities are located and the future placement. She stated that they are keeping an open dialogue with the school districts.
Mr. Wheelwright added that of the four alternatives that would affect Salt Lake City, two will be eliminated depending on what alternative alignment decision is made within West Valley City. He noted that there is a need for communication between the affected jurisdictions. He stated that when Salt Lake City has met with UDOT, other jurisdictions, as well as the County, have been involved.
Chair Muir asked if the decision within West Valley City will affect the land uses north of the “SR-201”.
Mr. Wheelwright replied that there would be little traffic generated along 7200 West. In regard to the 5600 West or 5800 West it will affect the land use and a lot of the developers in that area are waiting to develop that portion until a decision is made regarding this project. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the 5600 West corridor is an extremely important corridor for the City from an existing utilities perspective. The main water and sewer trunk lines have been located under 5600 West. A big issue for the City is that those utilities may need to be replaced in duplicate on either side of the 5600 West corridor.
Chair Muir asked if this freeway is envisioned to tie into the Legacy Highway.
Ms. Newell replied that a connection from the Mountain View Corridor is not envisioned to tie onto the Legacy Highway.
Board Member Mark Smedley addressed the Commission. He stated that the muti-use trail is a good concept; however, it is essentially useless unless all of the interchanges along this corridor accommodate bicycle passages through them.
Ms. Newell replied that they are aware of the many locations where cyclists need to have access through the freeway. She noted that they are working with the Salt Lake County Regional Trails Committee and setting up a workshop to talk about the character of a regional trail and the connections between systems such as how the trail would cross the freeway.
Board Member Smedley indicated that he is concerned with the actual street system, as well as the possibility for cyclists and pedestrians to be able to cross the actual street as commuters.
Ms. Newell replied that there have been several arguments regarding what they are trying to accomplish with the trail such as: is the trail to accommodate recreational users, commuters, or professional cyclists. She said that the hope is that the workshop will help define the goal of the trail.
Board Member Smedley reiterated that he feels that the goal should be to find a way to allow those who use bicycles as a form of transportation to cross the freeway.
Chair Muir asked regarding the expectation of the joint Board and Commission regarding the project.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the presentation this evening does not require action at this time. The EIS process will probably produce a preferred alternative by next summer, at which time there will be a public hearing.
Mr. Harpst added that the Board and Commission have the option of making a joint recommendation to the City Council, or they may follow the traditional method of the Transportation Advisory Board making a recommendation to the Planning Commission who would then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Muir stated that he would welcome a joint meeting. The Board and Commission agreed.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that at some point a petition will be coming before the Commission requesting corridor preservation through the Salt Lake City Major Street Plan and the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the final review of the project and requested that the information regarding the land use components of it be identified through the diagrams. She specifically requested that the information take into account, the effective decisions made, and the results as the discussions between the affected parties continue.
Ms. Newell said that they will work with Mr. Harpst and Mr. Wheelwright to tailor the presentation to the needs of Salt Lake City. She noted that the “Envision Utah discussions” were an early component of the Mountain View Corridor process to get people to discuss the land use and transportation systems together.
Chair Muir thanked the Transportation Advisory Board and the Mountain View Corridor representatives for joining the Planning Commission this evening.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, September 8, 2004
This item was heard at 6:38 p.m.
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the September 8, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner McDonough abstained. Five Commissioners voted in favor, two Commissioners abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
This item was heard at 6:39 p.m.
Chair Muir referred to Commissioner McDonough’s suggestion that the Planning Commission and City Council should schedule a joint meeting.
Commissioner McDonough stated that her suggestion was spurred by her recent interview with City Council for reappointment as Planning Commissioner. She referred to the Planning Commission Retreat of April, 2004, specifically noting the discussion of the Commission composing a letter to the City Council, communicating issues that mutually impact the two City bodies. Commissioner McDonough felt that it would be helpful to implement an annual joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council. She point out that the two bodies never have the opportunity to expand on ideas or the opportunity for dialogue.
Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner McDonough. She said that she felt that a letter may not convey all of the concerns or issues. She added that a joint meeting would allow the two bodies to interact in a more informal way. Commissioner Noda felt that the joint meeting would be beneficial to discuss the long term issues. She specifically referred to the Mountain View Corridor saying that it will have significant impacts on Salt Lake City as a whole and it would be helpful for the two bodies to discuss it together.
Chair Muir felt that a more immediate petition that could be used as a vehicle to implement the joint meeting is the 400 South Corridor Master Plan which was remanded back to the Planning Commission. He felt that that is an opportunity to convey the importance of that initiative.
Mr. Zunguze added that he agreed that a joint meeting is a good idea. He suggested that the joint meeting possibility should be discussed at the next Planning Commission and City Council Chair and Vice Chair meeting. Mr. Zunguze noted that the Planning Commission remanded the 400 South Corridor petition back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. He said that he did not feel that a specific project should be the starting point for joint discussions. He felt that a joint meeting needs to begin in a basic nature, such as outlining concepts to establish a common vision, and then could progress to address specific projects.
Chair Muir noted that it is time to address the Planning Commission elections for the next year. He asked that the Commission forward their nominations to the Planning Office. He asked if the Commission would be in favor of a vote being taken at the October 13, 2004 meeting.
The Commission agreed.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 6:47 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to Staff’s attempts to arrange a North Salt Lake City Boundary Adjustment Subcommittee meeting. He asked that the Commission be prompt in their responses to Staff as to when the Subcommittee members can attend meetings. He noted that the North Salt Lake City Boundary Adjustment Subcommittee meeting cannot be delayed.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the Planning Commission has an irregular meeting scheduled for September 29, 2004.
Mr. Zunguze referred to that meeting and stated that the Commission will be meeting to review the Salt Palace expansion. He stated that the ordinance does not call out convention centers, and as of today the Salt Palace is non-conforming. He said that he did not believe that the intention was to non-conform such a use in the City. To that end, the Planning Commission needs to recommend a zoning text amendment to the City Council. Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Commission will also review the plans for expansion.
Commissioner McDonough stated that she may have a potential conflict of interest with regard to that petition. She stated that the Architecture firm that she works for is applying for the Salt Palace Expansion project. Commissioner McDonough stated that she is recusing herself from the Planning Commission meeting on September 29, 2004.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 490-04-23, Riverbend Industrial Subdivision, by YBY LLC, represented by Mr. Yates requesting preliminary approval of a 23 lot industrial subdivision development. The subject property is located at approximately 1919 West Indiana Avenue and is zoned “M-1” Light Manufacturing District.
This item was heard at 6:50 p.m.
Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the petition as written in the staff report. She referred to the amended agenda for tonight’s meeting, indicating that the original agenda noted an error in the address of the subject property. She stated that an additional notice was sent to the adjacent property owners which noted that correct address for the subject property. The agenda was amended two days prior of the meeting this evening.
Ms. Gasparik noted that the original plan submitted for the petition has been modified to address some of the City Departmental comments in the staff report. She said that because of the departmental letters in the staff report the Applicant was required to modify the plan to request 21 lots rather than the originally proposed 23 lots.
Ms. Gasparik stated that she received one phone call from Mr. Jay Ingleby who indicated that he had concerns with the zoning of the site. Ms. Gasparik stated that there are specific issues associated with developing the proposed site, which are noted in the staff report. She said that there is a significant history with respect to the site, in that it was located adjacent to the old City land fill area. Due to the fact that a portion of the site was a “superfund site”, poor soil conditions, high ground water, and high liquefaction potential, the site was zoned Industrial and has been master planned for Industrial development.
Ms. Gasparik identified the conditions of approval and stated that based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant preliminary minor subdivision approval, subject to conditions 1-4 noted in the staff report.
Mr. Morray Yates, the Applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that Mr. Dave Wilding, Chief Engineer for the project, is here this evening to address Engineering questions. He stated that they have had the property up for sale for over one year and every prospective buyer has wanted to split the property to obtain smaller portions. He said that they have now decided to develop the site and feel that they have complied with the necessary requirements and are still planning to work to meet all of the requirements as noted in the staff report if they receive approval.
Mr. Dave Wilding added that they feel the proposed use is a good use for the site. He said that they do not have any problems with the requirements in the staff report.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Applicant is planning on developing any of the sites at this time.
Mr. Yates stated that they do not have development plans at this time; however, the prospective buyers that they have been in contact with are acceptable uses in the “M-1” zoning.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jay Ingleby addressed the Commission as the Vice Chair of the Glendale Community Council. He said that they are concerned with the additional traffic and the possibility of vacant buildings. He said that the Applicant came before the Community Council three years ago with a similar request. At that time the Community Council did not approve the request because the Applicant did not have a plan as to what uses would go into the facility. Mr. Ingleby indicated that he feels that there are too many of the warehouse/storage facilities along California Avenue.
Chair Muir asked if the proposal came before the Community Council recently.
Mr. Ingleby replied that they have not reviewed the request recently. He said that they feel that they have been bypassed. Mr. Ingleby stated that the Westside is crying for development; however, they do not want to be the recipients of more warehouse space.
Commissioner Seelig asked Mr. Ingleby if the plan presented this evening, is similar to that which the Community Council reviewed three years ago.
Mr. Ingleby replied that the plan was the same.
Commissioner McDonough asked Mr. Ingleby what he would rather see, given the current zoning of the site.
Mr. Ingleby replied that the Community Council would like to change the zoning from industrial to commercial. He felt that the proposed site is a great location for commercial development.
Mr. Randy Sorenson, Chair of the Glendale Community Council, addressed the Commission. He said that he agreed with Mr. Ingleby’s comments. He said that he did not understand why the Applicant is so anxious to get subdivision approval if they do not have a plan for the project.
Mr. Yates stated that the price of the property is going to be too expensive for warehouses. He said that their intention is to subdivide the site to allow businesses to purchase the separate lots. He said that they have been approached by business owners who wanted to purchase portions of the site. Mr. Yates stated that they are aware of the issue with vacant structures and lots, so their intention is to divide the lot to make them an accessible size and price.
Mr. Wilding stated that there is no intention of building warehouses on the site. He did not agree that the site would be a viable location for retail.
Mr. Daniels asked the Applicant what is preventing the businesses that purchase the lots from becoming warehouses.
Mr. Yates replied that there is nothing they can do to prevent that if it is zoned to allow warehouses. He reiterated that the price of the lots may not be conducive to the warehouse use.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Seelig asked Staff at what point, other than notification, did this project intersect with the Glendale Community Council.
Ms. Gasparik replied that the ordinance does not require subdivisions to be reviewed by the community councils. Ms. Gasparik stated that it is unclear as to why the prior project may have been reviewed by the Community Council three years ago.
Mr. Wheelwright recollected that there was a development proposal that included the proposed site and the property to the east. He stated that it never proceeded to a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and Staff never compelled the Applicant to present the project to the Community Council. Mr. Wheelwright stated that that project was handled by Mr. Ed James, a Planner and Architect, who may have decided to go to the Community Council for input or as a briefing.
Commissioner Scott referred to the Union Pacific Rail Road track intersection with Indiana Avenue. She asked regarding the distance from the railroad crossing to the site.
Ms. Gasparik replied that the Applicant has indicated that the actual crossing is 151 feet from the site.
Mr. Wheelwright clarified that there was an influx of warehouses during the Olympics. He stated that the City implemented impact fees and there was a rush to build buildings to beat the impact fee start date. Mr. Wheelwright stated that typically warehouses are built by investors who obtain long term leases. He said that if a building has a “for sale” or “for lease” signs on it, it does not necessarily equate to the building being empty. He said that a lot of the buildings are leased for a long time and the property will often be sold between investors. Mr. Wheelwright noted that there is a strip of commercial zoning on both sides of Redwood Road, and the proposed site is about 1,000 feet west of the commercial zoning boundary on Redwood Road. That Redwood Road frontage property has always been zoned commercial and some factors which may have kept the area from being developed is that there are sewer and storm drainage deficiencies in the area.
Mr. Zunguze added that it is important to note that the petition before the Planning Commission is a subdivision. There is not a specific project proposed at this time. He said that it is not an appropriate time to speculate whether or not the sites will be used as warehouses. Mr. Zunguze noted that there are many different uses allowed in the “M-1” zoning and those who purchase the sites may develop them accordingly. Mr. Zunguze stated that the Community Council should note that the governing Master Plan indicated that the proper zoning for the site is “M-1”. He stated that if the Community Council would like to revisit that aspect of the Master Plan to please contact the Planning Office.
Commissioner McDonough stated that she is in support of the proposal based on the governing Master Plan, the comments of Staff, and the fact that the request is for a subdivision. She felt that the issues brought up during the public comment are relevant to Master Plan rather than the specific request this evening.
Motion for Petition No. 490-04-23
Commissioner McDonough made a motion to approve Petition No. 490-04-23, for the property located at 1919 West Indiana Avenue, based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report, and the comments this evening that the Planning Commission grant preliminary minor subdivision approval, subject the following conditions:
1. Compliance with and satisfaction of all departmental comments and requirements as noted in the attached documentation in Exhibit 1. Should there be a fundamental change in the subdivision design layout a re-review by the Planning Commission will be required.
2. An Avigation Easement is required for the Salt Lake City Airport.
3. A Final Subdivision application must be submitted upon approval of the Minor Subdivision with approval authority delegated to the Planning Director.
4. The Final Subdivision Plat is required to contain the necessary “Notice to Purchasers” disclosures, identifying site development and building constraints derived from the Soils, Liquefaction, and Surface Fault Rupture Hazard studies, as well as, the street design and utilities design studies and analysis.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner Scott referred to the matrix of outstanding petitions. She asked how petitions get deleted from the matrix. She specifically noted the riparian overlay district, the small area master plan for 1100 East, the conditional use mapping project, and the housing overlay district.
Mr. Zunguze replied that petitions are either completed or given a new name. He noted as an example that the riparian overlay district has been reclassified to be addressed through the open space definitions petition. Mr. Zunguze stated that the conditional use mapping is not considered a petition but rather an inventory exercise that will help the Planning Office and Planning Commission understand where the uses are in the City. He also noted that Staff has recently reviewed the City’s housing policies and are looking to restructure the housing overlay petition.
Petition No. 410-697, 410-698, and 410-699, by Steven Heil, representing Little America/Sinclair Oil, requesting conditional use approval for three separate commercial parking lots in a D-1 zoning district. The proposed parking lots are located 465 South Main (Petition 410-697, southwest corner of the block 39, plat A), 47 West 600 South (Petition 410-698, north half of the block 22, plat A) and 450 South Main (Petition 410-699, entire block 40, Plat A).
This item was heard at 7:40 p.m.
Chair Muir noted that the petition will be heard concurrently.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petitions as written in the staff report. He identified the location of the proposed parking lots and the adjacent structures. He noted that the proposed sites are partially surfaced and are being used for parking, with the exception of Petition No. 410-699, of which there are two structures on the site. He said that the Applicant has obtained demolition permits and has been actively working to demolish the structures.
Mr. Dansie stated that the Applicant is requesting modifications to the landscaping requirements, specifically the 75 foot landscape setback required along the corners and on Main Street. Mr. Dansie outlined the interior landscaping requirements for the parking lots, and indicated that the proposed lots meet those requirements.
Chair Muir asked what the landscaping requirement is for a parking lot that is required to service a specific use, which is not located on a corner or on Main Street.
Mr. Dansie replied that the landscaping requirements for such a parking lot are not identified in the ordinance. He said that essentially such a parking lot could be built to the sidewalk.
Chair Muir stated that the Applicant has cleared the said lots and started using them for parking without approval.
Mr. Dansie clarified that the current parking lot requirements in the zoning ordinance were not adopted until 1995. He noted that the lots discussed this evening existed prior to those requirements being adopted.
Commissioner Scott asked what regarding the percentages of hard surface for block 40 and block 22.
Mr. Dansie estimated that block 40, which is a 10 acre block, one quarter to one third of the block, is hard surface. He identified on the map the actual hard surfacing for block 22.
Chair Muir asked at what point is one required to conform to the zoning ordinance. He indicated concern with the Applicant not conforming until this point.
Mr. Dansie reiterated that the more stringent parking restrictions were not adopted until 1995.
Mr. Wilde clarified that any gravel surface being used for parking lots, does not have any non-conforming use rights. For the most part, portions of some lots in the City were approved for the Olympics with the understanding that the parking would be dissolved. He reiterated that over the years the parking requirements have become more restrictive. To provide an accurate evaluation of the lots, Staff would have to determine how long the lots have been there and what the zoning standard was at that time. He stated that with the evaluation of the lots during the Olympics, the City has not contested their use, and the lots probably have some use rights; however, to be definitive it will take more research.
Mr. Dansie pointed out the distinction between a commercial and an accessory parking lot is not always clear. He stated that an accessory lot may operate as a commercial parking lot.
Chair Muir asked for clarification regarding some of the enforcement challenges associated with the proposals this evening. He specifically indicated concern with the conversion of the 600 South and State Street lot which was converted to a surface parking lot for the Olympics.
Mr. Dansie clarified that during the Olympics the 600 South and State Street corner was paved to accommodate television trucks and such. The Applicant approached the Planning Office a few years ago requesting to formalize their dock access to the convention center around the Flower Patch; at that time it was approved with landscaping requirements. He stated that the 600 South and State Street corner lot was included in that approval; however, the requirements have not been implemented.
Chair Muir noted that those issues are not germane to the decision this evening; however, he felt that it is relevant to the context of the Applicant’s past performance vis-à-vis their previous commitments.
Commissioner Chambless asked regarding the proximity of the proposed parking lot to Trax. He also asked Mr. Dansie if he felt that the development of parking lots will contribute to a dynamic Downtown.
Mr. Dansie noted that the proposed lots are directly adjacent to Trax, which will allow about ten acres of parking immediately accessible to Trax. He replied that he did not believe that surface parking lots are always negative; however, he said that he believed everyone would rather see a higher density use at this location.
Commissioner Scott asked if there is a great need for the proposed parking lots.
Mr. Dansie replied that there is not a great need with respect to the immediate demand. He stated that the issue is the existing condition of the lots. He added that the 600 South Trax stop is planned and modifications have been made to accommodate a station with the anticipation of the development of the proposed site.
Commissioner Diamond noted that the Applicant’s properties are landscaped well. He suggested that the Commission encourage the Applicant to integrate more landscaping into the plans for the parking lots. Commissioner Diamond stated that he would rather see landscaping than asphalt on the site. He added that he would rather see the Applicant clean the up the sites than see the existing condition continue. Commissioner Diamond wondered where the nursery will be relocated. He suggested that the nursery be allowed to remain where it is, saying that he felt it would contribute to the street scape.
Mr. Steve Heil, representative of Sinclair Oil and Ms. Karla Smith, a representative of Design Workshop, addressed the Commission. Mr. Heil noted that the Applicant is not trying to build commercially viable parking lots. They are trying to fill the needs for their current parking customers, their employees, and the needs for special events.
Chair Muir asked if the patrons or customers typically drive to the site, or are they a captive audience that will typically fly into town.
Mr. Heil stated that an upcoming convention will involve every General Motors dealership in the United States, as well as most of the national car rental chains. He stated that most will fly into the Valley.
Mr. Heil said that they are not looking to change the use. He indicated that the uses of the lots for parking date back as far as 60 or 70 years.
Chair Muir noted that the Commission appreciates the contributions that the Applicant has made to the Community. He said that there is a concern amongst the Planning Commission as to the scale of this impact and what signals it may send to the Downtown Community. He said that the Commission is challenged by the issue of maintaining a walkable street scape and a pedestrian experience, while there are requests to increase the amount of parking lots.
Mr. Heil referred to the 600 South and State Street block noting that it was not included in the overall master plan for the Grand America as was the block for the loading area for 500 South, because they had not been able to acquire the lot on 600 South until after the construction of the Grand America was completed.
Chair Muir stated that the enforcement issues are not germane to the Planning Commission decision this evening; however, he encouraged the Applicant to clear up those issues.
Chair Muir asked, aside from the current petition for block 40, does the Applicant have a future master plan.
Mr. Heil stated that they have worked on several potential schemes. Block 39 is envisioned for a large office tower with between one and three towers, and a large plaza, as well as adequate underground parking. Block 40 is much more suited for a mixed use development, and could be a potential hotel and exhibit space, if the market has reached the point to where it would make economic sense. Mr. Heil said that he did not believe that block 40 would be a reasonable location for housing.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Applicant does not receive the proposed conditional use approvals, what would be the plan for the lots.
Mr. Heil replied that they would be maintained as they are. He said that the hope is that the conditional use requests will be approved which would allow the Applicant to make the lots aesthetically pleasing.
Ms. Smith referred to the concern with regard to the amount of landscaping on the lots. She noted that they are exceeding the five percent landscaping to asphalt ratio requirement on all three lots. She stated that the parking lot proposed for block 39 will almost double the landscaping requirement at nine percent. She stated that block 22 will have eleven percent, and block 40 will have fourteen percent landscaping. Ms. Smith indicated that they are adding the landscaping to reduce the urban heat islands and help make the lots better for pedestrians as well as for those who will be actually parking in the lots.
Commissioner Diamond asked from a landscaping and pedestrian friendly perspective, how is the Applicant addressing the Trax stop.
Ms. Smith noted that at block 40, mid-block there is a sidewalk which is intended to connect the public to the Main Street crossing which would help facilitate that type of movement. She said that they are expecting the public to possibly use that block as a reverse commuter parking lot.
Commissioner Diamond believed that the amount of people who would use the parking lot as a means to park and ride Trax would be larger than is delineated in the plans. He felt that the Applicant should further explore the relationship of the mass of people to the space of the lot. He indicated concern with eliminating the 75 foot landscaping buffer and felt that the Applicant could utilize that 75 foot landscaping area as an area for public while waiting for Trax.
Mr. Heil stated that the majority of those who have utilized the lots in the past are those who are looking for convenient access to the freeway. Traditionally when there are a lot people using Trax for an event they have been parking at Little America for free and walking to the Trax stop.
Commissioner McDonough asked how many of the outdoor conventions could be accommodated by outdoor tenting. She also asked where the Applicant plans to accommodate the outdoor conventions.
Mr. Heil replied that they anticipate the outdoor conventions will become a larger part of their business. He said that they are hoping to accommodate the outdoor conventions on the blocks proposed this evening.
Chair Muir asked how the Applicant will accomplish that with the proposed amount of landscaping.
Mr. Heil replied that the aisle width between the internal landscaping is about 56 feet and that would generally be enough.
Commissioner Scott asked why Mr. Heil feels that block 40 has poor residential potential.
Mr. Heil replied that it is located on two very busy streets. He said that he believes that the residential development should expand from 200 East and further east.
Chair Muir indicated that the City would like to increase the housing Downtown.
Commissioner Diamond asked for a timeline as to when the Applicant would complete the project and sites will be constructed concurrently.
Mr. Heil replied that if the petitions are approved this evening, they would anticipate construction once the engineering is complete and as soon as the weather permits. He said that the hope is to begin the end of this year or early next year. He said that he will not know the time line until they know what they are approved for building, and after the contractor is selected.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Heil what is the priority. He stated that he in not comfortable with moving forward without a timeline in mind.
Mr. Heil replied that they anticipate that the last shrub will be planted in the fall of 2005.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Chair Muir noted that the Planning Commission received a letter from Ms. Margaret Pahl, a concerned citizen, in opposition of the proposal.
Ms. Nancy Saxton addressed the Commission. She first commended Little America and Sinclair Oil for their contributions to the community. She stated that she understood the time it takes to purchase a number of individual parcels to acquire a whole block, and until that happens it is difficult to develop a game plan. She noted that it is frustrating for the community with regard to the time that process takes. She also noted that when the Applicant is putting up the money and the risk, it changes the plan. Ms. Saxton noted that Salt Lake City has a perception of, or a real parking problem, and it is unclear as to if this proposal is going to help that perception of or real parking problem. She noted that the proximity of the proposed lot to the Trax stop may be a benefit for those who are commuting. Ms. Saxton referred to the questions of the amount of landscaping and stated that sometimes the plans presented do not materialize. She said that it seems that the Applicant is planning to provide a good amount of landscaping; however, that is an issue that she hoped would be clearly addressed. Ms. Saxton asked if the Applicant is planning to use the parking spaces as short term or long term parking or if the Applicant is planning to lease some of the parking spaces to not be used at all. She felt that that would make a difference as far as to type of contribution this project could be for the City and the citizens. Ms. Saxton said that one of the biggest oppositions to the proposed parking, of which she hopes to be a short term remedy for the Applicant’s land, is the street scape between the Little America and the Courts. She suggested that the Applicant put in a children’s interactive park along that street scape. She noted that there is little or no space for children to play in the City. Ms. Saxton urged Sinclair Oil to consider giving Salt Lake City, once again, an amenity and a wonderful gift that could beautify and enhance street scape and thoroughfare.
Chair Muir noted that the strategy of the 75 foot landscaping buffer is a placeholder for a building. He stated that it is not to create an income return on a surface parking lot in lieu of the building. Chair Muir noted that it is a strategy that the community has adopted and asked Ms. Saxton at what time should the City give up on that strategy.
Ms. Saxton did not believe that the Applicant has given a compelling argument to modify the 75 foot landscaping set back requirement. She added that there has not been a compelling argument that there is a need for that many parking stalls. Ms. Saxton stated that she is working to formulate an ordinance that would prevent the demolition of building without an immediate plan for a reuse. Ms. Saxton credited Little America with their past efforts to construct underground parking; however, she felt that there is no reason why the City should not expect that on another parking plan that is not required parking. She felt that the City has to receive an immediate plan or short term plan before the City should allow more parking.
Commissioner Scott agreed with Ms. Saxton with regard to requiring a plan before a building can be approved for demolition. Commissioner Scott asked how the Applicant received the suggestion of a park on the street scape.
Ms. Saxton stated that the representative to whom she suggested that concept, received it well and may have been interested. She said that the City cannot require that, and if the Applicant has another idea that may bring light and activity to the street scape, she would be willing to listen.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the new Millennium Park, located in Downtown Chicago as a great example of a dynamic attraction for families to go Downtown. He noted that the park incorporated water, color, art, underground parking and other great amenities for the community which are an attraction for the public.
Mr. Heil addressed the Commission. He referred to the question regarding what type of parking is proposed. He said that block 40 will be long term parking. Block 39 will be a mix of both long term and short term parking. He indicated that they plan to enter into lease agreements ranging from a month or several years at a time. He added that block 22 will mainly be used by the Little America and Grand America Hotels. Mr. Heil indicated that the Mark Miller car dealership has approached them about perhaps leasing a portion of the parking. Mr. Heil responded to the suggestion of a children’s park in the thoroughfare. He said that concept was discussed and they found that there is a huge liability risk for the Applicant. He suggested that the City would be the proper entity to construct a park, perhaps on Washington Square.
Commissioner McDonough asked if the Applicant has been asked to prohibit parking at the court house during certain hours.
Mr. Heil replied that they provide a tremendous number of parking stalls to the court house, which are divided in to three areas; child protective services, the Sheriff’s Office, and the probation offices.
Commissioner Noda stated that the Sinclair Oil properties are landscaped well. She asked if they plan to continue the trend that they have set with their other properties, and if they will adhere to the plan presented this evening.
Mr. Heil replied that the plan presented this evening is insufficient as to the amount of landscaping which Mr. Holding will probably personally select.
Mr. Dansie referrer to the security issues associated with the court house. He said Staff has discussed those issues with the court house and they have indicated that they do not want parking on the south side of the street; however, they do not have an issue with parking on the north side of the street.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Chair Muir stated that the Commission has a great respect for the Applicant and their willingness to contribute to the community. He referred to the prior discussion of the Mountain View Corridor project and noted that the City is faced with the dilemma that every time a free way is added it undermines the demand for real-estate Downtown. He stated that the City absolutely needs a parking master plan. He said that that would guide the Planning Commission and perhaps the City Council in gauging the need for parking in the City. Chair Muir said that it is unclear as to the Applicant’s intentions with regard to block 40. He noted that they recently turned down the Federal Court’s request to locate their building on that piece of property. Chair Muir said that he agreed with Ms. Saxton’s statement that there must be a compelling argument to waive the 75 foot landscaping requirement. Chair Muir stated that it would have been helpful if the staff report included a parking demand analysis strictly looking at the Little America and Grand American. Chair Muir added that he finds it ironic that the Applicant has complained in the past regarding the lack of a pedestrian feel along Main Street; however, they are now requesting petitions which will contribute to that issue. Chair Muir stated that he is reticent to allow modifications from the existing ordinance requirements. He said that perhaps block 22 warrants an exception, due its location on the perimeter of Downtown.
Commissioner Daniels said that he did not support the proposal, based on standard B – regarding the development being in harmony with the City Master Plan; standard F – regarding appropriate buffering; and standard K – that the conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Daniels did not feel that the proposals meet the above noted standards for conditional use.
Commissioner Scott agreed with Commissioner Daniels saying that she felt that the conditional use requests will have an adverse impact on the community, and that there is not an immediate need for the parking lots. She felt that the parking lots would not uphold the walkable community principals. Commissioner Scott added that the parking lots would also undermine the mass transit system. She said that she is saddened that Sinclair Oil is not willing to improve the lots.
Chair Muir noted that the Commission has not received adequate evidence as to the need for parking. He said as a result the Commission can not assess the need.
Commission Scott said that her opinion is if there is a need for parking, cars would be parked there but they are empty. Commissioner Scott said that based on that she did not see a need for parking.
Commissioner McDonough stated that she agrees with a lot of the comments already expressed. She said that she views block 22 different in terms of a critical contribution to the community. Commissioner McDonough stated that she did not feel that relinquishing the 75 foot set back requirement is an even trade. She recognized that the Applicant is requesting to make improvements to the lots; however, the 75 foot set back requirement is too valuable to let go without receiving a significant gain.
Commissioner Noda agreed with commissioner McDonough regarding the 75 foot buffer. She said that she felt that the Commission did not receive sufficient evidence regarding the need for the additional parking. She referred to block 22 saying that she understood the Applicants concern with having enough parking for their employees; however, she did not feel that there was sufficient evidence presented to persuade her to approve block 22. Commissioner Noda said that she would like to see a park Downtown. She felt that there is a lack of green space Downtown. She said that Little America has always had a great reputation regarding their landscaping, and a park would be considerable contribution and great amenity to the City.
Chair Muir asked Staff for clarification as to the Commission’s options for the petitions.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Commission has the following options: approve, deny, or table the request. If the petition is tabled it would allow the Applicant time to come back to the Planning Commission and address the Commission’s concerns. Mr. Zunguze said that he did not believe it is fair to say that the Applicant is not attempting to improve these properties. He felt that the Commission should recognize that the Applicant is making an effort to improve the existing conditions. He said that if the Commission is so inclined they may table the petitions and request that the Applicant come back with a plan that will adhere to the standards of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Zunguze stated that he feels that there is an opportunity to work with the Applicant in the direction that the Commission would like to go. Mr. Zunguze said that it is not appropriate for the Commission to require private citizens to develop public amenities, such as, a park in exchange for ordinance modifications.
Chair Muir advised the Commission to table the requests. He felt that the Commission’s request that the Applicant adhere to the zoning ordinance is apparent. He said that the Commission feels strongly regarding the issue of surface parking lots.
Motion for Petition No. 410-697, 410-698, and 410-699
Commissioner Diamond made a motion to table Petition No. 410-697, 410-698, and 410-699, requesting that the Applicant come back to the Commission at a later date with plans that adhere to the zoning ordinance requirements.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels noted that denial of the petition would allow the Applicant to come back before the Commission with new plans as would the action to table the request.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner Seelig indicated that the following comment is not specifically directed to the previous hearing. She stated that conditions affiliated with the conditional use process are monumental. If the City can not follow up and ensure that the conditions are met then they should not be approved. She said that she hopes that the City will recognized that all of the functions within different divisions of the City need to work together to ensure that visions set forth through the public process and outlined in the master plans can be realized. She asked what is done now to follow up on conditions that are set.
Mr. Zunguze said that he can not speak to the past practice. He stated that he has been diligent in ensuring that Staff follow up on petitions to ensure that the conditions are met.
Commissioner Seelig stated that her concern is to underscore the importance of the follow up efforts and ensure that it is inherent in the process.
Mr. Zunguze clarified that the Planning Commission is expecting that the Applicant will attempt to comply with the ordinance requirements completely, if they choose to come back to the Commission.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m.