SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Vice-Chair Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Craig Galli, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Robert “Bip” Daniels, Babs DeLay, John Diamond Peggy McDonough, and Laurie Noda, were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planners Doug Dansie, Janice Lew, and Greg Mikolash; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Jonas 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 the minutes from Wednesday, September 10, 2003
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as stated are reflected in the September 10, 2003 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Muir made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted if favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze stated that the item on the agenda for Report of the Director was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on September 10, 2003. He stated that there are two projects that the Planning Staff is in need of direction from the Planning Commission, in which Doug Wheelwright will present the details.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to a memorandum from Mr. Zunguze, and a letter from Union Pacific to the Planning Commission stating that Union Pacific is requesting an extension of time for their conditional use approval, for an Intermodal freight terminal facility on 5600 West and 800 South. He stated that Union Pacific has taken a number of major steps towards accomplishing that; however, they do not anticipate taking a building permit out before the summer of 2004. Mr. Wheelwright stated that if the Planning Commission would entertain an extension of time, Planning Staff would schedule that for discussion on the October 8, 2003 Planning Commission agenda.
Chair Jonas asked when the approval expired. Mr. Wheelwright replied that it expired August 1, 2003.
Commissioner Chambless asked if there is an explanation as to why the August 1st deadline was not met. Mr. Wheelwright said that Union Pacific thought they were making sufficient progress with land transactions, and the recordation of the subdivision amendment. He said that Union Pacific could make the argument that the subdivision plat vested their approval. Staff felt it necessary to get the Planning Commission endorsement that the conditional use does not need to go through the process again.
Chair Jonas felt it appropriate to reschedule the extension of time for the next agenda. The Planning Commission concurred.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to a memorandum with two subdivision conceptual designs for the Jordan Meadows Subdivision by PSC Development. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council at their July 9, 2003 meeting, to rezone the property at 400 North and 1974 West. He compared the two designs saying that due to the reduced width public street need, Staff has discouraged the Applicants from pursuing the first conceptual design which is a loop street plan. He said that the second design which is a hook shape cul-de-sac, would allow a full width street and eliminate the parking issues associated with that. He said that it would also require building less total street and allow for additional street frontage at the rear of the playground. He said that access to Meadowlark School is limited and the additional street frontage would be safer for the neighborhood. He asked the Commission if they are comfortable with the second design, and if they would be satisfied with this modification going the through the administrative hearing process. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the issue is the cul-de-sac length. The Planning Commission would have to approve a modification of the site development regulations on cul-de-sac length. Staff feels that that exception is justifiable in this case but Staff is seeking direction as to whether this should be reheard by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Seelig asked the purpose of regulating the length of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Wheelwright said that it is an urban design feature. He said that there is also a public safety aspect that the emergency response options may be compromised.
Commissioner Galli asked if there is a legal requirement that could be construed that it would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheelwright answered that the Commission has the right to delegate the approval of the modification to the Planning Staff.
Chair Jonas said that his concern is with the number of lots along I-215. He said that he recalled the previous plan had four lots and the revised plan has five lots. He said that he would not weigh that more heavily than the reasoning Staff gave for the revisions.
Mr. Wheelwright said that he does not expect any of the houses to meet the standards for FHA/VA mortgages because of the noise from the freeway. He said that the site is too isolated to incorporate a noise barrier wall.
Chair Jonas asked the Commission if anyone had concerns with Staff continuing with this project administratively. No one declared any concerns.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the petition initiated by the Planning Commission requesting that Staff correct mapping errors that resulted from the 1995 zoning rewrite. The petition was initiated after 10 properties were identified as having been incorrectly rezoned. Staff has since identified 13 additional properties and Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission to amend the motion to include those 13 properties as well. Chair Jonas so amended the petition.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
a. Qwest Corporation is requesting that the City execute a standard utility permit to cross the Salt Lake City owned canal, within the existing dedicated city street right-of-way located at 2150 West 500 South Street to allow previously installed communications cable conduits to remain at this location. The location is within the City street, which is not zoned, but is in an area of Industrial “M-1”zoning and land use.
Commissioner Muir moved to approve the request from Qwest Corporation to execute a standard utility permit to cross the Salt Lake City owned canal. Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-17, by Mr. George Mattena, represented by Mr. John Tabaz, requesting that the City close and declare surplus property the alley located between 900 and 1000 West Streets and Folsom Avenue and 100 South Street. The Applicant is also proposing that the City retain ownership, and enter into a long-term lease agreement with the owners of property abutting the alley. The property is located in a “CG” General Commercial zoning district.
This hearing began at 6:04 p.m.
Planner Janice Lew presented the petition as written in the staff report. She described the alley location and stated that a majority of the abutting property owners use the alley for rear access and utility services such as garbage pick up. She said that the Applicants have stated that the alley attracts a lot of undesirable activity that has the potential to create an unsafe condition. She stated that the proposal is to close the alley to the general public, and allow the area to be secured with limited access to the necessary utilities, other service providers, and adjacent property owners. Typically if an alley is closed, which abuts property zoned for nonresidential uses, the City will retain title to the property until the land is sold at fair market value or another means of compensation is provided, as stated in the alley ordinance. In this case, the abutting property owners are not interested in acquiring the alley property and are requesting that the City enter into a long term lease agreement. Ms. Lew clarified that neither Staff nor the Planning Commission have the ability to relax the terms of the ordinance. The issue before the Commission is to determine if the continued public use of the alley is in the City’s best interest. This approval would allow the Applicant to move forward to City Council and find an alternative means of disposing of the alley property. Staff believes that the alley in its current condition, fails to provide an overall public benefit; therefore, based upon the findings and conditions as outlined in the staff report, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to close the alley and declare it no longer needed or available for public use.
Commissioner Chambless inquired to the nature of the crimes that have been committed in the alley. Ms. Lew replied that there is a variety of crimes committed which are listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Chambless asked if there is sufficient lighting in the alley. Ms. Lew said that she did not think the alley is currently illuminated and suggested that Commissioner Chambless ask the Applicant to verify that.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the mention of the non-motorized transportation corridors in the staff report and asked if all of the non-motorized corridors are mapped in the Open Space Master Plan. Ms. Lew answered that they are mapped.
Mr. Zunguze said that although the ordinance does not specifically state the need for a lease it does mention that the final decision is left to the Mayor on whether it is a sale or other form of acceptable transaction.
Mr. John Tabaz, the Applicant who’s business is located at 940 West 100 South, addressed the Commission to say that the reason for applying for the alley closure is to ensure public safety. He said that his first interest is to protect his business which is located adjacent to the alley. He feels that this alley is a hazard to the community. He stated that he and the adjacent property owners offered the City $10,000 to purchase the alley, and the City declined saying that they would accept $17,000. The adjacent property owners felt that that amount was too great and they arrived at the lease agreement plan. He said that that is the best solution for the adjacent property owners, and the City will benefit from the alley closure.
Chair Jonas stated that a majority of the crimes noted in the police report, which is included in the staff report, do not list the alley as the address of the crimes. Mr. Tabaz stated that he has witnessed criminal activity in the alley and he is unsure as to why they are not listed.
Chair Jonas did not feel that a fence would eliminate crimes completely based on the fact that the fence would be open for daily usage of the adjacent property owners. Chair Jonas asked Mr. Tabaz what time of day the crimes happen. Mr. Tabaz answered that a majority of the crimes happen after 5:00 p.m.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Tabaz if he is calling the police on a regular basis regarding the crimes. Mr. Tabaz answered that they call about once or twice a year.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Tabaz how much lighting is in the alley. Mr. Tabaz replied that the lighting is very poor. Commissioner Chambless asked if the lighting were increased, did Mr. Tabaz think that that would decrease the illicit activity. Mr. Tabaz answered that he felt it would eliminate some of the illicit activity; however, due to the fact that the alley is out of the eye of the police and public it would not eliminate all of the activity.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Tabaz if he has discussed the issues with the Community Action Team and the Poplar Grove Community Council. Mr. Tabaz answered that he has and the Community Council supports the petition to close the alley.
Commissioner Seelig quoted a portion of the letter written by Mr. Tabaz saying “however long time customers and guests come around on a daily basis looking for some action, on of them is part of my weekend cleaning crew.” She asked Mr. Tabaz if the criminal activity at the house to the west of his property has diminished since it has been remodeled. Mr. Tabaz answered that it has diminished, but the same people are still loitering around the neighborhood.
Commissioner Seelig referred to Mr. Tabaz’s comment that the illicit activity continues partly because the alley is out of the eyes of the police; she asked Mr. Tabaz how he envisions more eyes on the area if it is gated. Mr. Tabaz said that they are interested in fairly high fences and they expect that the police will not need to monitor the alley any longer.
Mr. Zunguze clarified that the Planning Division does not produce property evaluations; they are left to the Property Management Division of the City. The two monetary figures that were mentioned were not generated by the Planning Division.
Ms. Lew added that the first figure given did not include all of the properties.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to the comment that the police report notes the criminal activity occurring on the streets rather than the alley, he clarified that although the crimes may have happened in the alley the police report would list the street addresses.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Ms. Yolanda Sanchez, representing the Poplar Grove Community Council, spoke to the Commission saying that the Poplar Grove Community Council is in full support of the petition to close the alley. Ms. Sanchez stated that as an adjoining property owner she is in support of the petition to close the alley. She stated that there is a substantial amount of criminal activity despite the efforts of the adjoining property owners to increase the light in the alley, and she has completely fenced in her property to avoid the alley.
Mr. George Mattena, who is the applicant and an adjoining property owner, spoke to the Commission saying that there is a clear problem that the City does not maintain the alley and the adjacent property owners do not have the right to police the alley. He said that the alley is a place for transients to linger. He said that the alley must stay open during the day for UPS and garbage collection, but the neighborhood would avoid the issues surrounding the alley if the Commission would allow the alley to be closed at night.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Pace what latitude the Commission has in terms of a closure since there is not a clear way to close the alley under a lease agreement. He suggested a temporary test to explore if a closure would have an impact on the activity in the alley.
Mr. Pace answered that the Commission is only asked to make a recommendation on the land use. Would it be in the best interest of the City to keep the alley open? The technicalities of whether the alley is sold or leased are the City Council’s decision. He said that the Commission has the option of recommending a temporary closure of the alley and bring it back to the Commission to review the outcome, then make a recommendation to City Council.
Chair Jonas said that he did not feel the alley closure would completely solve the issues, but he is not opposed to a temporary closure.
Commissioner Scott stated that the issue is that the residents feel they are under attack. She felt a dialogue needs to happen with the police to explore other options of enforcement. She said that she did not agree with the staff report finding regarding urban design that concludes that the alley closure satisfies this policy. She said that the alley is now serving its purpose which is allowing access to the rear of the surrounding properties.
Commissioner Muir made reference to the Commission agreeing to allow the residents to police the alley by constructing a fence and gates. The City holds easement rights to maintain the utilities in the alley. He said that should the City decide that those rights are some how unduly impeded by the gates, the City could assert their rights and demand that the gates be taken down. He asked Mr. Pace if that is correct as a means of giving latitude to the effectiveness of the approval down the road.
Mr. Pace answered that he agreed with Commissioner Muir’s statement, although there is a distinction between property that is owned by the public, such as a subsurface utility line, and property that is dedicated to public use, such as an alley. If this petition went forward, the property would be closed to public use meaning that the public would not be free to walk down it any longer although the City would maintain the utility easement. He said that the petition is to close the alley to public use.
Commissioner Muir said it is not a good precedent to allow private users to usurp the rights of the City on a piece of City owned property without returning the property back to the tax base first.
Mr. Pace replied that that may be something that the Commission may comment on in the motion by saying that the Commission will approve the closure of the alley only if the public disposes of ownership. He stated that there are a number of publicly owned properties that are not dedicated to public use such as water treatment plants. He said that the Commission must evaluate if anyone other than the abutting property owners need to use this corridor. Mr. Pace stated that if the Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to City Council, they may include in their recommendation as to how the Planning Commission suggests City Council deal with the technicalities of the property exchange.
Commissioner Chambless said that it seems that there is a contrast from the alley and street in terms of appearance and crime. He wondered if fencing the alley is the solution of the problem. He added that the alley will remain dark and rundown, which invites criminal activity.
Mr. Zunguze commented on the urban design elements saying he agreed with Commissioner Scott’s comments. However, the practicality of the use of alleys needs to be taken into account. He said that the current use of the alley is contrary to what you would expect alleys to be used for. If that is the case, the original intentions and notion of urban design contribution of that alley are not being served. Staff’s intention is to say that the current setting and current use of the alley has compromised the urban design concept.
Commissioner Seelig concurred with Commissioner Scott saying that the urban design benefit has been compromised because of the activity. She said that she felt closing the alley will not change the activity.
Motion
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding petition No. 400-03-17, by Mr. George Mattena, represented by Mr. John Tabaz, requesting that the City close and declare surplus property the alley located between 900 and 1000 West Streets and Folsom Avenue and 100 South Street, to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council based on the Planning Commission’s observations, findings of fact, staff analysis including photographs as noted in the staff report, and the Commission fieldtrip; particularly considering items B, C, and D and section 14.52.020 of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Chair Jonas asked what the motion implies in terms of what the Applicants are to do now in mitigating the problem.
Commissioner Galli stated that he is troubled by the motion. It seems that the surrounding citizens, business owners and the community council are trying to take matters into their own hands. He said that they have gone to the police to seek redress and they are trying to be good citizens and take care of the problem. He said that a fence would obviously reduce the access.
Commissioner Scott said that she agreed with Commissioner Galli saying that the Applicants have legitimate concerns. She felt those concerns will be addressed at City Council.
Chair Jonas restated that the issue for the Planning Commission is to decide if the general public needs to have access to the alley.
Commissioner Galli stated that he has not heard testimony that the public needs access. He said that the proposal is to allow the business owners to have access.
Commissioner Chambless said that he felt the need is to ask for law enforcement to step in and have a higher visibility.
Commissioner Muir said that he supports the motion not because he agrees with keeping the alley open, but he disagrees with the process. He said that if the Applicants would like to close the alley then they should go through the formal closure process and acquire the alley and create whatever easements they choose. He feels that it is poor public policy to keep this property out of the tax rolls and convey use to private sectors.
Chair Jonas stated that the only thing the Commission can do is make a recommendation to close or not close the alley.
Commissioner Muir replied that the petition before the Commission stipulates the process, which he disagrees with. He felt that the Applicant would need to return to the Commission with another option.
Chair Jonas called for the question:
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli voted “Nay”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. Four Commissioners voted in favor and one Commissioner voted against, therefore the motion was approved.
Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission if they would convey a recommendation to the City Council that they see merits in the issue, but they think this is the wrong way to address it.
Commissioner Scott felt the appropriate message is that if the neglect and darkness that have lead to the crime in this alley were prevalent in each alley in Salt Lake City, then every alley would be closing.
Commissioner Chambless concurred and added that this is an area that should be targeted for greater law enforcement.
Petition No. 400-03-22, by Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson to amend the text of the zoning ordinance to allow Places of Worship in additional zoning districts. The proposal is to insure that Salt Lake City zoning is consistent with federal law and would allow places of worship in all zoning district where similar uses are allowed.
This hearing began at 6:56 p.m.
Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that this is a petition to ensure that Salt Lake City is consistent with federal law. He said that in 2000 a religious land use and institutionalized persons act was passed by Congress. He said that the primary motive for the law was to eliminate potential for discrimination against religious organizations in land use regulations. He stated that Salt Lake City allows churches in all commercial zoning districts with the exception of the Neighborhood Commercial “CN” zoning district. Churches that are located on sites that are less than four acres in size are also allowed in residential zones. In 1995, during the Zoning Ordinance rewrite, the City created an Institutional “I” zoning district; and a concerted effort was made to include neighborhood places of worship in that zoning district. He referred to a zoning map of Salt Lake City and described what the different zones will allow. Staff recommends the alteration of the existing Zoning Ordinance to allow places of worship as a permitted use in the Research Park “RP”, Business Park “BP”, and the Airport “A” (in the terminal complex only) zoning districts. Staff is also recommending the Zoning Ordinance be modified to allow places of worship as a conditional use in the Manufacturing “M-1” and Neighborhood Commercial “CN” zoning districts. Staff is further recommending that places of worship continue to be prohibited in the Manufacturing “M-2”, Foothill Preservation “FP”, Agricultural zones “AG” “AG-2””AG-5””AG-20”, Open Space “OS”, Public Lands “PL”, Mobile Homes “MH”, and Extractive Industry “EI” zoning districts. The secondary issue is that other uses often accompany places of worship; such as, book stores, homeless shelters, etc. All of those uses would remain subject to existing code.
Chair Jonas questioned whether the “MH” Manufactured Home zoning district should be changed to allow places of worship as a conditional use. He said that there may be a need to have a facility in walkable distance for the residents in that community. Mr. Dansie answered that that is a possibility and there are only a few small areas that are zoned “MH” in the City, which are mobile home parks. He stated that staff came to the recommendation because schools, daycares, conference centers, and meeting houses are not permitted in the MH zone, which are all comparable to places of worship.
Commissioner Scott referred to the “M-2” zoning district and the permitted use for schools with indoor facilities. She asked if as long as a place of worship was indoors would they be allowed in that highly unlikely area. Mr. Dansie replied that in the “M-2” zoning there may be a need to have technical schools. He said that the reason it was restricted to indoors is for safety.
Commissioner Scott referred to the Airport “A” and asked if that would be limited to just one denomination chapel. She asked what is to prevent a proliferation of chapels. Mr. Dansie stated that the idea behind that is to allow all denominations including ecumenical chapels. The probability of multiple denominations renting space in an airport is not likely.
Commissioner Scott offered the idea to modify places of worship to a conditional use rather than a permitted use, to give the Planning Commission oversight and ensure that ecumenical chapels rather than denominational chapels went into the airport.
Mr. Pace stated that it is beyond the Planning Commissions purview to say what kind of churches may or may not operate.
Commissioner Scott said that she was concerned with number of chapels that may have interest in the space at the airport. She said that if more than one is allowed, then there may be a denominational effect.
Mr. Pace said that the space at the airport is given to those that pay rent. The probability of a religious institution wanting to pay a high priced rent for that location is not likely. He said that there are no such restrictions anywhere in the City and there is no justification to limit the airport.
Mr. Wilde added that there is no conflict from a land use standpoint. The Airport Authority will have to manage who occupies the space in the airport.
Mr. Pace referred to Commissioner Scott’s comment that she is concerned with the consistency in the “M-2” zones. He stated that the Commission may allow the schools with indoor facilities or make a recommendation to the City Council to delete indoor facilities as a permitted use.
Mr. Zunguze felt that the deletion of indoor facilities will impact the efficiency and productivity of the industries that require technical schools. He said that it could be a conditional use as well.
Commissioner Chambless asked if parking would change in the downtown area if a chapel were to locate there. Mr. Dansie answered that the City allows a change in use in the Downtown area without upgrading parking.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Grantley Martelly, a member of the Board of Trusties for the Salt Lake City First Church of the Nazarene, spoke to the Commission in support of the petition to change the zoning text. He said that this text amendment will serve to benefit the City, houses of worship and the greater Salt Lake Community.
Mr. Tim Brewer, Senior Pastor of the Church of the Nazarene, spoke in support of the petition. He said that the Church of the Nazarene has been in the Salt Lake Community for 100 years and they hope to be here for 100 more. He said that their church has grown and property is expensive. They are now exploring the options of using property that is not typically designated for places of worship due to that expense.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion
Commissioner Muir made a motion, based upon public comments, the observations of Staff, and the findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission recommend that the Zoning Ordinance text be changed to allow places of worship in the following zoning districts:
Permitted use in the following zoning districts:
• Research Park RP,
• Business Park BP,
• Airport A (in terminal complex only)
Conditional use in the following zoning districts:
• Manufacturing M-1
• Neighborhood Commercial CN
Prohibited in the following zoning districts:
• Manufacturing M-2,
• Foothill Preservation FP,
• Agricultural AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20,
• Open Space OS,
• Public Lands PL,
• Mobile Home MH,
• Extractive Industry EI.
Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. Four Commissioners voted in favor and one Commissioner voted against, therefore the motion was approved.
Petition No. 410-643, by Redman Investment Partnership, requesting Planned Development approval for the renovation of the Redman building and Conditional Use approval for an off-site parking lot associated with the future commercial/residential condominium use of this property. The project is located at 1240 East 2100 South in the Sugar House Business District “C-SHBD” zone.
This hearing began at 7:24 p.m.
Planner Greg Mikolash presented the petition as written in the staff report. Mr. Mikolash gave a brief description of the proposed site plan. He said that the building height is 88 feet, which is in compliance with the City height regulation. He described the on-site and off-site parking for the remodeled Redman building. He stated that off-site parking is a conditional use. Mr. Mikolash referred to the alley and stated that the proposal is to pave a 10-foot thoroughfare along the existing public alley for vehicles. To the East of that would be a rolled curb, with a four-foot sidewalk and two-feet of landscaping. He noted that the area may not be large enough to fit all three (3) improvements, and he suggested that the Applicant have the property surveyed to determine if there is in fact 16.5 feet of usable alleyway. If the area is not large enough for all three (3) items, the Applicant may want to eliminate that area as a vehicular thoroughfare. Mr. Mikolash gave a description of the possible landscaping and described the signage that the Applicant is proposing. He said that it is a roof-top mount that the City currently does not allow in the Sugar House Business District. The Applicant plans to use a smaller replica of the old building sign. He stated that the Transportation Division is requesting a traffic impact statement to define how pedestrian and vehicular uses will be dealt with. Property Management has informed Mr. Mikolash that there is a special improvement fee that is still owed to them. One condition of approval is that that fee be paid before the final documents for the Condo are filed, which will be approved administratively. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Planned Development for the renovation of the Redman Building and Conditional Use for the off-site parking lot associated with the new use, subject to the conditions as noted in the staff report.
Commissioner Muir referred to the parking site plan and the amount of parking shown. Mr. Mikolash replied that the Applicant is aware of the parking requirement, and the area to be used for additional off-site parking is negotiable.
Commissioner Chambless referred to Condition #6 of the staff report and asked how many years back will the City go to get the special improvement payments. Mr. Mikolash deferred the responds to that question to the Applicant.
Commissioner Chambless asked if the alley will be used for ingress. Mr. Mikolash replied that the alley is unacceptable for ingress purpose, and should be egress only. A traffic impact statement will influence the final decision.
Mr. Pace identified a needed change to the language of Condition #1, the word “disclaimer” should be changed to “stipulation”.
Mr. Vic Ayers, the Applicant spoke to the Commission to clarify that they are proposing 11 condos rather than 13, which will assist with the parking situation. He said that the Woodbury’s, owners of the Homestead Village, and the Lonestar Restaurant have all signed a lease to allow the Applicants to use portions of their parking lots. He feels that the parking issues have been solved.
Chair Jonas inquired as to the previous approval for this project. Mr. Ayers stated that two years prior, they were approved for a building that was twice the size of the new proposal with several parking issues. He said that the Sugar House Community Council endorses the current proposal for the project. He referred to the use of the Hidden Hollow alley for vehicular traffic and said that that was suggested by the Transportation Division during discussions with the City. He said that he did not feel that it would have an adverse impact on the project if the Commission decided not to allow use the alley for vehicular traffic. He said that he did not think that should be a deciding factor of the project approval.
Ms. Susan Ayers, the Applicant, presented a Power Point presentation to the Commission outlining the history of the building and the envisioned design of the remodeled structure. She described the alley and said that they intend to use it for mainly pedestrian traffic and few vehicles will be exiting through there. Ms. Ayers described the envisioned landscaping for the project.
Mr. Lyle Beecher, representing the Applicant, spoke to the Commission. He gave the Commission a sense of what they envision for the remodeled project as far as the materials that will be used and the style of the new structure. He said that they feel they have designed something that would fit into the surrounding neighborhood, also adding that the Transportation Division suggested that the alley be used for vehicular traffic purposes.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Helen Peters, representing the Sugar House Community Council spoke saying that the main concern is to protect the Hidden Hollow entrance. She said that the Community Council is in full support of the proposal, noting that the Community is pleased with the shared parking measures that the Developer has suggested.
Mr. Rawlins Young stated that his interest is that the alley be given totally to pedestrian access. He suggested that the Applicant refer to the “Pedestrian Mall Law of Utah” to ensure that the alley is developed for public use. Mr. Young handed a copy of the “Pedestrian Mall Law of Utah” to the Commissioners.
Mr. Johan Jacobs, a future resident of the project spoke to the Commission stating that he is in full support of the project which will greatly contribute to the community.
The Applicant rebutted public comment by saying that a Hidden Hollow access sign would be placed at the beginning of the alley, where they plan to call it “Hidden Hollow Lane” or something to that effect, to make it obvious to the public where they may enter.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Galli asked the Applicant if he originally suggested that the alley be used only for pedestrians, and City Staff suggested that the alley could be used for vehicles as well. Ms. Ayers said that that was something they wanted to explore because they felt it made the circulation easier. She said that is something they are willing to negotiate, though it was the City’s suggestion to use the alley as vehicular exiting for both parking areas.
Commissioner Scott suggested that the Applicant use lighting to attract pedestrians to the Hidden Hollow area. Mr. Ayers said that the property is owned by the Woodbury’s and they would work together to decide that.
Ms. Ayers stated that she envisions the use of colorful flags to line the public alley to direct the public into Hidden Hollow. She felt this would be an artistic way to attract the public.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Pace if the Commission has a legal issue to deal with in respect to the easement of the Hidden Hollow Trail. Mr. Pace answered that the easement is not a condition of approval.
Commissioner Chambless asked the Applicant what the proposed size of the new sign for the building is envisioned to be. Mr. Beecher stated that the only aspect of the sign that is not within current zoning is the fact that it is located on top of the structure. He said that the square footage of the sign is 4 feet by 20 feet and would be placed on the east and the west sides of the structure.
Chair Jonas said that the only issue of great concern discussed at the Planning Commission subcommittee meeting was if the Planning Commission should require a pavement break as the trail goes through the parking lot to give drivers a clear delineation that there is a pedestrian crossing.
Mr. Wilde referred to the process by which the right-of-way was established from the back of the building to the park. He suggested that the Commission attach a condition of approval to reaffirm that there is pedestrian access to the Hidden Hollow trail. He said that the Commission may want to give the Planning Director authority to approve the pavement and landscaping.
Commissioner Muir commented on the design to incorporate more traffic into the alley which will keep more eyes on the alley and reduce the need to police it.
Motion
Commissioner Muir made a motion based upon the findings of fact that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development proposal for the renovation of the Redman Building and Conditional Use approval for the off-site parking lot associated with the new use, subject to the conditions 1-10 with the following modifications: Condition #1, strike the word disclaimer and substitute stipulation; Condition # 5, change to read “the Applicant will attempt to gain a pedestrian easement for public use of the walkway through the portion of the off-site parking as it leads from 2100 South Street to the Hidden Hollow Park”; and make a modification to the plan that “the automobile access to the public alley be restricted to the upper parking lot”.
Conditions of approval
1. The Developer must enter into a long-term lease agreement for the use of the off-site parking area to meet required parking. The lease term shall be as long as possible, and their must be a disclaimer stipulation that states that, if the lease is to be terminated for any reason, that the Redman property owners be allowed eighteen (18) months to two (2) years time for the construction or installation of an on-site parking area of their own, to eliminate any lapse time of required parking.
2. That the Planning Commission allow the Petitioner to reinstall the replicated “REDMAN” signs as a rooftop fixture, currently not allowed in the C-SHBD zoning district.
3. That an attractive and appropriate trailhead access sign be installed on 2100 South Street near the public alley to demarcate pedestrian access to Hidden Hollow Park. Final sign designation shall be denoted on the final site drawings and sign approval shall be granted to the Planning Director.
4. Allowance for the Petitioner to proceed with future Condominium approval through the Administrative Hearing process as delegated to the Planning Director or his/her designee.
5. The Applicant will attempt to gain a pedestrian easement for public use of the walkway through the portion of the off-site parking as it leads from 2100 South Street to the Hidden Hollow Park.
6. The Petitioner must make current, all past due payments to Salt Lake City, for the installation of special improvements along the frontage of the Redman property.
7. The Declaration of Covenants for the future Homeowners Association shall declare and accept perpetual maintenance of the all pedestrian walkway paths leading from 2100 South to Hidden Hollow Park.
8. The Petitioner shall install shielded lighting fixtures to prevent uplighting/light pollution.
9. The Petitioner shall address and adhere to all departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.
10. Final plat and landscape plan approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
Commissioner Seelig asked to amend the motion to modify condition # 8 to “the usage of low wattage bulbs as indicated in the staff report”. Commissioner Muir said that he is not opposed to that, although, he is concerned with the Commission using land use policy to adopt an energy code.
Commissioner Seelig changed the amendment to “investigate the usage of low wattage bulbs.” Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment. Commissioner Galli accepted the amendment as well.
Commissioner Scott referred to the modification to condition # 5 and asked if it is the Applicant’s burden to obtain the public easement.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the easement is currently in place. He said that Staff is suggesting enhancements to the easement.
Chair Jonas said that the reaffirmation of the easement from 2100 South to Hidden Hollow is necessary. He said that it was discussed to have a change in the parking lot to better delineate the sidewalk.
Mr. Pace referred to the way condition # 5 is written in the staff report and said that if the Applicant is not able to obtain a pedestrian easement across the off-site parking area that approval of the petition not be subject to this condition.
Commissioner Muir restated the modification to condition #5 to read, “the Applicant will assist the City in determining the existence of an easement and then the Applicant will attempt to make improvements with the approval of the appropriate land owner that would create connectivity between the easement that the Applicant has access to and from the park”.
Mr. Zunguze asked, from an application and enforcement standpoint, what if the Applicant attempts to obtain an easement and they cannot. Commissioner Muir said that an attempt is all he is requesting.
Commissioner Galli accepted the amendment to the motion.
Amended Motion
Commissioner Muir made a motion based upon the findings of fact that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development proposal for the renovation of the Redman Building and Conditional Use approval for the off-site parking lot associated with the new use, subject to the conditions 1-10 with the following modifications: Condition #1, strike the word disclaimer and substitute stipulation; Condition # 5 change to read “the Applicant will assist the City in determining the existence of an easement and then the Applicant will attempt to make improvements with the approval of the appropriate land owner that would create connectivity between the easement that the Applicant has access to and the park”; modify the plan to “automobile access to the public alley be restricted to the upper parking lot”; and modify Condition # 8 to “investigate to usage of low wattage bulbs as indicated in the staff report.
Conditions of approval
1. The Developer must enter into a long-term lease agreement for the use of the off-site parking area to meet required parking. The lease term shall be as long as possible, and their must be a disclaimer stipulation that states that, if the lease is to be terminated for any reason, that the Redman property owners be allowed eighteen (18) months to two (2) years time for the construction or installation of an on-site parking area of their own, to eliminate any lapse time of required parking.
2. That the Planning Commission allow the Petitioner to reinstall the replicated “REDMAN” signs as a rooftop fixture, currently not allowed in the C-SHBD zoning district.
3. That an attractive and appropriate trailhead access sign be installed on 2100 South Street near the public alley to demarcate pedestrian access to Hidden Hollow Park. Final sign designation shall be denoted on the final site drawings and sign approval shall be granted to the Planning Director.
4. Allowance for the Petitioner to proceed with future Condominium approval through the Administrative Hearing process as delegated to the Planning Director or his/her designee.
5. The Applicant will assist the City in determining the existence of an easement and then the Applicant will attempt to make improvements with the approval of the appropriate land owner that would create connectivity between the easement the Applicant does have access to and the park.
6. The Petitioner must make current, all past due payments to Salt Lake City, for the installation of special improvements along the frontage of the Redman property.
7. The Declaration of Covenants for the future Homeowners Association shall declare and accept perpetual maintenance of the all pedestrian walkway paths leading from 2100 South to Hidden Hollow Park.
8. The Petitioner shall investigate the usage of low wattage bulbs as indicated in the staff report.
9. The Petitioner shall address and adhere to all departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards.
10. Final plat and landscape plan approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.