SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Tim Chambless, Commissioners John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Jennifer Seelig and Kathy Scott. Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioner Babs De Lay were excused.
Present from the Staff were Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director, Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Janice Lew, Principal Planner, Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner, and Maggie Tow, Planning Commission Secretary.
A roll is kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:48 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. A compact d
disc of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:48 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the September 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner McDonough and seconded by Commissioner Diamond to approve the minutes with the conditions stated by Commissioner McDonough, and Chairperson Chambless regarding Petition No. 400-01-32 and Petition No. 400-02-08. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Muir voted “Yea”. Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Scott abstained.
The condition stated by Chairperson Chambless was a request that the minutes reflect each Commissioner’s respective vote on the motion to form a subcommittee for the Sugar House Business District text amendment. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, and Commissioner Muir voted “Aye”. Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner McDonough voted “Nay”. The Planning Commission Secretary added each individual Planning Commissioner’s vote to form a subcommittee to the minutes.
The condition stated by Commissioner McDonough was a request that her statements regarding her reasons for voting “Nay” to the initial motion to adopt staff’s recommendation be included in the minutes on the Sugar House Business District text amendment. The Planning Commission Secretary added the statements and discussion by the Planning Commission to the minutes. Commissioner McDonough also requested that the minutes be changed to read that Commissioner Noda, not Commissioner McDonough, asked to have a statement by Mr. Gardner of the Boyer Company checked to verify a statement made regarding when work began and permits were issued. The name was changed to Commissioner Noda.
Commissioner McDonough also stated that the minutes for the Sugar House Business District text amendment read incorrectly at the point Mr. Traughber clarified her question on building heights. Upon review of the sound tape by the Planning Commission Secretary it was found that Mr. Traughber did state “there were several ways that building height could be achieved; maximum building height in that zone would not exceed fifty (50) feet for those buildings used exclusively for non-commercial development”. He did not say “non-residential development”. The minutes were correct and were not changed.
All conditions were noted, and the minutes for the September 14, 2005 meeting were approved. The motion passed with the stated conditions. The minutes for the September 14, 2005 meeting were revised as stated.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(5:55 P.M.)
None.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:55 P.M.)
Mr. Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director, stated that at the September 14, 2005 meeting an agreement was made to form a working group to address the traffic and height issues in Research Park. He stated the first meeting of the work group, made up of representatives from certain City Departments, UDOT, the University of Utah and Research Park, Community Councils, the Mayor’s Office and a staff from the City Council Office, had been tentatively scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2005. Mr. Ikefuna said that notices would be sent to those selected to serve on the advisory committee. He asked the Planning Commissioners to lift the hammer on future Conditional Use requests for new petitions in Research Park.
Chairperson Chambless asked for discussion on this issue. Planning Commissioners asked for clarification of the issues involved and Chairperson Chambless stated these issues were building height, traffic and adhering to the plan that had originally been established to cover these issues.
Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Scott were in favor of not processing more Conditional Uses until the Subcommittee had come to a resolution on the issues. Commissioner Muir stated that there were safeguards in the ordinance that allowed them to deal with other Conditional Uses, which did not preclude them from lifting the hammer. Commissioner Galli stated he would be willing to do this contingent on ensuring that there were safeguards and the staff was cognizant that they needed to be vigilant in that regard. Commissioner McDonough abstained from voting.
Chairperson Chambless stated that the vote was three (3) in favor of retaining the status quo, two (2) in favor of lifting the hammer, and one abstention. The majority of the Planning Commission voted to maintain the status quo as it had been established.
Mr. Ikefuna asked the Planning Commission to select a date in October or November for a Planning Commission Retreat. The Commissioners stated they would deliberate, select a couple of dates and discuss it under “Unfinished Business” at the end of the evening.
Mr. Ikefuna moved to the next item under “Report of the Director”; the Business Advisory Board. He stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had appointed Chairperson Tim Chambless as representative to the Business Advisory Board. Mr. Ikefuna said that Chairperson Mary Corporon, representative from the Business Advisory Board, would speak briefly to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Corporon stated that she was the Chairperson for the Salt Lake Business Advisory Board, which consisted of members of the Salt Lake City business community and represented a diverse group of businesses. She stated the Business Advisory Board had been in existence for a number of years and had realized many of the issues they dealt with had to do with planning and zoning. Ms. Corporon said the Board was interested in more communication and feedback between the Planning Commission and the Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board regarding the impact of Planning Commission actions on the business community. Ms. Corporon stated that if issues were dealt with and input was given early on, problems could be reduced. She stated that the Board was available as a resource and would welcome the participation. Mr. Ikefuna stated that for all future meetings, the Business Advisory Board could send information to Chairperson Chambless, who would attend the meeting and report back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Brent Wilde stated that the staff supported the representation and the Planning Division would also be a resource; attending Business Advisory Board meetings and making presentations if there was a topic of interest. Mr. Wilde felt that this was an opportunity for the Business Advisory Board to support the City and promote adherence to City regulations and business licensing regulations.
Ms. Corporon noted that board members Barbara Green and Rebecca Guevara, and Ed Butterfield, Staff Liaison for Economic Development, were in attendance.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that Cheri Coffey would report on the “Modification to Conditional Use, Petition No. 410-294, at 1041 North Redwood Road, relating to the demolition of the accessory structure.” Ms. Coffey said that this case had been brought before the Planning Commission in 1998 as a house of worship. At that time the church requested that a residential structure be retained as a house for the caretaker. She stated that the petitioner now wanted to tear the residential structure down, as it was expensive to maintain, and if the residence were to be removed, it would decrease the intensity of the use of the property. The petitioner would landscape the area and parking would not be put in its place. Staff’s recommendation was to allow the demolition of the house. Ms. Coffey asked if the Planning Commission would re-hear the case or approve the modification to the Conditional Use. Chairperson Chambless asked for discussion. Commissioner Diamond asked if this modification was part of the recommendation made in 1998 and if it would affect the UDOT approval. Ms. Coffey stated that the modification to the Conditional Use would not affect UDOT’s timeframe for improving Redwood Road.
Motion for Petition No. 410-294
Chairperson Chambless heard a motion by Commissioner Muir, with a second from Commissioner Galli, to approve staff’s recommendation for Petition No. 410-294. Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner McDonough voted “Aye”. Commissioner Noda and Commissioner De Lay were not present. The vote was unanimous to approve staff’s recommendation.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA
(6:11 P.M.)
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Petition No. 400-01-32 and Petition No. 400-02-08, to amend the text of the C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District) zone and the corresponding Sugar House Community Zoning Map, as well as the text of the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001) and corresponding Sugar House Future Land Use Map. In addition, several rezones are proposed for specific properties located adjacent to the area currently zoned C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District). The area affected by these amendments is approximately 2100 South from 900 to 1300 East, and along 1100 East/Highland Drive from Hollywood Avenue to I-80, including the Granite Furniture block, the Sugar House Commons, and the Sugar House Center.
At 6:30 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-01-32, Petition No. 400-02-08 and Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, who was acting on behalf of Mr. Traughber, Principal Planner, who was ill. Ms. Coffey thanked the Subcommittee members for their time and stated that she would clarify some issues, state the items discussed by the Subcommittee and give the recommendations. Chairperson Chambless turned the time over to the three (3) members of the Subcommittee: Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner McDonough. At this point Commissioner Diamond asked that Ms. Coffey lead the discussion by stating each of the five items that had been discussed by the Subcommittee.
Ms. Coffey stated that the Subcommittee met September 19th and September 26th. Five major concerns were raised. They were:
1. Concern expressed for the proposed C-SHBD1 zone on both sides of 1100 East just south of Hollywood Avenue and north of the Wells Fargo and Sterling Furniture developments.
2. The pros and cons of a reduced building height limit for the “Ballet West” property in order to minimize shadowing impacts on Hidden Hollow.
3. How to ensure that a required residential component will be built.
4. Clarification that the Planning Commission is the approval body for development over 20,000 Square feet or greater than 30 feet in height.
5. How to ensure that the design guidelines are incorporated into the review process
Ms. Coffey said she had e-mailed a map from the Adopted Sugar House Community Master Plan. Additional copies of the map and the Design Guidelines were available at the meeting. Ms. Coffey said that this map was only to be used to depict the area that the Subcommittee was recommending north of 2100 South on 1100 East. The rest of the map was not relevant and was not recommended for adoption. A more current map, as presented, should be used in the final recordation.
Commissioner McDonough questioned the fifty (50) foot vs. thirty (30) foot statement made by Ms. Coffey and read the handout that stated:
b. Additional building square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of one hundred feet (100’), however for each additional floor of non-residential use above fifty thirty feet (50’ 30’), one floor of residential use is required.
Ms. Coffey responded that her understanding of what the Subcommittee had arrived at was to still allow fifty (50) feet for non-residential uses, but maybe the intent of the Subcommittee needed to be clarified. Ms. Coffey read from the same handout stating:
a. The maximum building height in the C-SHBD1 zone shall not exceed fifty feet (50’) for those buildings used exclusively for non-residential purposes. b. Additional building square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of one hundred feet (100’), however for each additional floor of non-residential use above fifty thirty feet (50’ 30’), one floor of residential use is required.
Commissioner Diamond stated that it would be helpful if someone articulated the recommendations of the Subcommittee for each of the points. It was requested that Ms. Coffey go over her summary and then have the Subcommittee expand on the finer points.
Ms. Coffey stated that in her memo she indicated what she considered to be the intent of the Subcommittee in terms of the recommendations. They were to adopt the original staff recommendation with the following changes:
1) Change the proposed C-SHBD-1 zone to the C-SHBD2 zone along 1100 East just south of Hollywood Avenue to follow the boundary as shown on the current Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map (2001). If the proposed zoning map is changed, the proposed Future Land Use Map should correspondingly be changed.
Commissioner Muir asked Ms. Coffey to clarify. Ms. Coffey said that on the east side of 1100 East, the boundary coincided with Sterling Furniture property. The measurement was about two hundred seventy one (271) feet in depth along 1100 East. Commissioner Muir said that in the Subcommittee discussion it was decided that reasonable development on that corner would require two hundred (200) feet to ensure a reasonable office space floor plan. The Subcommittee wanted to ensure that space would be available and that it was justified on that side of the road. Commissioner McDonough stated that the discussion was initiated because the Subcommittee thought it appropriate to step down the height of the zone that was adjacent to the residential zone. She stated that across the street on 1100 East the step-down was best because of the scale of the street. She said C-SHBD-2 Zone should be the same on both sides of the street for atmosphere and proportion.
2) Drop the base height in the C-SHBD-1 Zone from 50 feet to 30 feet to trigger when the residential component of a development is required.
Commissioner Muir stated that this recommendation had not been fully worked out. His understanding of the Subcommittee discussion was that so much of Sugar House was already developed that any opportunity for developing additional housing would be limited. To make this a true walkable and Mixed Use neighborhood, as identified in the Master Plan, another zone, similar to the requirements of the D-3 zone that required residential, could be used. Commissioner Muir stated this would trigger at 20,000 square feet and a thirty (30) foot height. He said an applicant would still be entitled to build to fifty (50) feet without going through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review Process. Commissioner Muir stated a more rigorous entitlement process would not be imposed on the applicant until a fifty (50) foot height had been reached. Within the C-SHBD1 Zone, above fifty (50) feet, it could be achieved in certain areas, but other areas would result in compatibility problems, like adjacent to Hidden Hollow. He said a serious look would be needed to see what would be gained by allowing something higher than fifty (50) feet. A person would not be entitled to a fifty (50) foot non-residential building. Commissioner Muir suggested that an applicant could build a fifty (50) foot Mixed Use building or a fifty (50) foot building with off-site housing through a development agreement without coming before this body.
Commissioner Muir then raised an issue not addressed by Ms. Coffey’s summary. He asked if the seventy five (75) foot height and one hundred five (105) foot height would still be maximums. He said the seventy five (75) foot maximum would not make sense because Planning Commission would allow a seventy five (75) foot non-residential building, provided the requisite housing was an off-site condition and was one hundred five (105) foot in a Mixed Use. Those are maximum heights, but would be subject to the Design Review Process. Commissioner Muir said that it would have to be re-worded because there would be no incentives. The issue was more of a compatibility trigger at fifty (50) feet than an incentive to create housing. Housing was now required.
Ms. Coffey stated that one hundred five (105) feet would only be used if underground parking were provided. Any building over thirty (30) feet would provide housing.
3) Ensure that it is clear in the ordinance, that the adopted Design Guidelines Handbook is a guiding tool in the review of new development and that those guidelines are used by the Planning Commission in its deliberation regarding the review of new development.
Ms. Coffey stated that the Guidelines would stay intact and another standard had been added to the Conditional Building and Site Review Standards. The new standard was generic because the chapter related to the entire City. The standard stated “Any new development must comply with the intent of the purpose statement of the zoning district in which the project is located as well as the adopted Master Plan Policies and Design Guidelines governing the specific area of the proposed development”. In the case of Sugar House, the intent would have to match the zoning ordinance of that district and meet any policies in the Master Plan or the Design Guidelines because Sugar House has Business District Design Guidelines.
Commissioner McDonough said it was important that the two documents be tied together so the Design Guidelines could be viewed as an important document and a gauge of development.
4) Strengthen the language relating to transferring of the residential requirement to another site, including requiring that the developer specify exactly where in the Sugar House Business District that residential structure will be located and require a development agreement to ensure its construction.
Ms. Coffey stated that at the last Subcommittee meeting language had been added to the ordinance, and the issue of donating to the Housing Trust Fund option was discussed. If a developer could opt to put money into the Housing Trust Fund, that money could only be spent in the area zoned C-SHBD. The Subcommittee was concerned that if a specific location was not named, the residential component would not be built. Commissioner McDonough stated that allowing the Housing Trust Fund option, without having a specific time and place when the residential would be built, was not an effective tool to ensure the residential component was built.
Commissioner Diamond stated a hypothetical situation in which a developer would identify a project, but not want to put residential on their site. The developer could say they were unable to identify an available site, or maybe the developer would not be willing to work with another land owner to put housing on that particular site. He said the Trust Fund could be focused on that area that Ms. Coffey was suggesting and solve this problem. He said the City had several different options or funds for housing. If the City was one of the partners, it would make it more economically feasible to find property in Sugar House. The City would help a developer who was willing to provide the money for development, but who would not have the additional support to actually get it done. Commissioner Diamond said that would be a bond, but the City could also act as an agent and facilitator between property owners.
Mr. Wilde stated that several choices had been considered. One idea was to establish a percentage with a formula that would deliver an actual dollar amount tied to the size of the project. But he said that one formula had worked for one case but would not necessarily work for another case and they had been unable to establish a reliable formula. The intent with that line of thinking was that a property owner would choose an option and the number of housing units to be delivered, based on the project proposed, would be determined at that time with the current market conditions, and how much money would be needed to entice a third party to build the housing. The City would put this money into the City’s Housing Trust Fund. This option would provide another tool with which to accomplish the overall goal.
Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Wilde if there was a precedent for doing that and where did the Planning Commission’s authority come from to do that. Mr. Wilde stated it would become a City ordinance. He said there had not been time for the Attorney’s Office to develop the ordinance, but during the preliminary discussion no flags had been raised. Mr. Wilde felt the option was doable if an ordinance was in place, but said there could be issues not yet thought through.
Commission Galli said that if he were a developer wanting to build a commercial structure of 50 units, knew those fifty (50) units would cost five million dollars, and knew he wasn’t responsible for the purchase of the land, there would be a loophole because that developer should be responsible for the land and the housing that was on the land. Mr. Wilde suggested a formula would be used with a third party to build the housing. The dollar value would need to be sufficient to purchase land to put the housing on.
Commissioner Galli suggested a formula be used with a per unit cost for specific types of use, land and square foot cost, so both numbers could be factored into the cost of purchasing the property as well as building the units. He said if someone owned the land free and clear, they could take the money to build those buildings. If they had to purchase the property, it would take the profit and the carrying cost away from the development on a residential site.
Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Wilde again if there was precedence for what was being discussed. Mr. Wilde said that an ordinance had not been done like this before, but if the Commission was supportive of the policy, the staff would work with the Attorney’s Office to draft appropriate language.
Ms. Coffey stated that the Housing Mitigation Ordinance required replacement of housing or a donation based on a specific calculation to the Housing Trust Fund.
Commissioner Galli stated that he was not comfortable without legal direction regarding what could or couldn’t be done in this regard. Commissioner Diamond stated that the Subcommittee did not want to create a loop hole. He stated he did not want to end up with a lot of commercial space and no housing when the Master Plan clearly indicated housing preference in that area.
Commissioner McDonough stated that she was comfortable proceeding with the timeline and the development of the Housing Trust Fund option, but asked that staff check back in two years and evaluate how effective the ordinance was. In the interim, the funding idea could be fully examined from a legal and logistical standpoint.
Mr. Wilde suggested that the Commissioners focus on the concept; give the Planning Division policy direction, and allow them to pursue the legal means to get it implemented. He said that if a roadblock was encountered, the Planning Staff would be back to discuss the issues with the Planning Commission.
5) Clarify that any development of principal structures over 20,000 square feet or 30 feet in height must be approved by the Planning Commission. It is clear in the standard relating to setback, but not the others.
Ms. Coffey clarified that the review was required for any development that included 20,000 square feet or thirty (30) feet in height.
6) Add another standard in the Conditional Building and Site Design Review Process that relates to conformance with adopted master plans and design guidelines for any specific area.
Ms. Coffey said that the standard stated that it had to meet the intent of that zoning district as well as the policies of the applicable Master Plan and adopted Design Guidelines.
7) Rezone the Lincoln Towers Apartment Complex at 2017-2041 South Lincoln Street from C-SHBD and RMF-35 to C-SHBD-2.
Ms. Coffey stated that currently the property was split zoned. The previous recommendation was that it be zoned RMF-45. The Subcommittee recommended that it be zoned the lower intensity business district zone.
Commissioner McDonough said it seemed a logical place for the C-SHBD-2 Zone, and if that property did redevelop, it would provide a more consistent fabric along 2100 South. She stated that it was a good policy to have more consistent control over the review of that parcel as opposed to redevelopment under RMF-45. The opportunity would exist to be purely residential or change. She said this was a commercial corridor and that a tall apartment building exists there now. The thought was that when it was redeveloped, it would become more consistent with the commercial corridor.
Ms. Coffey stated that the structure was an 8-9 story building. The RMF-45 allowed the structure to be 45 feet. The C-SHBD-2 zoning district would allow a height of 60 feet. It would be less non-complying under the C-SHBD-2 Zone, but it would still be non-complying.
8) Set a deadline of two years to revisit the regulation to determine whether they are working to implement the intent or whether they need to be fine tuned.
Ms. Coffey commented on the last point and said the timeframe would allow the Planning Commission to re-examine the regulation in two years to evaluate if the plan was meeting the intent of increasing residential uses and activity in the business district area. The provision to review the ordinance in two years would not be put in the zoning ordinance, but rather in the Adoption Ordinance.
Mr. Wilde stated that the City Recorder’s Office had a good system in place. If a zoning change with conditions was put in place, a letter would be sent to the Planning Division at one year with a reminder that a review was needed.
Commissioner McDonough disclosed again to the Planning Commission that she lived in the Sugar House area but her input as a Planning Commissioner was to implement good planning policies consistent with the whole neighborhood and the City, and her comments and review were not biased.
Commissioner Muir asked if the changes made were significant enough to warrant a re-notification to the public and to invite a hearing. He felt it would benefit all to be able to show that the Planning Commission did have a broad based, public informed discussion. He did not want people to come to the City Council and argue that they did not have a fair hearing.
Chairperson Chambless stated they had a 2.5 hour hearing at the last meeting, a half hour addendum discussion, and he intended to open up the public hearing to hear from the community council, the Stakeholders and individuals who wanted to speak on matters pertaining specifically to the Subcommittee’s recommendations. He stated he had six cards from those people wishing to speak. He said the goal was to have a consensus and a recommendation, positive or negative, to the City Council.
Ms. Coffey said she had talked with the City Attorney’s Office and given them various documents. The City Attorney did not get back to Ms. Coffey on all items but her understanding of their conversation was that the City Attorney believed that the Planning Commission was ok from a legal standpoint in terms of notification.
Commission Galli said the height issue was the subject of the minutes and the public involvement before the subcommittee was formed. The public had scrutinized a different plan before the Subcommittee tweaked it. Commissioner Galli said he would like the public to respond and see if they felt a material change had been made from the plan that had been deliberated on. He felt the public needed an opportunity to weigh in and clearly understand the material changes made.
Commissioner Seelig asked how the item was noticed.
Ms. Coffey stated the mailing was not the same as it would be for a public hearing. With regard to tabling the issue, she stated that the public hearing portion was closed, the issued was tabled, and the Chair had the prerogative to re-open the public hearing. She said the City Attorney told her that the Planning Commission had the right to modify and adopt a recommendation. The Planning Commission had the right to modify the proposal and vote on it. The public could attend the meeting and talk on that issue. The public should not assume that if a recommendation was made by staff they did not need to attend the meeting or voice other opinions. The public should be aware that discussions and changes could occur in the meeting.
Commissioner Galli stated that the Planning Commission had a proposed ordinance that had gone through a great deal of deliberation. The Planning Commission took the proposed ordinance back, formed a subcommittee and changed the consensus approach. Now the Planning Commission would vote on the Subcommittee’s changes without a public hearing. He stated that this was a material change from what the Planning Commission had before. Commissioner Galli proposed the discussion be tabled, a full public notice be mailed and the hearing be set again for a full public hearing on the Subcommittee’s recommendations.
Mr. Ikefuna stated that the City Attorney’s advice was not conclusive. The Planning Commission may see fit to table this issue and reconsider it at the next meeting.
Commissioner Muir asked for clarification on the notification process. Ms. Coffey stated that the re-noticing would represent the Planning Commission’s Subcommittee recommendations. It would be a full notice and the public would respond to the Subcommittee’s changes.
Commissioner Diamond stated that the Subcommittee and staff felt the changes made were appropriate as they related to the Master Plan. He felt that the recommendations made were in the best interests of the community and the City.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Design Guidelines and the Master Plan were on the website. Ms. Coffey stated that they were on the website.
Commissioner Galli recommended that notice be sent out and reference be made to the fact that the Design Guidelines and the Master Plan could be reviewed on the web site because they were such an integral part of the process.
Chairperson Chambless asked for further discussion and/or a motion with regard to the two petitions.
Motion for Petition No. 400-01-32 and Petition No. 400-02-08
Commissioner Galli moved that Petition No. 400-01-32 and Petition No. 400-02-08 be tabled by the Planning Commission for the purpose of re-noticing with greater specificity, obtaining full public participation at a public hearing on the proposed changes that had been developed by the Planning Commission Subcommittee and determining a specific date for the Planning Commission to reconvene. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Noda and Commissioner De Lay were not present. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Petition 410-759, by Shriner’s Hospital for conditional use approval to replace an existing parking lot with an at-grade and below grade parking structure at approximately 306 North Virginia Street located in an Institutional (I) zoning district.
At 7:15 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition Number 410-759 and Doug Dansie, Principal Planner. Mr. Dansie stated that in the Institutional I Zoning District, parking was allowed. Parking structures were a Conditional Use. The applicant proposed building one additional level of parking beneath the existing parking lot. In part, parking structures were made a Conditional Use because of the impact of above-ground parking structures on the environment. Mr. Dansie stated that this was not an above-ground parking structure, but was below ground. The structure was at the existing grade and the additional level of parking would be underneath. It was the exact opposite of the reason why parking structures were made a Conditional Use in the first place. The only new impact created by the proposal would be a down ramp that goes into the underground portion. The ramp would produce some visual effects. Access to the site would remain from Virginia Street. The project involved an increase in the size of the existing parking lot by creating a new level of parking under the existing surface parking lot. The landscaping, lighting, and layout of the site would remain similar.
Mr. Dansie made one correction to the staff report. He stated the staff report said Building Services had no comment, but they did comment that there were no conflicts with the zoning ordinance and prior to getting a building permit they would require an intermediate parking plan while construction was proceeding. Mr. Dansie said the petitioner had made some slight changes. The Planning Commissioners had the original site plan in their packets but the petitioner had new site plans and they were distributed by Mr. Dansie. The new site plan showed that the down-ramp had been moved south, slightly down the hill area, about five feet to make the entry way more accessible and not as awkward on the corner area. This enabled the petitioner to put more landscaping against the wall area. Some rock retaining wall work would be required to match existing retaining wall work.
He stated that Shriner’s Hospital had looked at many alternatives for expanding parking. This plan was the most expensive but also had the least impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Dansie stated that Shriner’s Hospital would stay in the same location and the parking structure would hold about 261 stalls. Staff recommended approval.
Chairperson Chambless asked for questions. No response was heard. He then asked for the petitioner.
Mr. Kenner Kingston, Project Architect with Architecture Nexus, and Mr. Craig Patch, Administrator of Shriner’s Hospital came forward. Mr. Kingston began by clarifying the reason for the change of location for the ramp leading to the lower parking lot. The change was made for the safety and longevity of the project. Five (5) additional feet were added along this pre-cast retaining wall to protect it from vehicle traffic. It also improved internal circulation. This was a secondary exit point. Traffic would enter on the initial or existing curb-cut, circulate primarily to the drop-off loop and then into the structure as it functions now.
Chairperson Chambless asked for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Diamond asked if the petitioner had received any comments from the neighbors living above the parking lot regarding more hard-scape and less landscape on that deck than what was there now and also circulation of traffic on the parking deck. Mr. Kingston said they had not encountered any questions concerning that issue. He stated that initially, several other solutions had been examined. One response from the community was regarding the location of the parking structure. A simpler solution for entry was to bring a secondary access point at the lower elevation straight into the structure on the corner. Neighbors were opposed to the concept of a secondary curb-cut and so was Salt Lake City Transportation. He stated that they chose the more circuitous grade-level ramp, which was hard-scaped, but were responsive to the concerns of residents on Virginia Street regarding additional curb-cuts.
Commissioner Diamond questioned the circulation and safety issues for the parking deck. Mr. Kingston stated that lower level parking would be reserved for hospital staff only. A control gate and security grills were located at the bottom of the ramp to provide a secure location for staff. Commissioner Diamond suggested the control gate, or arm, and the security grills be moved to the top of the ramp and a sign be added that clearly stated “Staff Only Parking”.
Mr. Kingston responded to landscaping issues on the parking deck. He stated that deck-landscaping would bring many difficult issues that would have to be dealt with. He stated that the longevity of the structure was in opposition to the introduction of irrigation to the top of the structure and it was not a recommendation of the structural engineer or the architect from a building technology perspective. He said there were ways to combat the issues. Maintenance was always a breakdown in that scenario. He proposed to address the issue with landscaping along the existing retaining wall.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were other questions for the petitioner. No response was heard.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was a representative from the Community Council. No response was heard. Seeing no others from the public requesting to speak, Chairperson Chambless closed the public meeting and asked for discussion and/or a motion on Petition No. 410-759.
Commissioner Scott moved that in light of the comments, the analysis, the findings noted in the staff report and the staff recommendation, the Planning Commission approve the petition as outlined in the report and attached site plan as put forward this evening.
Commissioner Diamond suggested landscape inclusion on top of the parking structure (deck area). He felt it was a responsibility to the people that would use the building and to the community as well. Commissioner Scott stated she was reluctant to suggest landscaping because of the concept of the project itself; a parking structure that provided parking underground for half of the cars.
Mr. Kingston stated that the parking structures were evaluated in terms of feasibility and cost per stall. The addition of landscaping to the structure would either reduce stall count or increase structure square footage. As landscaping was required, stall count would drop. If the owner was required to maintain stall count, there would be an increase in structure size or the number of stalls would be decreased while the cost of stalls would increase. He stated that of all the available options to the owner, this was the most expensive. Every effort had been made to diminish the visibility of the project to the neighbors. Mr. Kingston said that the addition of landscaping to the upper surface would pose potential maintenance problems, such as snow removal.
Motion for Petition No. 410-759:
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-759, based on the analysis and findings outlined in the revised staff report and the new site plan as put forward this evening. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Noda were not present. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-758, a request by Mamas Production Inc., represented by Michael Marriott, for conditional use approval to allow an outdoor patio for a private club at approximately 615 West 100 South in a Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) zoning district.
At 7:35 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 410-758 and Janice Lew, Principal Planner. Ms. Lew stated that this site was formally a warehouse and had been converted to a private club in 2001. The applicant had requested approval for an outdoor patio use that had been constructed on the property without the appropriate permits. The patio was approximately one thousand four hundred (1,400) square feet and was enclosed. There were originally fourteen (14) parking stalls on the site and eight (8) would remain. Ms. Lew said that the site did accommodate off-site parking as required by the zoning ordinance and included adequate parking for the patio use. Based on the analysis and conditions provided in the staff report, staff recommended approval with the conditions that were recommended in the staff report.
Chairperson Chambless asked for questions for Ms. Lew.
Commissioner Scott asked for a clarification on the map regarding the placement and size of the patio. Ms. Lew used the enlarged map to outline the building area and the patio, showing the pre-patio area.
Chairperson Chambless asked the petitioner to come forward.
Todd McKinley, a partner with Michael Marriott, who was out of town, presented to the Commission. He stated that the addition of the patio had enhanced the aesthetic quality of the area. The original building was a wall of cement. With the addition of the patio, that held plants and furniture, the view and site were greatly improved.
Chairperson Chambless asked Mr. McKinley why the patio had been built four (4) months before approval and permits had been issued. Mr. McKinley stated he had attended a DRT meeting in March of 2005 and had received the impression from that meeting that he had successfully complied with all qualifications.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions from the Community Council, public or neighborhood. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-758:
Commissioner Seelig moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-758 based on the analysis and findings outlined in the staff report and with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with departmental comments as outlined in this staff report.
2. Final plans shall be reviewed during the building permit process for compliance with all applicable City codes and ordinances.
3. Noise levels shall be consistent with the standards of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department.
Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion. Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Noda were not present. The motion was approved.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the process that had been used for the last petition. Mr. Wheelwright stated that most of the items reviewed by DRT were plans that had been logged in as a part of the plan review process. He said the DRT was an inter-disciplinary team that looked comprehensively at proposed projects. The Planning staff had asked the DRT at various times to review projects prior to building plan submittal and the DRT function was a necessary and valuable service. He said that the DRT gave valuable advice and had ideas on how to solve problems before plans were submitted. He said he could understand how someone might think that because they had been given positive feedback in a pre-submittal kind of meeting, that they had a go-ahead. But a building permit was still required.
Commissioner Seelig asked Mr. Wheelwright if the City offered any disincentives to people that did not receive proper approval, but proceeded without them. He responded that the permit fee was doubled. As part of the Compatible Infill Legislative Action, the City Council had discussed other penalties for working without permits. Construction delays, increased fees and minimum fees had been discussed, but nothing had been decided on. He stated that the disincentives often ran counter to economic development and customer service. Ms. Coffey stated that staff was aware of the issues and was beginning discussion with the Historic Landmark Commission about ways to address the issue. The Planning Commission would be included in the discussion at a later date.
Mr. McKinley stated that Ms. Lew had been great to work with, but the Permits and Licensing Counter assumed that a customer knew everything. He stated that they were not helpful, and did not give him the information he needed. Mr. Ikefuna thanked Mr. McKinley for his statement and stated that he would speak with the Director of Building and Licensing Services and get back to the Planning Commission.
Petition No. 410-756, by Jeff Stockert of SLIC Lodging, LLC, requesting an amendment to a previously approved Planned Development located at approximately 196 North 2100 West in a Business Park (BP) zoning district. The original Planned Development, case #7267, by Jacobsen Co. allowed the development of the site as an industrial park. This proposal is a request to amend the site plan to allow the development of a hotel.
Petition No. 410-747, by Jeff Stockert of SLIC Lodging, LLC, for conditional use approval to construct a new Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites, at approximately 196 North 2100 West in a Business Park (BP) zoning district. Hotels are a conditional use in the BP zone.
Petition No. 490-05-30, by Jeff Stockert of SLIC Lodging, LLC, for Preliminary Subdivision approval of a two-lot subdivision at approximately 196 North 2100 West, in a Business Park (BP) zoning district.
At 7:49 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 410-756, Petition No.410-747, Petition No. 490-05-30, and Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner. Ms. Carroll made a correction to the agenda. She stated that Jeff Stockert is representing North Temple Lodging, LLC, on all three (3) petitions, not SLIC Lodging. The proposal was for a new hotel in a previously approved Planned Development area. The proposed hotel was a Conditional Use in the Business Park Zoning District. The Planned Development Amendment was also a Conditional Use. The applicant proposed to subdivide an existing parcel. The southern portion of that parcel would be developed and would be a future Lot One. Two exceptions to the ordinance were being requested through the Planned Development process.
Ms. Carroll stated that the parcel had a total frontage of approximately one hundred sixty four (164) feet. The applicant had proposed a solution for access. Lot One was required by the ordinance to have one hundred (100) feet of frontage. With the change, Lot One would have sixty two (62) feet of frontage. Lot Two, a Flag Lot, required twenty four (24) feet of frontage. With the change, Lot Two would have one hundred two (102) feet of frontage and would result in an odd shaped lot.
Ms. Carroll said another change was required by the ordinance. The two proposed lots were required to have frontage on a public street. These Flag lots would have frontage on a private street. The private street was developed in 1976 and was approved through the Planned Development process by the Board of Adjustment. It was a forty four (44) foot wide street and would provide adequate access for both lots.
Staff found that the requirements for Conditional Use, the Planned Development Amendment and a preliminary subdivision had been met and recommended approval of the proposal.
Chairperson Chambless asked for questions from staff. Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Carroll the width of the drive going to the Flag lot. Ms. Carroll replied that the approach would be thirty seven (37) feet and the paved portion would be narrower than that.
Chairperson Chambless asked for the petitioner. Mr. Rich Rosa, the Regional Director for Jeff Stockert, stated he would answer any questions. Mr. Rosa was accompanied by Mr. Rand Center, a Bingham Engineering landscape architect for the site. Mr. Rosa said he was looking forward to bringing one of the new Holiday Inn Express Hotels to the west side. It would be a new structure, create new jobs for the area, and bring in new tax revenues.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Rosa, Mr. Center or Ms. Carroll. No response was heard.
Chairperson Chambless asked if someone from the Community Council or anyone else wished to speak. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-747, Petition No. 410-756 and Petition No. 490-05-30:
Commissioner Galli moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-756, Petition No. 410-747 and Petition No. 490-05-30, based on the recommendations and analysis and findings outlined in the staff report, and the following conditions:
Petition No. 410-747 - Conditional Use and
Petition No. 410-756 - Planned Development Amendment
1. The Planning Commission modifies the frontage requirement of Lot 1 from 100 feet to 62 feet.
2. The Planning Commission waives the requirement that the flag lot must have frontage on a public street but instead allow frontage on a private street.
3. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with departmental comments as outlined in this staff report.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final site plan and landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director or designee.
5. The final amended subdivision plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. Recordation of an avigation easement with the Salt Lake International Airport.
Petition No. 490-05-39 – Preliminary Subdivision
1. The flag lot, Lot 2, may have frontage on a private road rather than a public road, based upon the planned development approval.
2. Lot 1 will not be required to have 100 feet of frontage. Lot 1 will have at least 62 feet of frontage and Lot 2 will have at least 102 feet of frontage, based upon the planned development approval.
3. The newly created lots, Lot 1 and 2, will comply with all other applicable zoning standards.
4. Recordation of an Avigation easement with the Salt Lake International Airport.
5. That easement, access and maintenance agreements be recorded with the final plat regarding maintenance of the private infrastructure, cross access easements and any other issues identified by the final plat process.
6. Final subdivision approval delegated to the Planning Director and recordation with the County Recorder.
7. All necessary provisions for the construction of any required public improvements and utility easements will be required pursuant to the building permit process and final plat approval.
8. The final plat must be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Noda were not present. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
At 8:01 p.m. Chairperson Chambless stated that a decision was needed with regard to a petition initiation to increase density through the Planned Development process. Commissioner Scott initiated the petition to allow staff to research and analyze whether allowing an increased density to the Planned Development Process was appropriate in Salt Lake City.
Chairperson Chambless announced that the Planning Commission meetings were scheduled for November 9th, November 30th and December 14th.
The last item discussed was the Planning Commission Retreat. The Commissioners decided a retreat would be held on a Wednesday evening not scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting. More details would be given later.
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. by Chairperson Chambless.