SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Laurie Noda.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey, and Planners Greg Mikolash and Joel Paterson
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Doug Wheelwright announced that Brent Wilde was attending the City Council meeting and would join the Planning Commission as soon as possible.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, August 15, 2002.
Jeff Jonas referred to Page 6, second sentence, and suggested that “institute of religion parking structure” be corrected to “institute of religion parking lot.”
Chair Daniels referred to Page 5, first sentence of the first paragraph, and asked that the word is be replaced with it. The corrected sentence would read, “Kay (berger) Arnold stated that when she drove by the property it was evident that the property is well maintained and a beautiful asset to the street.”
Peggy McDonough referred to Page 15, the first sentence of the second paragraph, and asked that additional alternatives be replaced with additive alternatives for correct terminology.
Arla Funk referred to Page 3, the last sentence of the second paragraph, and noted that “to prevent doubling the quantity of animals permitted” is an incomplete sentence. Chair Daniels suggested adding the word and to connect this sentence with the previous sentence. The correction would read, “Mr. Joyce explained that, if animals are approved on the accessory lot, the owner would not have the right to include another set of animals on his principal lot, and this is to prevent doubling the quantity of animals permitted.
Prescott Muir referred to Page 21, ninth line from the bottom, and asked that the word directive be changed to comments and that architecture school be changed to Dean of the architecture school. The corrected sentence would read, “The comments from the new Dean of the architecture school are that they hold the line on this scale and encourage that kind of infill.” Referring to the next sentence, Mr. Muir felt something was missing and added the words holding to this height for clarification. The corrected sentence would read, “Holding to this height gets rid of the gaps in the City and provides continuity.”
Motion
Laurie Noda moved to approve the minutes of September 5, 2002, as corrected. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Continuation of Public Hearing, Petition No. 400-01-36, by Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting adoption of the Central Community Master Plan, which will update and replace the existing plan that has guided development of the Central Community since 1974. The Central Community is generally located between North/South Temple and 2100 South Streets, and between Interstate 15 and 1300 East Street.
Cheri Coffey presented the staff report in the absence of Everett Joyce. She explained that, since the last briefing, the Staff has made the proposed changes, contained in the staff report and underlined bold text. The changes relate to the Planning Commission’s comments, comments from the Downtown Alliance, and changes to neighborhood boundaries requested by the East Central Community Council. She noted that the Historic Landmarks Commission reviewed this master plan so long ago that it has been scheduled for their review again on October 2. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission take action to adopt the plan this evening and, if the Historic Landmarks Commission makes substantial changes, the Staff would bring it back to the Planning Commission before transmitting it to the City Council. Ms. Coffey referred to a letter in the staff report by Chasebrook Company relating to zoning of the block, the 4th South Market is located on (300 to 400 South between 600 and 700 East) and stated the rezoning requested by Chasebrook could be a reason why this might come back to the Planning Commission if the Planning Commission agrees with the recommendation in the Chasebrook letter.
Mr. Muir asked if the plan was in its final format and stated that he felt the bullet point objective items in the vision statement should have a consistent format. He felt the definitions were helpful but questioned whether the public would understand the meaning of “livable neigborhoods.” Ms. Coffey suggested using a less trendy phrase. Mr. Muir liked “livable neighborhoods” as long as the meaning was clear and left it to the Staff to determine whether it should remain or be replaced with another phrase. He referred to the language on page 5 of the plan that states, “Historic Preservation efforts contribute to commerce through tax credit benefits” and asked how tax credit benefits contribute to commerce. Ms. Coffey replied that they create construction jobs for local artisans, etc.
Chair Daniels commented on recent information from the community encouraging the Planning Commission to make changes and asked if anything had been done. Ms. Coffey referred to a letter from Mrs. Brown and stated that nothing had been done yet. Ms. Funk asked if the Staff had any comments on the issues presented in the letter. Ms. Coffey stated that similar issues were raised regarding the proposed transit oriented development ordinance currently before the City Council. She explained that the East Downtown neighborhood has always been planned as higher density support residential for the downtown area. The Staff did not believe the 75-foot height limit would block the view corridors and did not agree with Mrs. Brown on that issue. Regarding comments that East Downtown should be stricken from sentences related to higher density growth, the Staff believed this density was appropriate in the East Downtown neighborhood. Ms. Coffey noted that some of the issues raised by Mrs. Brown stating that she supports these statements were not policies in the plan but rather community input statements in the master plan. Most of Mrs. Brown’s comments addressed high density in East Downtown and protection of the view corridors.
Ms. Funk referred to a letter from Dennis Guy-Sell from East Central Community Council and asked Ms. Coffey to comment on the possibility of deleting the portion of the plan addressing non-conforming uses. Ms. Coffey explained that, because it is a big issue, it should stay in the master plan, but the master plan supports looking at the non-conforming uses in a more neutral way. She did not believe the master plan and the contents of the letter were inconsistent. Ms. Funk asked Ms. Coffey to provide representative heights for the low- and medium-density proposals on the 400 South TOD corridor. Ms. Coffey replied that low density height would be 30 feet, medium density would be 50 feet, and 50 feet would only be allowed if it includes residential. High density height would be 75 feet.
Mr. Chambless referred to Page 8, point 1, of Mrs. Brown’s letter regarding deterioration, erosion, and demolition of housing stock and loss of single-family housing units. He asked to what extent the master plan is congruent with this concern in the East Downtown neighborhood. Ms. Coffey replied that the zoning is RMU, and the height can go up to 75 or 120 feet depending on location and consistency with the East Downtown Master Plan. Current zoning does not encourage preservation of single-family units. Mr. Jonas clarified that only applies up to 500 East, because at that point it goes into the Historic District. Ms. Coffey noted that is the apartment area of the City, because historically brownstones and apartments were built in that area.
Mr. Muir asked for Ms. Coffey’s reaction to the letter from Christopher Webb. Ms. Coffey replied that discussion occurred during the review of the draft ordinance about possibly allowing higher density in the middle of the block and then tapering down along 3rd South. From a preservation standpoint, the Staff has always maintained that 300 South should be protected. If Mr. Webb’s letter only relates to the middle of the block, the Staff could find that acceptable. However, if he wants the entire block to be higher density, the Staff could not support that based on preservation policies.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Ana Archuletta, representing the Central City Community Council, stated that their main concern is deterioration of housing in Central City. As she had pointed out in a letter last month, 60% of the apartment housing is substandard, and 40% of single-family homes are substandard, which they believed was due to the lack of preservation and priority from the City. Ms. Archuletta stated that it is important to the community master plan for the areas in the letter to be covered and that strong statements are present in all the master plans so they do not conflict. The letter addresses a number of conflicts they would like to see changed through the master plan. Ms. Archuletta commented on the number of boarded-up homes in Central City and stated that they would like to see more infill of single-family homes. She agreed with Ms. Coffey that in the area between 200 East and 500 East, many apartment complexes were built. Many complaints heard in the Central City area are that apartment complexes are not being taken care of, and a lot of pressure should be put on the landlords to bring these structures up to standard levels. Ms. Archuletta remarked that the residents would like to see single-family housing preserved. She identified a number of houses in several areas that were torn out that could have been preserved as affordable housing.
Christopher Webb, representing the Chasebrook Company, stated he was in attendance last month requesting approval for an adjunct building at the 4th South Market, and at that time he was asked about density on the block. He stated that he and his partner are interested in pursuing a mixed-use development that ties into the existing shopping center, which was the original plan with the 4th South Market. The City wanted to see a retail project that pedestrians could walk through from light rail into a higher density residential area on the north side of the block. He had always wanted to pursue that and believed it would be a great addition to the block and the area. He understood that a question had been raised as to whether that would incorporate the houses on 300 South, and he knew that area was a sacred zone with the Historic Landmarks Commission. Taking down those homes is not part of a grand scheme, but they would like to see greater density on the piece of ground that they have rights of refusal on.
Ron Love stated that he had worked on this plan along with other members of the community and believed they had developed a good plan. It should have been implemented some years ago, but he believed they had the basics of a fine plan for the area. He remarked that the East Central Community has been extremely active in this planning process, possibly because they have been more negatively impacted by planning decisions over the past 50 years than other areas in the City. He hoped the City would not start to look at increasing the densities, particularly outside the transit oriented development areas designated on the map. He stated that they had fought hard to keep their density as low as possible in the residential areas, and the concept of transit oriented development allows ample increase in density. Mr. Love believed this particular plan would allow significant growth, particularly in the East Downtown portion of Salt Lake City. He thanked Everett Joyce, Cheri Coffey, and other members of the Staff for their efforts. Mr. Love asked the Planning Commission to take a good look at the Planning Division Staff, because they had well qualified and knowledgeable planners, and projects like this would increase the education and benefit of those planners. If he were sitting on the Planning Commission, he would encourage the administration to beef up this Planning Division to maintain these well qualified people and to get the appropriate numbers of people to do this kind of planning throughout the City. He believed that made more sense than hiring consultants. He felt this kind of planning was important and put the planners out in the community to develop positive relationships between the City and the community. He quoted a statement that “the quality of the plan is in the planning,” and he believes that to be true in the case of urban planning and development of master plans.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Love to comment on the letter from Mrs. Brown. Mr. Love replied that he had not seen the letter. Mr. Jonas noted that the letter suggested making changes to the plan regarding height and density, especially in the East Downtown Area. Ms. Coffey has indicated that the Staff does not concur with those changes, and Mr. Jonas wanted to know Mr. Love’s opinion. Mr. Love replied that Mr. Muir has been part of their group for a long time and has addressed density, particularly in the East Downtown portion of the City. Mr. Muir has talked about the concept of a dense core of downtown moving out into lesser and lesser densities. Mr. Love believed this plan allowed for that concept and that density was appropriate in the East Downtown area and the transit oriented development corridor that runs through the heart of 400 South.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Love if he could provide a number for the potential expansion of the Planning Staff and what that focus would be. Mr. Love stated that he was not prepared to give a number but felt that Stephen Goldsmith would know what kind of Staff he should have.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Love’s opinion on the 75-foot height limit for 400 South. Mr. Love replied that in theory it is appropriate, but it would have a dramatic impact on the footprint of the community, and as a practical matter, it would be difficult. If they take steps to insure preservation of view corridors, with the rail system, higher density is inevitable and will happen everywhere. Mr. Love stated that he could support the 75-foot height.
Cindy Cromer recognized Vicki Mickelsen and noted that her writing skills pulled the master plan out of a very bad place. Her other skills bordered on heroic and have brought them to this point. Ms. Cromer stated that the City has paid for this plan many times and has paid contractors for this plan. She referred to Mr. Love’s comments and agreed that the City pays contractors for trash. She believed the Planning Staff does a better job than consultants, and the Staff has to fix what the City pays outside contractors to do. Ms. Cromer supported Mr. Love’s suggestion that the Planning Commission use their connections with the Mayor to lobby for the planners doing what they are well qualified to do--fundamental planning for the City. Ms. Cromer commended how Ms. Mickelsen handled the non-conforming business issue, noting that a huge amount of time was spent on this several years ago in a city-wide look at non-conforming businesses, and much of the public comment at the last hearing on the Central Community master plan focused on non-conforming business. Ms. Cromer believed it was clear that the City needed to formulate and adopt a small low-intensity business zone, something less intense than the CN zone, which has been talked about since the 1995 zoning re-write. The City should draft that zone and adopt it so non-conforming business owners can see how their businesses fit within the standards of the zone and petition the City, one at a time, to be rezoned. Ms. Cromer felt that blanket, wholesale rezoning of non-conforming businesses was totally inappropriate. The businesses are not distributed evenly throughout the City, and making a policy statement for all was absurd. She believed statements were needed in the master plan to direct the Staff to write the zone, and the plan should allow for properties to be examined individually in light of that new zone. This would enable them to see the impacts of rezoning and whether these properties fit the City’s standards. Ms. Cromer presented arguments as to why she thought wholesale upzoning of these properties was inappropriate. She did not believe there was a need for additional commercial zoning in the City based on the amount of existing vacant business and office space. She noted that the highest concentration of non-conforming businesses is in the Bryant and University neighborhoods, which this Commission established as a small area master plan study target area last November. By placing strong language in the Central Community Master Plan, they are preempting the decision-making process they called for in the small area plan. She felt it would be inappropriate to say something powerful in this document when that study has not been done. Ms. Cromer felt there was no need for neighborhood services based on existing CN and CC zoning because there is no shortage of services in their neighborhood. She was convinced that the pro-upzoning language would drive speculation around the non-conforming sites. She stated that she owns a non-conforming business with residential properties on either side, and it is standard for most owners of these non-conforming sites to own adjacent properties. The potential of an upzone would affect the adjacent properties under the same ownership. Ms. Cromer remarked that the City’s arguments in support of reconsidering non-conforming business sites could also be applied to non-conforming medical clinics which develop and continue to exist at the expense of housing. She stated that non-conforming businesses in their neighborhood have not been a huge problem because they were prohibited from expanding by the 1927 zoning. The conforming businesses that can expand have gobbled up adjacent housing, turned residences into parking lots, and created uses incompatible with residential uses. She believed limiting intensity was what they should be looking at.
Ms. Funk asked Ms. Cromer what text changes to the plan she would recommend to accomplish her objective. Ms. Cromer replied that the plan would be well served if there was more emphasis on housing. They have to have people to justify the kind of commercial they are considering. She believed the plan must be clear that housing is a priority if a decision must be made between commercial and housing. In terms of specific text changes, she believed nothing in the language should fuel speculation that petitioners would get what they want, but rather that the City will establish this low-intensity zone, and where it fits, existing non-conforming business petitions will be handled one at a time. The wholesale approach they went through seven years ago was exhausting, expensive, and non-productive. Ms. Funk felt that the text changes outlined in the staff report prepared by Everett Joyce accomplished what Ms. Cromer was asking for. In addition, the land use map was revised to state “non-conforming future land use evaluation map” and classified all the properties into one classification instead of two. Ms. Cromer stated that she had not read the staff report and was unaware of these changes.
Ms. McDonough asked Ms. Cromer if she felt the changes in the staff report addressed the concerns of non-conforming uses outlined in the letter from the East Central Community Council and the suggestion that it be evaluated by a subcommittee. Ms. Cromer replied that the letter was written prior to revisions in the staff report, but the Planning Commission could direct Staff to do these things without a subcommittee process, or a subcommittee could work on it. She felt they needed to proceed, because the non-conforming use issue has taken up a lot of time.
Mr. Chambless asked Ms. Cromer if she could cite examples of cities throughout the country that she compared her vision to or whether she was talking about a Salt Lake City that was pre-World War II. Ms. Cromer stated that her neighborhood never lost its traditional development pattern. It was hammered by medical clinics, and East Downtown was hammered by the intrusion of office space. The Bryant neighborhood never lost the neighborhood grocery store, but other neighborhoods do not have that kind of pattern. Capitol Hill appeared to be starving for a little business node. Sugarhouse is so desirable because you can walk from all directions to the park and business district. Ms. Cromer stated that she had not had much experience with other communities, but she believed the small business communities that are most successful are in nodes.
Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Cromer what parameters she envisioned for this low intensity commercial zone. She replied that the hardest to generate will be expansion and the potential to expand beyond the initial site. Hours of operation, garbage, etc., can be worked out, but a business’s inherent desire to grow and expand is done at the expense of surrounding uses.
Gil Iker commented that he has had an opportunity to review the plan since the last meeting. He complimented the Planning Commission and the Staff for a thorough and complete job. He believed the plan was put together effectively and was readable and understandable. He stated that his issue is non-conforming property. He believed one of the strengths of the City was the involvement of community councils and the people who serve on them. He did not take issue with the Community Council, but he did not believe deferring the placement of non-conforming policies in the master plan was wise. He felt timing was of the essence and noted that some issues have been festering since the zoning re-write was completed. He believed those issues had been dragged out too long and needed to be dealt with so owners would understand where their future lies. He stated that he liked how the revised plan addressed non-conforming businesses because it allowed for flexibility and the opportunity to make judgment on these issues. He felt the key phrase was case by case. He was sorry that would create more work for the Planning Commission, but each non-conforming use is different and calls for case by case recognition. Mr. Iker recommended that the Planning Commission include the basic concept of dealing with non-conforming properties in the master plan and not defer it.
Elizabeth Giraud, a member of the Planning Division Staff, read Christopher Webb’s letter. She noted that Block 39 referred to by Mr. Webb is in the Central City Historic District, and there are numerous houses along 300 South. Ms. Giraud stated that it has always been represented to the Historic Landmark Commission that any high density that could occur in Central City as part of this new master plan would be along 400 South. That would be fine as there are not many historic buildings left on 400 South. She was not opposed to new development that would bring more housing and people into Central City as long as it does not affect buildings that they consider to be contributing buildings in the Historic District. Ms. Giraud stated that pedestrian corridors, transit oriented development, mixed use, high-density housing, and walkable communities can co-exist within historic building stock found in Central City. They do not want more zoning that will undermine efforts to renovate historic homes. The lots that front onto 300 South with contributing homes should remain in medium- to low-density zoning as they currently are.
Lois Brown referred to a number of letters written to the Planning Commission over time and commented on the concern about view corridors in the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan. East Downtown allows for 45-foot and 75-foot heights, and it was indicated that a 45-foot height would be a four-story building and the 75-foot height would be a six-story building. Ms Brown felt that the 75-foot or higher allowance was not consistent with the intent of creating a view corridor over the area. She asked that the 75-foot height allowance be deleted from this document and other documents dealing with zoning for the East Downtown Area and the Central City neighborhood council area and that future development in the area be limited to 50 feet and only in specific areas. The 50-foot height was asked for in the proposed TOD ordinance to allow for residential development. Ms. Brown quoted from the East Downtown master plan regarding the importance of view corridors and vistas. She also quoted from the Central Community master plan regarding view corridors and protection of view corridors. She noted that the Urban Design Element also creates view corridors and refers to their importance and need for preservation. Ms. Brown commented on a statement from the R/UDAT document regarding view corridors and vistas and development that should be restricted or prohibited if it does not protect them. She stated that these quotes are important and should be considered as future development takes place in the area. Regarding corrections to the proposed master plan, reference was made to a number of quotes that speak to a height of 75 feet or more in the East Downtown Area. Ms. Brown requested that East Downtown be deleted from these statements so the view corridors could be protected and the nature and character of their residential neighborhood preserved and maintained.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Funk referred to page 12 of the master plan and noting that the East Liberty Park neighborhood is under the Douglas neighborhood. She asked if it was intended to be subservient to the Douglas neighborhood. Ms. Coffey offered to review that issue. Ms. Funk referred to page 14, the last underlined paragraph, and noted that the land use map is referred to as being on page 49, and it should be page 45.
Mr. Muir asked if the Staff had taken a position on the letter and recommended changes from the Downtown Alliance. Ms. Coffey replied that the Staff agreed with their recommendations.
Ms. Arnold agreed with Mr. Iker that they should move forward with the non-conforming uses and with Ms. Brown on building heights. After looking at a 35-foot-high building, she was more comfortable with 50-foot height limits. Ms. Funk asked if Ms. Arnold was suggesting that they strike references to the East Downtown area. Ms. Arnold replied that she did not think the plan defined the East Downtown area as well as it defines other areas. Ms. Coffey explained that the East Downtown neighborhood is part of Central City and runs from 200 East to 700 East and from South Temple to 400 South. Central City runs from 400 South to 900 South. Ms. McDonough noted that the East Downtown area starts on the south side of South Temple, and the north side of South Temple is in the Avenues. Mr. Muir explained that, because of the Historic Preservation Overlay District between 500 East and 700 East, this density only applies from 200 East to 500 East and South Temple to 500 South. It does not apply to the neighborhood they looked at around 1100 East on South Temple. Mr. Jonas asked about the boundaries of East Central. Ms. Coffey replied that it runs from 700 East to the University of Utah boundary. The Community Council boundary goes to 1700 South but, because the areas are different in terms of land use, this document splits East Central so everything south of 900 South is East Central South and everything else is East Central North. Mr. Wilde clarified that the existing RMU zone goes east to 550 East and north of 400 South.
The Commissioners discussed the height issue. Mr. Wilde noted the number of four-story structures scattered throughout the East Downtown Area up to 500 or 700 East. One thought in support of 75 feet along the 400 South corridor is that it matches the RMU zone that has existed since 1995 which abuts to the north. Chair Daniels questioned how many more tall buildings they wanted in this area. Mr. Jonas felt this was the area where density should be located in the City if they want to keep downtown alive and create walkable communities. Ms. McDonough believed it was a visualization issue and personal opinion in terms of the impact of height. It was her opinion, using examples of cities throughout the world, that the combination of tall buildings and wide streets was a comfortable relationship. She did not believe building out to that maximum was detrimental. She agreed with Mr. Jonas that the area next to the core of the City was an appropriate area, and it had been proven that this model works. Mr. Diamond believed it was also an issue of economics. If they want to bring people downtown, they have to make it affordable, because people do not want to spend a lot of money to live downtown. Ms. Funk was concerned about the 120-foot height exception and had mixed feeling about the 75-foot height. She questioned how long a master plan lives and how soon they would need this infill. She preferred to limit height now until they fill up what they have, because economically the market is almost at the bottom in Salt Lake. They are not occupying what they have, and if they allow more sprawl by allowing additional height now, it will affect economics. She believed a master plan should only last 10 years, and she did not see the need for 120-foot buildings within the life of this master plan. She definitely wanted the 120-foot height eliminated and questioned whether they should allow 75 feet because of the City’s economics. Mr. Diamond felt that 120 feet was appropriate within a few blocks of the center of the City. Mr. Jonas felt it was incumbent on the Planning Commission to approve the 120 feet so inappropriate height could be controlled through the conditional use process, and he did not understand why they needed to preclude it now. Ms. Funk felt that allowing it would send a message of high probability that it could be approved.
Mr. Wilde agreed with a comment by Mr. Jonas that the transit hub leading out of downtown was the most appropriate place for density.
Ms. Noda agreed with Mr. Jonas that the height should not be precluded in the plan. This is a narrow area, and there will not be an influx of builders wanting to build to that height. She did not think the Planning Commission should say no to something without knowing whether it is suitable for a particular site. She did not think the 75-foot height limit was a big issue.
Motion for Petition No. 400-01-36
Prescott Muir moved to approve the edited document as presented by Staff with the recommendation that they forward it to the Historic Landmark Commission and, if they do not make substantive changes, that it be forward to the City Council for review with the addendum that they add the recommendation suggested by the Downtown Alliance. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Ms. McDonough asked if there should be discussion on the non-conforming commercial approach and the suggestion of looking at a low-intensity zone on a case-by-case basis instead of an across-the-board upzoning. Ms. Funk felt that was addressed in the revised document contained in the staff report. The Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Jonas asked about other properties considered for inclusion in the map and asked if this would be an evolving document. Ms. Coffey replied that, if other properties come before this document is adopted, they can be looked at for inclusion in the map.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-611, by Eric L. & Jaye F. Olafson, requesting an amendment to the Arlington Hills Plat “H” Subdivision and Federal Pointe P.U.D. Subdivision, to consolidate Lot 8 of Arlington Hills Plat “H” zoned FR-3 with Lot III of Federal Pointe P.U.D. (and a 2600 sq. ft. related parcel between the two lots) zoned FR-2, creating one 36,633 square foot lot. The intent is to eliminate Lot III of the Federal Pointe P.U.D. for the purpose of increasing the rear yard area for future expansion purposes to an existing single-family dwelling addressed 1600 Tomahawk Drive.
Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the petition as presented in the staff report and provided an aerial Sidwell to identify the property being discussed. He explained that, when the Federal Heights PUD came into existence, the Arlington Hills Plat H residents requested that a corridor be left at the rear of the Federal Pointe lots as vacant and unbuildable land, and they were designated Lots II and III. Lots II and III were offered for purchase by abutting property owners in Arlington Hills Plat H. The original owner of Lot 8 purchased Lot III, and the gap between the two, called a deed gap or remnant lot, was also purchased by the residents of Lot 8. Mr. Mikolash noted that the house situated on Lot 8 is fairly non-conforming as to the rear lot area, and the property line is on the rear part of the balcony. The petitioners requested a building permit to expand the rear deck but could not do so because there is no rear yard area, and the property boundary goes right through the deck. A subdivision amendment is required because the lot is split by two subdivisions. This could not be done administratively because the property lies in the Foothill zone, and the ordinance requires Planning Commission approval. The petitioner has talked about not only expanding the rear deck but possibly adding a swimming pool in the rear yard. With the FR-2 and FR-3 zones having a 35-foot rear yard setback, that could be approved contingent on the petitioner showing a non-building area. As Lot III exists today, a restriction could be included that building must occur within a certain height or that the area can only be used for a swimming pool. The Staff recommended allowing the consolidation of the three lots, which includes the deed gap parcel, for the purpose of extending the rear deck and expanding the buildable area of the Arlington Hills Plat H Lot.
Chair Daniels asked if any other edifice would be allowed if the residents chose to add a swimming pool. Mr. Mikolash replied that the zoning ordinance in the Foothill zone does not allow accessory buildings in the rear yard outside of the 35-foot setback.
Mr. Jonas requested the dimensions of the gap parcel. Mr. Mikolash replied that it is approximately 20 feet wide.
Mr. Muir referred to comments about the creation of parcels II and III and the intent to make them non-buildable and asked if that intent was entered into a deed restriction. Mr. Mikolash replied that the covenants declare that Lot III was to be deeded to the property owners of Lot 9 of Arlington Hills Plat H. He did not recall whether restrictions were placed. Mr Muir clarified that, if this is not identified in a deed restriction, it has no bearing on their decision, because the Planning Commission cannot entertain someone’s intent. Ms. Arnold stated that a PR would show whether there was a deed restriction. Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright explained that the intent of the “Alpha parcels” was to keep them from being used as separate building lots. They were for view protection and negotiated as part of the development approval with adjacent property owners. The parcels were created so a house in Federal Pointe could not be built close enough to inhibit the original views of the Arlington Hills lots. He could not recall whether there was a deed restriction and noted that the parcels were designed to be transferred for a price to the abutting property owners only.
The 35-foot setback was discussed, and Mr. Jonas felt they could assume that the rear of the home was 25 feet from the property line. Mr. Wheelwright agreed and noted that the 25 feet may have included the gap parcel, because that deed gap parcel was not identified until they tried to match Federal Pointe to abut Arlington Hills. Mr. Muir asked why the Staff was recommending a positive recommendation if the original agreement was to hold tight on the lot boundaries to define the western expansion of the houses. Mr. Wheelwright did not think this proposal would violate the agreement, because the petitioner could not build a structure high enough to block the view of the valley from the original houses.
Jaye Olafson, the petitioner, introduced Ron Rowley, the person who helped with plans for their deck. Mr. Rowley presented the plan submitted for a building permit. He indicated the property boundaries and the original deck and explained that the Olafsons want to expand their deck and make it more substantial, increasing the deck size from 8' x 27' to 16' x 27'.
Ms. Olafson stated that, when they purchased the land, the property was a weed patch. They spent the first few years cleaning it up, and since the deck is in disrepair and dangerous, they decided to replace it with a new one. She called the City and, since there was nothing in the deed, she was told there was no problem. When she came in with her deck plans, the Staff found the problem with the lot line and the deed gap parcel. She was advised by several people to combine the parcels, especially if they wanted to sell their house some day. She stated that she was comfortable with any restrictions the Planning Commission might want to place, because they have no intention to do anything but expand the deck. Chair Daniels asked Ms. Olafson if she would agree to a restriction of no other buildings on the property. Ms. Olafson indicated that she was open to that restriction and stated that they would never do anything to block the view, because that was one reason they purchased their house.
Mr. Rowley suggested that the Planning Commission institute a setback line rather than place a building restriction, because he did not believe the Olafsons should preclude themselves from building a gazebo or some other acceptable structure. Ms. Olafson agreed with the suggestion because she did not know what plans a future owner might have.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Steve Harmsen, a resident at 1616 East Tomahawk and a neighbor east of the Olafsons in the Arlington Hills subdivision, stated that his property is in a similar situation. In the process of being put together, a huge number of restrictions were place on his lot. He felt that the Olafsons had done a wonderful job of landscaping the property they believe is theirs, and he did not object to adding eight feet onto their deck or even building a swimming pool or accessory house. His main concern was what might happen 10 or 20 years from now if a new owner wanted to build a super size house or accessory structures exceeding a normal one story. Mr. Harmsen asked if the Planning Commission could protect him from those two things happening. He felt views were important, and a 26-foot high house in that area would significantly restrict views from his property.
Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Harmsen if he knew the difference in elevation from the Olafsons’ rear yard to his living floor. Mr. Harmsen estimated that it was 20 feet or more. He noted that they look down on the city, not up at the mountains, and he wanted to protect the city view.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Harmsen if he objected to increasing the buildable area by 15 or 20 feet. Mr. Harmsen felt 15 feet was fair, but 20 feet seemed substantial. He had no objection to the entire property being covered by a structure if it is limited to one story.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Harmsen if he was aware of any defined view easement or deed restriction. Mr. Harmsen stated that he did not know of any. Mr. Muir found it peculiar that the intent to preserve was never defined.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jonas felt consolidating the parcels would be to everyone’s benefit. Mr. Diamond did not believe any restriction should be placed on the property other than standard setbacks on the back because it would limit the current owner. With proper planning, view corridors can be maintained, and he did not think they should make an arbitrary decision this evening. Mr. Jonas felt that Parcel III was intended to be open and not built upon to any degree in terms of structures, and he noted that a swimming pool is different from a structure. Ms. Arnold pointed out that the Planning Commission does not know that for sure. Mr. Muir agreed and stated that Mr. Jonas’ statement is not defensible because there is nothing to back up intent. Without it being part of the record, the Planning Commission would be retroactively imposing rules based on hearsay. Mr. Muir agreed with Mr. Diamond that the Planning Commission should not impose any restrictions. If there are restrictions that are demonstrable in court, the property owners can fight it out.
Ms. Funk stated that the Planning Commission places restrictions all the time, and the fact that this is a separate building lot indicates some intention other than for it to be a huge lot with a house that could extend out. Mr. Wheelwright explained that it was never a buildable lot. Ms. Funk felt they should not make it buildable now. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the agreement was specific that the Alpha lots could only be purchased by an abutter. The intent was to never get a third party involved in those parcels. He suggested that the Planning Commission make this a more permanent decision by delineating a buildable area on the amended lot. It would be permissible for that line to stop at the south end of the gap parcel, and the open area would still be behind the house on what is now Parcel III. In the final platting, that line would be delineated, and the public record would be clear in the future on this lot.
Motion for Petition No. 410-611
In the matter of Federal Pointe PUD Lot III Subdivision amendment, the request to consolidate Lot 8 of the Arlington Hills Plat H subdivision zoned FR-3 with Lot III of the Federal Pointe PUD which also includes a 2600-square-foot related parcel between the two subdivisions zoned FR-2, based on the findings of fact and testimony, Jeff Jonas moved to grant approval for the amendment to the Arlington Hills Plat H subdivision and the Federal Pointe PUD and consolidation of the three parcels, creating one 36,633-square-foot lot subject to the following conditions:
1. That a building permit only be issued once an amended plat for the Subdivision is recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office.
2. That the applicant complies with all City Departmental comments and recommendations.
3. That the buildable area of this new lot end at the north property line of the existing Lot III.
4. That the area of Lot III be buildable only to one story for pools and accessory buildings.
Arla Funk seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed amendments will be in the best interest in the City.
B. As proposed, the newly consolidated lot will exceed the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for both the FR-2 and FR-3 zoning districts.
C. All necessary dedications to the public were accomplished with the original subdivision plat.
D. There are no required public improvements.
E. This proposed amendment will comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
F. This subdivision amendment will not materially injure the public or any person, and there is good cause for the amendment.
Mr. Wilde asked Mr. Jonas to consider putting a dimension on the one-story structures. Mr. Jonas restricted the height to 15 feet.
Ms. Arnold stated that she understood that the motion suggested that the lot line end at the north property line and asked for clarification. Mr. Jonas explained that the house can be expanded 30 feet from where it exists today. Mr. Diamond suggested using the term setback, not lot line, because the lots are being combined. Mr. Wheelwright noted that in the FR-2 district, which is the zoning for Parcel III, accessory structures are not allowed in the rear yard area. He suggested moving the buildable limit line to the boundary described by Mr. Jonas. Everything south of that would be required yard and not allowed to have any structures. It was noted that Lot 8 is zoned FR-3. Mr. Wheelwright explained that they have a zone boundary running through the property, but it is not uncommon for parcels to be split zoned. Parcel III is zoned FR-2, which does not allow structures other than at or below-grade structures.
Mr. Muir suggested that the Planning Commission clean up the split zoning this evening so a future owner does not run into the same problem. Ms. Funk noted that the Planning Commission cannot do that because that action was not noticed.
Mr. Jonas amended his motion to eliminate Condition 4 and asked for affirmative language that the former Lot III can accommodate a pool. Ms. Funk accepted the amendment in her second.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-28, by the Salt Lake City Council, requesting to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning ordinance by creating a new Public Lands zoning district (PL-2) and to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by changing the zoning of Library Square (the block between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East) from PL to PL2.
Planner Joel Paterson reviewed the petition to create a new Public Lands 2 District and amend the City zoning map to apply this new zone to Library Square. In 2000, when the new library went through the development approval process, the library petitioned to amend the text of the PL District to allow some accessory retail spaces in the library. Currently, the Public Lands District allows some retail, but only for the primary benefit of the building employees. The PL District language could not be stretched far enough to include accessory retail space in the library intended for patron use. The Planning Commission considered that change and a few clean-up items the City added to the petition and added uses to accommodate reuse of the old library in December 2000 and sent a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance to amend the PL District. If adopted, those amendments would affect all properties in the PL District, not just the library block. The City Council instructed the Staff not to transmit the petition until the Central Community Master Plan was further along in the process, so the petition did not go to the City Council until June 2002. In July, the City Council raised two issues. They wanted to limit the changes to Library Square, and they had concerns about accessory retail spaces possibly pulling existing retail users out of existing store fronts and commercial areas on 400 South or Main Street. The City Council and the Staff considered several options to address those concerns and to allow City Council to amend the Planning Commission’s recommendation. That could not be done, because State law does not allow certain uses for the Library Block but not on similar zoned property elsewhere. The only option was to create a new zone, which requires Planning Commission review and recommendation. Mr. Paterson explained the requirements and restrictions of the PL-2 zone as presented in the staff report. He reported that this proposal was presented to the Central Community Council, and no objections were raised. He indicated that no other boards or organizations which have reviewed the plan have made any negative comment. The Staff requested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the zoning ordinance be amended to create a new PL-2 District and amend the zoning map by placing Library Square in the PL-2 District.
Mr. Chambless asked if the retail space was modular. Mr. Paterson explained that the retail spaces are located in the outer part of the large curving wall and orient toward the inside of the library. Because they are built into the structure of the wall, they are limited in their location. Mr. Chambless asked if there were restrictions on the type of retail that could occupy those spaces. Mr. Paterson replied that the retail is limited to 2,000 square feet maximum, and the library is looking for businesses that will help the library with programming of activities. They hope to get a craft store that will bring in artisans to do demonstrations.
Mr. Muir asked about market response and whether the RFP had gone out. Mr. Paterson stated that the RFP went out this summer, and there has been a lot of response. The library has reviewed the RFP’s and has certain uses in mind. Mr. Muir asked if it would be better to impose restrictions after they have tested the market to be sure they do not preclude the things they want to attract. Mr. Paterson stated that they are trying to satisfy the concerns of the City Council about not poaching existing businesses. Mr. Muir noted that the Planning Commission may not agree with that approach.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Nancy Tessman, representing the library, stated that she came to the Planning Commission before 2000 to talk about this issue. She commented that most of the language the City Council was interested in using was based on the Library Board’s conditions. The Board wanted locally-owned businesses promoting a taste of the community and a sense of community building. The idea is for businesses and the library to corroborate and provide an enhanced experience for the people who come to the library. The Board is comfortable with the provisions. Ms. Tessman noted that the spaces range in size, and there are more requests than they have space. They are currently focusing on the inside spaces. The Board has issued the RFP, accepted proposals, and started initial lease negotiations with five tenants, including Q Street Gallery, Ten Thousand Villages, Night Flight Comics, Graphic Novels, The Friends of the Library, the Salt Lake Roasting Company, and a news agent. Larger spaces outside the building are intended for businesses that address environmental issues and would tie to the new Science Center and an independent film company that would help the library bridge to the Center for Documentary Arts in the old building. Ms. Tessman stated that a number of non-profit organizations would like office and meeting space, and restaurateurs are interested in something on the plaza. She stated that the tenants must be willing to program with the library and work in concert with their mission. There must be some education, artistic, imaginative, or printed material connected to what the library is about. The only exception would be a retailer who would provide amenities such as food service. She explained that Ben and Jerry’s has a non-profit program that provides work training opportunities for homeless young adults. They are working on getting final authority from Ben and Jerry’s, but that would be implemented through a kiosk or service area on the roof.
Ms. McDonough asked how the library could insure the same specificity and selectivity of tenants in the future. Ms. Tessman replied that the ground rules are established as part of the Board’s agreement for handling the retail space. A retail advisory committee will review the lease agreements on a regular basis and look at the combined makeup and try to stay true to the principles. She noted that a library in Vancouver, Canada, was the model for this concept, and they were able to learn from what happened in Vancouver. She explained that the library is not dependent on all the spaces being occupied. The funds from the leases will be funneled into programming, promotions, and activity on the block. The goal is to make it work for the retailers and the community and is not just an ancillary way to make money.
Mr. Jonas asked if the library had means in place to maintain control. Ms. Tessman replied that they have Board policy, and she will make sure the language is solid to address their concerns.
Mr. Diamond asked if there are loopholes in the PL-2 zoning that would cause the library to lose control of their goals. Mr. Paterson stated that the standards written into the ordinance are close to what the library board has written into its documents. Mr. Diamond asked if there was any way for free enterprise to argue that. Ms. Tessman replied that they have worked closely with an attorney and they feel very solid in using the term “non-formula.” This term is clear, has been tested throughout the country, and using this term is one way to keep from allowing cookie-cutter choices. As an added assurance, Ms. Tessmasn suggested the possibility of adding language stating that there must be a cooperative program and purpose that the tenants are willing to engage in with the library.
Chair Daniels asked how they intended to keep away businesses they might find undesirable for this setting. Ms. Tessman explained that the lease agreement and operating conditions provide limits, and the Board holds the power to select the tenants. She cited examples of requests that the Board would review and how they would determine which was best.
Ms. Arnold commented that commercial leases allow them to discriminate, unlike an apartment or house, and Ms. Tessman and the Board would have a tremendous amount of freedom in making that selection without worry of a lawsuit. Mr. Muir stated that he did not understand why this should be included in a zoning ordinance if the discretion could be handled through a lease agreement. He was concerned about setting a precedent for the rest of the City. Mr. Paterson agreed that some of the conditions are unusual for a zoning ordinance. They originally tried to address them through lease agreements, but the City Council was concerned that it was not strong enough.
Mr. Jonas referred to the list of office uses and asked why government offices, institutional use offices, and research uses were not listed since non-profit groups would be more office use rather than retail use. Ms. Tessman felt it would be a good idea to include them on the list. Mr. Jonas asked if a radio station would be allowed as an ancillary use. Ms. Tessman replied that KCPW has already applied for space.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-28
In regard to Petition No. 400-02-28 to amend the zoning ordinance by creating a Public Lands (PL-2) zoning district and to amend the zoning map by applying the PL-2 District to Library Square, on the basis of the findings of fact outlined in the staff report, Arla Funk moved to approve the amendment to the zoning ordinance by creating the Public Lands (PL-Z) zoning district, to amend the zoning map by changing the designation at Library Square, and to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to do the same on the block located between 400 South to 500 South and 200 East to 300 East from PL to PL-Z. Tim Chambless seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed amendments are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
B. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. The proposed zoning text and map amendments will not adversely affect the adjacent properties.
D. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services will not be adversely affected by the proposed text amendment.
Mr. Jonas wanted to be sure the office uses he identified were included. Ms. Funk amended her motion to include government offices, institutional use offices, and research uses. Mr. Chambless accepted the amendment in his second.
Mr. Jonas asked whether they should discuss the local business formula. Mr. Muir stated that he would prefer to forward this recommendation without any encumbrance. He suggested that they send a message to the City Council that the Planning Commission was concerned about the precedent that would be set by entering this kind of language into a zoning ordinance.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Briefing on the Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Brent Wilde introduced Dan Bergenthal from the Salt Lake City Department of Transportation and Diana Atkins, a representative from the design consulting team. He noted that this item is scheduled for a public hearing at the next meeting, and the purpose of this briefing is to answer Planning Commissioners’ questions.
Mr. Bergenthal stated that they have worked on this master plan since May 2001, and last month they received approval from the Transportation Advisory Board to bring it to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Funk asked if the Transportation Department would be responsible for implementing the plan. Mr. Bergenthal replied that Transportation would be the main organization. They do not have funding yet but plan to ask for funding. Ms. Funk referred to comments about this being included in master plans and asked whether specific language would be written for each plan in each area. Mr. Bergenthal stated that when a master plan is updated, it will be sent to the Transportation Department for review and comparison with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Mr. Wilde explained that the City could include this in master plans retroactively, but he was unsure if it would be any more effective. Ms. Funk referred to Page 24, Action Item 7, which reads, “Provide developer bonuses for including extra pedestrian and bicycle amenities,” and asked if that was a realistic action item. Mr. Wilde felt they could add a provision that, if a development consisting of a threshold of units was willing to include a bicycle path through the complex, a density bonus could be offered to accomplish that.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Wilde if the Planning Commission would make findings on specific issues, or whether it would fit into the finding for conforming to existing master plans. Mr. Wilde replied that the Planning Commission cannot use the master plan to provide a density in excess of what the zone allows. Mr. Wheelwright commented that, in conditional uses which ask for compliance with master plans, this is one that would be mentioned. Mr. Jonas commented on some things the Planning Commission has been pushing for, such as bulb outs on corners, and asked how those would fit with the bicycle master plan. He believed bulb outs would directly conflict with bicycle paths. Mr. Bergenthal explained that traffic calming goes through their office, and they would work together on projects, especially if there is a bike route in the area. Mr. Jonas suggested different striping on bicycle paths to make drivers more aware of bike lanes and that they should not be driving in them.
Mr. Chambless suggested that diagonal hash marks might be eye catching to identify a bike lane. He commented on some things that are done in Amsterdam to favor bicyclists because in that country almost everyone rides bikes. Mr. Bergenthal offered to look into the possibility of hash marks. He noted that paint is slippery when wet, and they have to be careful about what they do in bike lanes.
Ms. Arnold asked if the City used the expertise of bicycle shops during the consulting process. Mr. Bergenthal replied that the Bicycle Advisory Committee has many people who own bicycle stores and are heavy into cycling. The Advisory Committee contacted each community council with a request to provide a representative.
Mr. Jonas referred to page 28 and the goal of promoting safe bicycling and enhancing pedestrian safety. He agreed with encouraging people to use bikes, but he noted that no one runs more lights and stop signs and creates more hazards than bicyclists. He stated that he would like to see enforcement as part of the objective.
Chair Daniels agreed that many people who ride bikes are adults, and many do not have any idea of the rules and regulations of riding a bicycle or do not care. He noted that the plan addresses education for children, but he believed they also need to do as much as they can to educate adults.
Mr. Muir stated that, in the past, the Planning Commission has been critical of UDOT coming in with transportation plans that are oblivious to land use, yet to some degree they are treating this like a road master plan because there is no mention of adjacent land use. He felt a goal or message should be added about adjusting the plan to be appropriate to adjacent land uses. Mr. Bergenthal read the language in Goal 1 and felt it met the objective suggested by Mr. Muir.
Chair Daniels stated that he liked the direction this document was going. He thanked Mr. Bergenthal and Ms. Atkins for their efforts.
Fine Tuning Issues
Mr. Wilde provided information on fine tuning issues and explained that fine tuning is a term for updating the zoning ordinance to correct little glitches. The information is being circulated this evening for the Planning Commission to review before the next meeting. He asked the Planning Commission to review the material and decide how extensive they want the review to be.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.