SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Prescott Muir, Vice Chair Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, Craig Galli, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. John Diamond and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Principal Planner Everett Joyce, Senior Planner Joel Patterson, Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik and Acting Planning Commission Secretary Deborah Martin.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Referring to page 6, Commissioner Seelig asked that the audio recording of the meeting be reviewed. Commissioner Seelig explained that she believed she asked the color of the utility box rather than the different colors that are available for graffiti paint.
Commissioner Noda moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
The revisions as noted are reflected in the August 25, 2004 ratified minutes.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chair Muir asked for an overview of subcommittee activities.
Responding for the Downtown Subcommittee, Commissioner Noda explained that they met last week with Planning Staff and discussed restructuring the 1996 Downtown Master Plan. Staff is in the process of making changes that the Subcommittee recommended, and will bring back to the Subcommittee those changes. The Subcommittee will then report to the full Planning Commission with the final revisions.
Commissioner Noda explained that the Policies and Procedures Committee also met on Tuesday, September 7, and reviewed the draft policies that were presented to the Committee during the retreat. Staff is making the revisions and will submit them back for final review. The Policies and Procedures Committee with then submit the final results to the full Planning Commission.
Chair Muir noted that Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner McDonough met with the Design Subcommittee to review the Episcopal Church proposal.
Commissioner De Lay explained that she too attended the meeting. The Design Subcommittee discussed concerns with proposed elevations and the affect they may have on the streetscape. A site visit was suggested because it is difficult to depict from the plans submitted. The site visit was scheduled for Thursday, September 9, but has since been postponed. Commissioner De Lay further explained that the Applicants have met with the Design Subcommittee for the second time, and Historic Landmark Commission representatives were present at this last meeting with some interesting historical questions that they wish to have addressed. Commissioner De Lay said that she believes it is a wonderful historic building and they are making progress.
Commissioner Seelig explained that the Banner Committee also met and they reviewed the document that Planning Staff put together. Based on their review of the document, it was decided it would be better to view the banner program as an experiment and grant more administrative discretion at this point. Different strategies in meeting the needs of the community will be monitored and then the Committee may go forward from there. A report to the full Planning Commission will be made shortly.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:51 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze explained that he would like to report on two items. The first item is the North Salt Lake request (identified as agenda item #a under the heading Report of the Director) and the transit oriented development ordinance also known as the 400 South Ordinance.
Mr. Zunguze explained that he met with Mayor Rocky Anderson on Friday, September 3, and the Mayor continues to seek a win win solution in the request made by North Salt Lake. Mayor Anderson strongly believes that open space has tremendous scenic, cultural and recreational values for both cities, and that every effort should be made toward preserving it. Mayor Anderson has a meeting scheduled with his counterpart next week in North Salt Lake to continue the effort. Mayor Anderson has voiced his appreciation to the Planning Commission and North Salt Lake for exercising patience while he works through issues. He has also indicated to Mr. Zunguze that he is comfortable letting the Planning Commission move forward in concluding their review of the request from a land use perspective. Mayor Anderson, as well as the City Council, is requesting a recommendation from the Planning Commission in regards to land use matters. Mr. Zunguze further explained that Planning Staff will be helping the Planning Commission in this process. The Planning Staff will provide the Planning Commission with a complete background and all physical attributes of the subject property. Staff will also provide a synopsis of where the property falls under the City’s Open Space Master Plan, what the benefits would be for open space, and an overall assessment of potential use impacts. The Planning Staff will also provide the rationalization of all the competing interests and deliberations that would substantiate the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Mayor and the City Council. Mr. Zunguze added that two meeting dates were planned for the Subcommittee working on this project; September 9 and September 16. The Subcommittee was not able to meet on the 9th, so in order to make preparation, Staff is asking for confirmation as soon as possible for a meeting on the 16th.
Chair Muir explained that the Planning Commission decided to impanel a subcommittee to work with North Salt Lake in addressing all options before the issue is brought to the full Planning Commission for formal review. The decision to form a subcommittee is in keeping with a recommendation made during the previous public hearing on this matter. Chair Muir acknowledged that Mayor Briggs from North Salt Lake City was present, and asked him whether or not he wished to comment on the matter.
Mayor Briggs expressed his appreciation toward past collaborative efforts on other projects such as the Delta Center and Abravanel Hall; however, he is frustrated with this project. Mayor Briggs explained that the request was brought to Salt Lake City in March, and he feels as if he should give the project to others who are able to equal the playing field.
Chair Muir explained that they had hoped to have some resolution within eight weeks of the request, and assured Mayor Briggs the time was exceeded only in an effort for a compromise. The Planning Commission also shares the necessity to move forward and hopefully expeditiously from this point.
As to the proposed transit oriented development ordinance, Mr. Zunguze explained that the proposal with a recommendation for adoption from the Planning Commission has been forwarded to the City Council. The City Council discussed the ordinance and is now requesting clarification. Principal Planner Doug Dansie has included in the Planning Commission packet the issues raised by the City Council, and proposed responses back to the City Council for the Commission to review.
After reviewing the issues raised by the City Council, Commissioner Seelig voiced her concerns about engaging an outside consultant for new ideas. Commissioner Seelig explained that the Planning Commission has been criticized in the past for not coming up with comprehensive vision statements, and she feels that if there is a process to introduce new ideas, including an outside consultant, the Planning Commission would take part.
Mr. Zunguze explained that it is not unusual for the City Council to seek outside consultation because it is their discretion as to how they proceed and they have always reserved the right to engage outside consultants. Mr. Zunguze recalled that the City Council sought three outside consultants to review the work the Planning Commission forwarded to them on the Main Street project. As for the Planning Commission, Mr. Zunguze said that they had the foresight to envision and forward to the City Council a proposal for transit oriented development. The Planning Commission should not feel they fell short in the process because it was their idea that set the stage, and it has endured all and any issues that arose. Mr. Zunguze added that he believes the City Council request for clarification is in part continuing dialogue, and Staff responses agrees and in some instances disagree with concerns raised. Mr. Zunguze said that he believes the responses fairly accommodate the City Council and reflect what Staff and the Planning Commission feel is best for the community; recommendations from consultants are not always necessarily correct.
Chair Muir noted that the transit oriented proposal applies as an overlay only to the “CC” Zone, and questioned why it does not include the entire corridor including the “CS” Zone. He explained that it would be appropriate to include the “CS” Zone because it appears that an overlay of housing is being imposed on small commercial parcels and forgiving the large shopping centers from sharing the same responsibility.
Mr. Dansie explained that there are several issues that fall in line behind the transit oriented proposal and the Walkable Community Ordinance. The “CS” Zone is scheduled to be addressed in the second phase in that if these proposals do not materialize for the “CC” Zone then more than likely they will not for the “CS” Zone. Mr. Dansie further explained that there are differences; for example, the Fred Meyer block was developed as a comprehensive single block, whereas the rest of the area tends to be individual parcels that are only 155 feet deep. Another example is the 400 South Market Place in that it is a brand new shopping center, but there is no immediate development pressure.
Commissioner Scott noted that one major issue was larger buildings and wedding cake designs depriving light for existing residential areas, and suggested that this issue be revisited.
Mr. Dansie explained that this issue has been reviewed and pictures were taken on the shortest day on the year, December 22, which show the extent of existing shadows being cast on adjoining properties to the north. One specific photo that Mr. Dansie recalled is on the street behind the Chase Suite Hotel.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Dansie to bring the photos to the Planning Commission, and recommended that another public hearing be scheduled for this proposal.
Commissioner Galli agreed that an additional public hearing would be advantageous, and suggested that government and private stake holders, such as UTA and Envision Utah who have an interest in transit oriented development and perhaps subcommittees, be notified. Chair Muir agreed in that the Planning Commission solicited comments from housing developers at the last hearing.
Mr. Dansie noted that UTA has requested from Planning Staff copies of transit and walkable zoning drafts so that they are able to work with other communities in creating this type of ordinance.
Mr. Zunguze asked Commissioner Galli to provide Staff with the list of stakeholders, and Staff will see that they are sent a notice.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters/Request for time extension:
a. Handy Trucking and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – The owners of Handy Trucking Company are requesting that Public Utilities allow the reduction in width of an existing 30 foot wide public utility and drainage easement, which was created by a recently recorded subdivision plat for the Tom Rich Subdivision. The proposal is to reduce the width of the easement from 30 feet to 12 feet to accommodate the proposed building development on the lot in this industrial subdivision. The property is located just south of I 80 at 30 South 5100 West in the Manufacturing “M 1” zoning district within Salt Lake City limits. Public Utilities and Planning Staff recommend approval of the proposed reduction in the easement width as requested.
Commissioner Daniels moved for the Planning Commission to approve the request.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
b. Jerry and Linda Petersen and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – The Petersens are requesting Public Utilities’ approval to place a concrete box culvert to contain a portion of the existing East Jordan Canal (irrigation water) and to lease the surface rights to the canal right of way property at 1441 East Fort Union Boulevard (6910 South) in unincorporated Salt Lake County. Public Utilities and Planning Staff recommend approval of the request.
Commissioner Noda moved for the Planning Commission to approve the request.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
c. Quest Communications and Salt Lake Public Utilities Department – Quest is requesting that Public Utilities issue a standard utility permit allowing Quest to install two communications conduits which would cross a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property at approximately 12080 South Lone Peak Parkway (125 West) in Draper, Utah. Public Utilities and Planning Staff recommend approval of the standard utility permit as requested.
Commissioner De Lay moved for the Planning Commission to approve the request.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
d. Quest Communications and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Quest is requesting that Public Utilities issue a standard utility permit allowing Quest to install a communications conduit which would cross a portion of the East Jordan Canal (irrigation water), Public Utilities owned canal property, located at 6890 South 1495 East in unincorporated Salt Lake County. Public Utilities and Planning Staff recommend approval of the standard utility permit as requested. (Staff – Karryn Greenleaf at 483 6769 or Doug Wheelwright at 535 6178)
Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to approve the request.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Request for time extension on prior approval
Petition No. 410-643, by Redman Investment Partnership, requesting an extension of time for the Planned Development approval of September 24, 2003, for the renovation of the Redman building and Conditional Use approval for an off-site parking lot associated with the future commercial/residential condominium use of this property. The project is located at 1240 East 2100 South in the Sugar House Business District “C-SHBD” zone.
Commissioner De Lay moved for the Planning Commission to grant a one year extension.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-04-32, by KAS, L.L.C., requesting a zoning text amendment to allow car washes in the Downtown “D-2” zoning district. The proposal is to add car wash uses to Section 21A.30.050, “the table of permitted and conditional uses”, within the “D-2” zoning district. This text change would allow the Applicant to construct a car wash at 628 South 300 West.
This item was heard at 6:11 p.m.
Principal Planner Everett Joyce presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that the request is to allow car washes within the Downtown “D-2” zoning district. Review of the zoning ordinance tables of permitted and conditional uses shows the following information related to car washes. A car wash is a permitted use in the “CC”, “CG” and “CS” zoning districts. A car wash is a conditional use in the “GMU” zoning district. Car washes that are accessory to a gas station or convenience store are a permitted use in the “CB”, “CC”, “CS”, “CSHBD” and “CG” zoning districts.
Mr. Joyce stated that based upon how car washes are allowed within the various zoning districts within the City; Staff determined that within the “D-2” zoning district it would be appropriate to permit car washes. Staff also identified that there may be potential impacts upon adjacent residential land uses from the operations of a car wash. Mr. Joyce stated in order to ensure that any potential impacts would be addressed; Staff has recommended that any proposed car wash within 165-feet of a residential use would be approved as a conditional use. Mr. Joyce stated that the 165-foot dimensional threshold for application of the conditional use process was selected due to the general parcel layout and development patterns in the “D-2” zoning district. He noted the typical small commercial lot depth is 165 feet. Several of the 10-acre blocks have mid block streets with residential uses. The 165 foot conditional use spacing distance combined with the typical lot depth would ensure that if there were any interior block residential uses a proposed car wash adjacent to these properties would be reviewed through the conditional use process.
Based on the findings of fact, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Downtown “D-2” zoning district to allow car washes as a permitted use, except when located within 165-feet of a residential use, then car washes would be permitted as a conditional use.
Commissioner De Lay asked why car wash uses were not originally allowed in the “D 2” zoning district.
Mr. Joyce replied that the “D-2” zoning district was created in 1995 during the zoning rewrite process. Mr. Joyce said that he is not aware why the proposed service was not included.
Commissioner De Lay noted that several states have adopted the concept of using recycled water for car washes, golf courses, and construction to conserve water. She asked if the proposal includes that concept as well.
Mr. Joyce stated that in a controlled car wash the Health Department will allow the water to be recycled. If the wash is an open bay there is no way to monitor what is going into the drain in which case it can not be recycled. He said that the Applicant may want to respond to that.
Chair Muir said that he is dismayed that Staff forwarded the proposed staff report to various business groups, which did not respond. He said that he has sent a request to the Downtown Alliance that they communicate better with the City, and at least respond with “no comment” if that is the case.
Commissioner Seelig requested additional information as to why car wash uses were left out of the “D-2” zoning district with the zoning rewrite.
Mr. Wilde replied that when the “D-2” zone was developed in 1995 it was quite restrictive in relation to the automobile uses. The City has since realized that the ordinance is too restrictive regarding automobile uses and has been liberalizing those uses through the fine-tuning of the ordinance. Mr. Wilde referred to the automobile dealerships saying that the proposed text change would help complete the package of permitted uses in the “D-2” zone.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the governing Central Community Master Plan. She indicated frustration that the Planning Commission is making future planning decisions based on a document which is over 30 years old.
Mr. Joyce noted that the governing Master Plan which was adopted in 1974, as well as the Draft Central Community Master Plan which awaits City Council review, both identify the “D 2” zoning district as a support commercial area for Downtown.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the City’s attempt to stress alternative transportation. She indicated that it is contradictory to allow more automobile facilities in the City while trying to encourage alternative transportation.
Mr. Wilde replied that in 1995, automobile dealerships were not included in the “D-2” zone. Staff later realized that the dealerships are an appropriate use in the “D-2” zone. With the automobile dealerships comes the major and minor repair which usually includes a car wash. Mr. Wilde said that it does not make sense to allow the larger facilities with car wash uses but prohibit the small facilities.
Commissioner Seelig asked if car washes are permitted in the “D-1” zone. She also asked if there are any car dealerships in the “D-1” zone.
Mr. Wilde replied that car washes are not permitted in “D-1” and there are no dealerships in the “D-1” zone.
Commissioner Scott asked if the noise generated by car washes was part of the reason why they were not included in the “D-2” zone in 1995.
Mr. Wilde reiterated that Staff made a purposeful decision to not include car wash uses in 1995, and over time has realized that the “D-2” zone is too restrictive. He noted that there is a fairly well established automobile industry in the “D-2” zone.
Commissioner Chambless referred to requests for car washes to the Board of Adjustment in the 1990’s. He recalled that there was great concern with the amount of noise associated with car washes, and said that may have impacted the decision to exclude car washes in 1995.
Commissioner Chambless inquired as to the longevity of car washes.
Mr. Wilde replied that since the restrictions for a car wash are very strict, once a site is developed they usually stay there.
Mr. Robert Gempler, the Applicant, referred to Commissioner De Lay’s comment regarding the use of “grey-water”. He said that he agreed with Mr. Joyce’s explanation and added that the automatic car wash water may be partially recycled. Mr. Gempler said that they plan to partially recycle the water used to wash the undercarriages and tires of cars.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Gempler regarding the number of bays for a profitable car wash.
Mr. Gempler replied in order to have a profitable facility one would need four wash bays.
Commissioner Seelig asked if the recycling efforts made by the Applicant are voluntary.
Mr. Gempler replied that they are voluntary and he is not aware of any regulation in place to require recycling measures.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Thomas Mutter, Central City Neighborhood Council Chair, addressed the Commission. Mr. Mutter wondered why the “D-2” zoning is not looked at in a higher density. He stated that he is against all zone changes. Mr. Mutter said that he felt that decisions were made at one time by competent people to implement a certain zoning and he did not feel that the need to change the zoning could be so great within five or ten years of those decisions.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-32
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-32, based on the findings of fact, staff recommendation, public input, and the discussion this evening, that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Downtown “D-2” zoning district to allow car washes as a permitted use, except when located within 165-feet of a residential use, then car washes would be permitted as a conditional use.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Scott said that although she agrees that the site proposed by the Applicant is an acceptable location for a car wash, she indicated concern with approving car washes in other areas zoned “D-2”. She particularly mentioned sites near parks and public land, which are prime locations for residential uses.
Commissioner Chambless echoed Commissioner Scott’s comment saying that the future goal is to attract people Downtown. Commissioner Chambless stated that he is not expressing opposition to the petition, but rather corroboration with Commissioner Scott.
Mr. Joyce said that there is a hope for a real dynamic change from a dependency on automobiles, and through time that may happen. He said that if that happens then the car washes may be replaced with something else to meet the needs of the market.
Commissioner Galli said that he feels that the proposed distance requirement protects residential development.
Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner Galli and added that the proposed 165-feet buffer is appropriate.
Commissioner Scott referred to the area on the east side of the “D-2” zone, saying that there a several empty parcels which are locations that could be used for car washes.
Commissioner De Lay did not feel that was a possibility due to the price of the real-estate in that area. She said that she did not think that there will be a proliferation of car washes in the area.
Commissioner Galli noted that in reviewing areas that are currently blighted, one of the goals is to encourage businesses to increase the activity in an area. He said that he feels that a car wash is an appropriate business to allow in a blighted area to help improve it.
Chair Muir called for the question.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Nay”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted in favor, and two Commissioners voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 410-682, by Peterson Oil, requesting Planned Development approval to reconstruct the Chevron convenience store and car wash located at 2110 South 1300 East in the “CSHBD” Sugar House Business District.
This item was heard at 6:41 p.m.
Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that all new development in the Sugar House Commercial Business District is required to go through the planned development approval process. Mr. Paterson noted that the proposed gas service station, car wash, and drive through window are all permitted uses in the Sugar House Business District Zone. Mr. Paterson described the site plan as proposed in the staff report. He noted that UDOT, the Salt Lake City Transportation, Engineering, and Planning Divisions have recommended that the Applicant close the north entrance to the site due to its proximity to the intersection. The Applicant plans to appeal UDOT’s decision through their process and would like the option to leave the north entrance open. Mr. Paterson referred to the proposed car wash saying that although it is a permitted use, the City noise ordinance limits the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays or legal holidays. Staff is proposing that the use of the car wash and associated vacuum be limited to the same hours.
Mr. Paterson noted that the Petitioner is requesting that the Planning Commission modify three of the planned development standards of the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the redevelopment of the Chevron site as noted in the staff report. Based on the findings of fact noted in the staff report, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant planned development approval for the redevelopment of the Chevron station with the requested Zoning Ordinance modifications and subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Mr. Paterson noted that the City Forester recommended that the sidewalk along the north property line be moved 18 inches to provide a wider parkstrip. Planning Staff is not recommending that the sidewalk be moved because the sidewalk is in fairly good condition and the parkstrip was made narrower to allow for the island in the street.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the car wash located across the street and asked if it has the same restrictions on the hours of operation.
Mr. Paterson replied that there are provisions in the City Code that limit the time frame that a machine which creates noise may be operated. He said that he is not sure how the City has enforced that on other sites, although the City has imposed similar restrictions as those proposed this evening on similar uses.
Commissioner De Lay indicated concern with the development of the residential Redman Condos in proximity to the proposed site.
Mr. Paterson stated that there may be noise concerns once the Redman Building develops as a residential condo.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the Community Council vote to approve the proposal 16-0 with one abstention. He asked if they mentioned concern with the noise associated with the car wash.
Mr. Paterson replied that they mentioned concern with the hours of the car wash operation only.
Chair Muir said that the proposed parking seems excessive.
Mr. Paterson replied that the use itself requires ten parking stalls. There are two issues which explain the excessive parking; one is the function of the size of the site. The second issue is associated with the Redman Building, when it was granted a conditional use approval for off site parking. They originally asked for approval to use parking on the Woodbury property south of the Redman Building. That lease fell through and the Redman project is in the process of looking for other sites within 500-feet of the site to gain 15 additional stalls. Chevron is making efforts to help alleviate that problem with their additional parking.
Chair Muir said that he hoped that Redman and Peterson Oil could get together and facilitate an ease of pedestrian access if the parking stalls become available to Redman. Chair Muir inquired regarding the utility of the landscaping to the rear of the car wash. He suggested that the Planning Commission require the landscape setback to follow the contour of the City owned alley, and build the retaining wall at the rear wall of the car wash. Chair Muir noted that this would widen the effective use of the City’s alley and would invite better pedestrian access for the shared parking.
Mr. Paterson reiterated that Chair Muir is proposing that the retaining wall be moved to the east and move the landscaping that is currently between the car wash and the retaining wall on the west side of that retaining wall down to the alley level. Mr. Paterson stated that there is a significant grade change from Chevron to the Redman Building. He felt that putting landscaping down at the level of the alley would limit the effectiveness of buffering the car wash from the Redman Building due to the grade change.
Chair Muir referred to the contrast of the pedestrian oriented situation at the west portal of Sugar House and the automobile oriented situation at the east portal of Sugar House. He noted that there have been strong efforts to create a pedestrian feel on the West side. He also noted that on the east side three of the main intersection parcels are totally auto-oriented. He asked Staff to comment.
Mr. Paterson agreed with Chair Muir saying that the Master Plan identifies a need to reduce reliance on automobiles to create a more pedestrian feel; however, the “CSBD” zoning district allows all of the proposed uses on the site. The Planning Commission is reviewing the proposal due to the new construction, rather than to decide if the uses themselves are appropriate.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the recommendation by UDOT and Staff to remove the north curb cut of the site. He said that he felt that there is an opportunity to alleviate some of the traffic congestion at the intersection by removing that curb cut and he did not think that the removal of the curb cut would detract from the business. He asked Mr. Paterson why the Applicant is trying to maintain both curb cuts.
Mr. Paterson replied that the Applicant indicated the he is trying to preserve the access to the site. He said that the from a safety standpoint it is wise to close the north access.
Commissioner Scott asked if the car wash intensifies the traffic at a station of this type.
Mr. Paterson said that he believed that it does. He said that the new design is more conducive to the circulation on the site as well as the property owner’s ability to control the water from flowing into the public way.
Mr. Mike Peterson, owner of the proposed site, and Mr. Kurt Mather, Project Manager, addressed the Commission.
Commissioner De Lay stated that she agrees that the north curb cut should be eliminated due to the amount of traffic congestion from the site to the intersection on 2100 south and 1300 East. She asked the Applicant why they are proposing a car wash on the site. She indicated concern with the added congestion on site from the car wash and the added drive up window.
Mr. Peterson replied that the site layout has been tested and if they thought that the layout would add congestion to the site they would not do it. He noted that the drive up window will not access the building; it is intended for a “quick serve restaurant”.
Mr. Mather said that the design of the site allows customers to enter the site off of 2100 South and pull around the north side of the building into the line for the drive up window or the car wash with one way traffic leading to the gas pump canopy. He stated that currently automobiles are moving in an opposing direction. He felt that the new design alleviates congestion.
Chair Muir asked if the location of the north curb cut is dictated by UDOT.
Mr. Mather replied that UDOT dictates the distance of the curb cut from the corner of the intersection.
Chair Muir asked the Applicant to react to his suggestion of lowering the landscaping on the west side of the site.
Mr. Peterson referred to the “Draw” which is a concept to construct a tunnel to connect Sugar House Park and Hidden Hollow Park. He said that he has been working with Helen Peters and Lynn Olsen of the Sugar House Community Council in trying to develop a site that would allow for the pedestrian connection. Mr. Peterson felt that if the retaining wall is moved the building will look taller.
Commissioner De Lay inquired how the traffic is going to improve while the Applicant is adding a Chevron Park, fast food drive-up, two more gas pump bays, and a 3,000 square foot convenience store.
Mr. Peterson replied that about 40 percent of the property is not currently being utilized. By adding those uses the Applicant will be almost doubling the currently used property.
Chair Muir asked why there is an excess of parking at the expense of pedestrian amenities. He said that he felt that the site would benefit if the parking along 1300 East were removed and the sidewalk widened in front of the store.
Mr. Mather stated that the excessive parking is an effort to be a cooperative neighbor and help the Redman project.
Mr. Vic Ayers addressed that Commission saying that they have made efforts to make Hidden Hollow Lane more pedestrian friendly by adding lighting and landscaping.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Ayers if the proximity of the car wash is a concern.
Mr. Ayers replied that he was initially concerned, but he visited a station identical to the proposed site plan in Orem located at 800 North and State Street. He said that the proposed plan will be an improvement to the current situation. He said that he and the Applicant have been very cooperative in making both the Redman and the Chevron projects work together.
Mr. Peterson said that the only change is that size of the convenience store structure has increased. He noted that they have made efforts to redesign the site to include basically the same amenities while using the lot more effectively.
Commissioner Daniels asked the Applicant to comment regarding the exiting stairway located at the southwest corner of the lot which leads to the Redman property.
Mr. Peterson stated that they do not own the stairway.
Commissioner De Lay asked how one would get to Hidden Hollow from 2100 South.
Mr. Ayers replied that one could enter from the Hidden Hollow alley located between the Chevron and Redman properties.
Mr. Peterson stated that they have worked to design the site to accommodate the Sugar House Community Council, the Redman property, and other stakeholders.
Commissioner Chambless asked why the car wash is essential to the success of the site.
Mr. Peterson replied that the profits on the gas and convenience store are always shrinking. He said to be a successful venture there is a need for several additional profit centers. He stated that the rent from the “quick serve restaurant”, gasoline, convenience store, and car wash are all essential. If one of those elements were removed this venture probably would not work out, because the property is very expensive. He stated that the car wash is a very profitable portion of the business.
Commissioner Chambless asked the Applicant to speak to the issue of theft.
Mr. Peterson replied that the current design of the site makes it an easy target for theft. He specifically noted the lack of lighting as a contributing factor.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Ayers if he is planning to live on the east side of the Redman Building.
Mr. Ayers stated that deciding which side to live in will come down to which view you want, rather than the location of the car wash. He stated that none of the potential condo owners have mentioned any concerns regarding Chevron.
Commissioner Seelig said that the Applicant’s crime prevention measures are appreciated.
Mr. Peterson added that there will be an increase in lighting and security with the redesign.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the lighting, asking if it will be intrusive on the neighbors.
Mr. Peterson replied that the lights will be 15-20 feet high and will be pointed directly down.
Commissioner Scott asked where the interior car vacuums are located.
Mr. Mather stated that the vacuums are located at the first parking stall as the car wash exits.
The Commission took a brief break.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he has been informed that the Community Council may not support the petition presented this evening. Their contention is that the project that the Community Council reviewed and approved is substantially different from the proposal this evening. Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff has an obligation to communicate with Community Councils, and felt an obligation to disclose this new information. Mr. Zunguze stated that he will look into this issue, as to what happened.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Ms. Helen Peters, Sugar House Community Council addressed the Commission. She stated that the Community Council reviewed this project in April of this year. The Community Council was very interested in the site because the previous developer of the Redman Building made efforts to eliminate the car wash. Ms. Peters stated that when the Community Council reviewed the project Mr. Ayers spoke to the Council saying that he did not have a problem with the car wash. She stated that the Applicant presented the expansion of the convenience store; however, there was no discussion of the drive through window or a restaurant. Ms. Peters felt that these two additions would be a serious concern for the Community Council, and the vote would not have gone in favor of the proposal. Ms. Peters felt that the proposal should be sent back to the Community Council. She felt that the Community Council would be concerned with the additional traffic, cars that idle at the drive up window, and the additional food preparation fumes.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the Community Council did not submit a letter of approval until three months after the item was heard. He asked if Ms. Peters is requesting that the Applicant resubmit the proposal.
Ms. Peters replied that is correct and the item could be scheduled for the Community Council meeting in October. She said that the drive up window is a significant change that the Community Council should be aware of.
Chair Muir asked if the Community Council could hear it sooner.
Ms. Peters replied that an executive session could be called.
Commissioner Galli asked how this proposal differs from the other surrounding drive up windows; he specifically noted the drive up window at Kentucky Fried Chicken which is located across the intersection. Commissioner Galli said that from a materiality perspective, he did not understand how this proposal will add to the impacts of the existing condition of the neighborhood.
Ms. Peters felt that the proposal would increase the current condition, which the Community Council is trying to improve.
Chair Muir stated that the role of the Planning Commission in a planned development approval is to mitigate the use, but not preclude it. He noted that the proposal is a permitted use, and the only way to stop a permitted use is to change the zoning. Chair Muir asked if Ms. Peters had any input as to how the issues could be mitigated through the configuration of the site.
Ms. Peters replied that it is obvious that in order to make a profit, there is a need for a mix of uses. She felt that this proposal is a reflection of the excess of the economy and how the community lives rather than specifically directed toward this property. Ms. Peters reiterated that the Community Council probably would have voted differently if the drive up window was presented.
Mr. Zunguze noted that the real issue for the Commission and Staff is that perhaps information was misrepresented. He said that the Community Council is not the decision making body, their role is to provide comments to the Planning Commission. He stated that the Commission needs to address the issue of whether there was misrepresentation of information by the Petitioner.
Chair Muir asked Ms. Peters if she felt that the petition was misrepresented.
Ms. Peters stated that the Community Council is not in favor of more drive threws. She said that if there was any indication of the drive threw, the discussion would have been significantly different.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Community Council was not aware of the more intense use, is it possible that the other City departments were not aware either.
Mr. Zunguze stated that relevant City departments received the same plans before the Commission this evening. He said that typically the Applicants arrange meetings with the Community Councils independently. Mr. Zunguze said that Staff takes great pride in the information that they provide the Commission and he is disturbed to come this far and have to deal with this issue.
Mr. Paterson reiterated that the relevant City departments received the same information that was presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Seelig asked when the information was sent to the City departments.
Mr. Paterson replied that it was forwarded at the end of July.
Commissioner De Lay confirmed that the Community Council supported the proposal without the drive up window.
Commissioner Chambless asked what the feeling is of the Community Council regarding the car wash.
Ms. Peters stated that the Community Council made a compromise to support the car wash on this site because of the efforts made to help mitigate the parking dilemma with the Redman Building. She added that ideally a car wash is not something the Community Council would want next to a residential development.
Mr. Curtis Miner, Architect for the project, addressed the Commission saying that he made the presentation to the Community Council. He stated that the site plan presented this evening is the exact plan that was presented to the Community Council in April with three exceptions. One, in an attempt to improve circulation on the site the convenience store structure was moved 12 feet to the east to provide a one way drive aisle between the car wash and the stacking lane for the drive up window. Two, the north drive access was closed and replaced with six parking stalls, after that request was received from UDOT. Three, the park was added. Mr. Miner stated that the site plan could not have been presented to the Community Council without a drive through window. He added that the floor plan has always been included on the site plan to help explain the uses inside the structure.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the drive through was specifically discussed.
Mr. Miner replied that he does not specifically remember mentioning the drive through window; however, he does remember mentioning the “quick serve restaurant”. He stated that during the meeting a member of the Community Council mentioned that they were related to someone who was negotiating with Mr. Peterson to rent that space.
Mr. Peterson stated that there is a restrictive covenant on the property that precludes this space from being leased or sold to any restaurant that specializes in hamburgers.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the Applicant would proceed without the “quick serve restaurant”.
Mr. Peterson replied that is not a possibility. He said that they never would have spent the amount of money which they did on this site if they were just going to expand the building; all of the uses proposed are needed. He stated that there was never a misrepresentation of the plans; the drive through window has always been included. Mr. Peterson stated that they are currently in negotiations with the Donut Hole for that rental space.
Mr. Ayers added that he introduce the owner of the Donut Hole to Mr. Peterson. He said that the product that will be sold is cooked every morning in Roy rather than on site. He said that they also will have Subway sandwiches which will not omit any cooking fumes.
Mr. Peterson stated firmly that they never misrepresented any of their plans from day one.
Commissioner Noda asked if the Applicant specifically mentioned the drive through.
Mr. Miner replied that he does not specifically remember mentioning the drive through window; however, he does remember mentioning the “quick serve restaurant”.
Commissioner Noda said that she did not feel that the Community Council understood that the nature of the quick serve restaurant would entail a drive through window.
Chair Muir stated that apparently there is a misunderstanding, and the intent of the Commission is not to delay the process. He said that the Community Council decisions in favor or against are not binding upon the Commission. The Community Council is a courtesy to the public as a means to gain broader input from the public. He said that it behooves everyone to make sure that the appropriate process has been followed.
Commissioner Noda agreed with Chair Muir and reiterated that the process will be substantially longer if the issue is appealed.
Mr. Peterson said that he understood the implications of the procedural process. He said that given that there was stacking on the site plan, a quick serve restaurant, and that the Community Council voted 16-0 in favor, if they review it again in a month, Mr. Peterson did not feel that the vote would change. Mr. Peterson stated that they have gone through the process exactly as they understood it and he did not think that the delay of an approval would change the Community Council’s vote.
Mr. Miner noted that the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal. He said that they have been through a lengthy process and never misrepresented the plans. Mr. Miner alluded to the need to start construction in warm weather and a further delay would prohibit that.
Commissioner Galli said that it seems that there is conflicting evidence as to what was presented, although he is not prepared to say that there was no due process. He stated that the site plan identifies a lane of cars pulling up to a drive through. He asked if the Applicant submitted a site plan which also identifies a line of cars as shown on the diagram presented this evening.
Mr. Miner stated that the plan presented to the Community Council did identify a line of cars in front of the drive-up window.
Commissioner Galli stated that he felt that there was reasonable notice and that the Community Council has an obligation to pay attention to the plans that they receive and ask questions.
Commissioner Scott noted the agenda language for the proposed petition saying that a restaurant is not mentioned; however, it is mentioned in the staff report. She said that she did not fully understand the extent of the restaurant until listening to the testimony this evening. She felt that as long as there is a shadow of doubt as to what the Community Council understood, she is inclined to recommend that the Community Council review the petition again.
Mr. Peterson stated that if the proposal is not approved this evening the project is dead until the spring.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner De Lay felt that there are other alternatives this evening, such as prohibiting the use of grills at the restaurant. She referred to the idling cars saying that is an element of this development with or without the restaurant.
Chair Muir agreed with Commissioner Galli that the configuration of the site and the drive up window are apparent.
Mr. Zunguze reiterated that Staff is not so much concerned with whether the comments of the Community Council are in support or not, but rather whether the information was properly presented.
Chair Muir asked if Staff has received other plans that would support the Applicant’s argument.
Mr. Paterson replied that he has only seen one other set of plans that were submitted with the application in July.
Commissioner Galli suggested that the Commission condition the approval based on the submittal of proof with a dated diagram or an affidavit that the diagram showing the drive through was in fact presented to the Community Council.
Commissioner Scott asked what responsibility the Planning Commission has to the potential occupants of the adjacent condos, regarding their notification of the restaurant.
Commissioner Galli noted that the landlord of the Redman condos provided testimony that he understood what is proposed at the site. He felt that is sufficient record that the interests of those investors have been covered. Commissioner Galli added that they must be aware of the surrounding drive through restaurant locations.
Commissioner Noda agreed that there are other surrounding fast food restaurants in the neighborhood and it is a permitted use. She said that she has difficulty with the question if there was adequate representation at the Community Council meeting. Commissioner Noda asked Mr. Zunguze for his recommendation.
Mr. Zunguze said that he did not wish to hazard a recommendation; however, he would like to point out a few things. It does not take much to appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board and if it happens there is an automatic 30 day delay to the process. He noted the alternative suggested by Commissioner Galli, saying that the Commission has the prerogative to go that route. Mr. Zunguze stated that he does not have a copy of what was actually shown to the Community Council, so he can not verify that whatever representation he receives from the Petitioner was that which was actually presented to the Community Council.
Chair Muir suggested that perhaps the Community Councils sign off on future site plans presented or acknowledge the date it was reviewed.
Commissioner Galli also suggested that the Applicants submit a copy of the site plan to Staff at the time it is presented to the Community Council.
Commissioner Seelig noted that in trying to respond to the requests of the community the plans naturally evolve.
Mr. Zunguze restated that the fact that the Community Council voted in favor of the project does not make it approvable or disapprovable. The question is when the Community Council made their comments, were they in full knowledge of the scope of the project.
Chair Muir said that the fairness issue cuts both ways, the Applicant claims that they have done everything asked of them. The Community Council is claiming that the plans have been misrepresented. Chair Muir felt that the burden of proof falls to the Applicant to demonstrate that they did deliver what they claim. He referred to the Planning Commissioners personal deliberations. Chair Muir said that he felt that it is important for each Commissioner to question whether their vote would change, had the Community Council rejected this project. He asked if the Commission would benefit from another hearing.
Commissioner Galli pointed out that there is always risk for litigation regarding any of the Planning Commission decisions. The Applicant is willing to move forward and accept the litigation risk. Commissioner Galli felt that the integrity of this process is preserved by the Commission conditioning the approval on proof that the site plan was not misrepresented to the Community Council.
Commissioner Noda agreed with Commissioner Galli that the responsibility of proof falls to the Applicant, and if the approval is appealed the timeline for development will lengthen.
Commissioner Scott read the letter from the Community Council which was submitted in July of 2004, and noted that it does not mention a restaurant or drive up window in their approval.
Commissioner Galli said that he is not persuaded by that. He said that the Community Council was noticed that the Applicant will be selling food in the convenience store, whether they have a drive up window is immaterial.
Motion for Petition No. 410-682
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-682, based on the noted findings of fact, and the testimony presented this evening that the Planning Commission grant planned development approval for the redevelopment of the Chevron station with the requested Zoning Ordinance modifications, subject to the following conditions:
1. Redevelopment of the site subject to the site plan and building elevations approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Pedestrian access to the stairwell in the southwest corner of the site shall be preserved.
3. The operation of the car wash and the vacuum facilities are allowed subject to the provisions of City Code section 9.28 Noise Control. Hours of operation for the car wash and vacuums shall only be allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
4. The Petitioner shall address all Departmental comments and Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards with the exception of the suggestion by the Urban Forestry Division to relocate the sidewalk along 2100 South to provide an additional 18 inches to the park strip.
5. The Applicant shall provide documentation to Planning Staff that the Community Council had adequate notice of the existence of the drive through on the project site.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Galli asked to amend condition number five to read, “Provided the Applicant provides documentation to Planning Staff that the Community Council had adequate notice of the existence of the drive through on the project site”.
Commissioner De Lay accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Daniels accepted the amendment as well.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scott voted “Nay”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Six Commissioners voted in favor, one Commissioner voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-04-14 & 400-04-15, by Garff Family L.L.C., requesting the street closures of Hamilton Place (extending north from 600 South between State Street and 200 East) and Hawthorne Avenue (extending west from 200 East between 500 and 600 South) to disclaim any interest the City or the public may have in these private streets.
This item was heard at 8:37 p.m.
Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the petition as written in the staff report. She stated that the Applicant, Garff Family L.L.C, represented by Attorney Michael Creer, requests that the City close Hawthorne Place and Hawthorn Avenue. The Applicant has researched the property and is of the view that they already own the property which they have exclusively used and maintained for over 35 years. However, currently formal ownership of this property is unclear, they do not have title of the subject property and City records show these mid block courts as private streets.
Based on the analysis and findings of fact noted in the staff report Planning Staff and all relevant City departments recommend that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close the requested streets subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Ms. Gasparik noted a modification to condition 2 that shall read “Recordation of an easement dedication to Salt Lake City Corporation for the maintenance, repair, operation and inspection of the sewer mains, unless the Applicant can convince Public Utilities that no other properties require this sewer main, they may allow this main to be designated as a private main and owned and maintained by the property owner”.
Mr. Michael Creer addressed the Commission to answer questions. The Planning Commission did not have questions for the Applicant.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-14 & 400-04-15
Commissioner Noda made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-14 & 400-04-15, based on the analysis and findings of fact noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close the requested streets subject to the following conditions:
1. Emergency access lanes for the existing buildings must be maintained and any existing fire hydrants must be maintained and accessible to fire apparatus.
2. Recordation of an easement dedication to Salt Lake City Corporation for the maintenance, repair, operation, and inspection of the sewer mains, unless the Applicant can convince Public Utilities that no other properties require this sewer main, they may allow this main to be designated as a private main and owned and maintained by the property owner.
3. The Garff block needs to be brought into compliance with Salt Lake City Codes and Ordinances. Future lot consolidation/subdivision approval to designate one building and sign per lot, defining parking, and landscaping per Petition # 410-644, November 19, 2003.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.