6/8/2022 - Meeting Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Wednesday, June 8, 2022
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for
a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and
presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chairperson Amy Barry, Vice-Chairperson Maurine
Bachman, Commissioners, Jon Lee, Levi de Oliveira, Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent, Rich
Tuttle, Adrienne Bell, and Mike Christensen. Commissioner Andres Paredes was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Director Nick Norris, Planning Manager Kelsey
Lindquist, Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery, Planning Manager Amy Thompson, Urban Planner
Amanda Roman, Senior Planner Nannette Larsen, and Administrative Assistant Aubrey Clark.
Approval of the Minutes
Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman motioned to approve the May 11, 2022 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Andra Ghent seconded the motion. Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman and
Commissioners, Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent, Rich Tuttle, Adrienne Bell, and
Mike Christensen voted "yes". The motion passed. Commissioner Jon Lee abstained due to
being absent from that meeting. Commissioner Levi de Oliveira was not yet in attendance.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chair Amy Barry stated that she has nothing to report.
Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman stated that she has nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Direct Nick Norris reported on the approval of the Western Gardens Rezone from City Council. He also
reported that there are several new Planning employees that will be presenting before the Commission.
He stated that management is doing everything they can to make sure the new employees are successful.
He also stated that the Planning Division has received training to help with their presentations.
Commissioner Levi de Oliveira joined the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Ghent asked for clarification on "permitted uses" in Sugarhouse Business District One. She
noted that while walkability is a "key" criterion for the zoning code, "restaurant drive- throughs" are a
permitted use. Direct Norris stated that a code amendment would be required for specificity. Only the
mayor, the City Council and the Planning Commission can initiate zoning code amendments. Following
discussion regarding whether to move forward, the Planning Commission could then place the issue on a
future agenda for public notice and comment.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 1
Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated that over the past two-three months important Planning Commission
recommendations to the City Council, including parking and single-room occupancy, seemed to be "stuck.'
Director Norris explained that the Commission staff has addressed the City Council twice in the past 18
months regarding Commission recommendations and also met with members in smaller groups. The City
Council is interested in aligning Planning Commission recommendations with "Growing SLC," the City's
housing plan. The Sugarhouse recommendations have been adopted. Now that the budget process is
ending, Director Norris expects that outstanding Planning Commission items will soon be addressed.
Regarding the parking issue in particular, Commission staff were directed by the Council to do additional
time-consuming research into the specific effects of removing parking requirements for non-residential use
in lots of 10,000 square feet—twice the size of the current rule—in order to promote small-scale
development. The overall workload of Planning Division staff delayed that project, but it was completed,
and an analysis with recommendations has been forwarded to the Council.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows stated that she didn't know that the staff reports existed prior to being on a
Community Council. She advises that members of the public asking questions of the Planning Commission
staff should be directed to staff reports. She would like the Planning Commission to receive copies of all
responses to public questions. Director Norris stated that the staff report includes public comments and
responses when received prior to the staff report being created. Staff responses to questions from the
public do include clarifications of ordinance issues. Depending on the timing of the comments, some public
comments are forwarded to the City Council. He said that it would be possible to inform the Planning
Commission of all public inquiries and responses.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Kozo House Design Review Modifications at approximately 633 West 200 North - Bryce Baker,
representing the property owner, is requesting modifications to a Design Review that was approved by
the Planning Commission on December 2, 2020. Then, on November 10, 2021, a one-year extension
was granted. During that time there has been a change of developers and further modifications are now
being proposed for new approval. In accordance with section 21A.59.080 the proposed modifications
require approval from the Planning Commission. This project is located within the TSA-UC-T (Transit
Station Area-Urban Core-Transition)zoning district located within Council District 3, represented by Chris
Wharton. (Staff contact: Amy Thompson at (801-535-7281) or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2020-00258
Planning Manager Amy Thompson reviewed the petition, with the proposed changes outlined in the staff
report. Minor changes in the appearance of the exterior building are largely tied to changes in the window
configuration as a result of the changes in the configuration of the units. There are also design changes
to address traffic concerns. A traffic study is in also in process. Amy Thompson stated that staff
recommend approval of the modifications. She explained that, should the Commission reject the new
petition, the prior approval would stand, and construction could proceed under the formerly approved
plan, which proposed more apartments (exclusively micro units) more retail space, but 39 fewer parking
spaces.
The applicants, Bryce Baker, principal of DB Urban Communities and Mike Hollowpeter of Alpha
Development, reviewed the project. Bryce Baker stated that while the previous developer has been
replaced there has been no change in ownership. He stated that the new design is a response to public
concerns about the project as previously presented even though the project was approved. Internal
ramps will alleviate the need for a contentious parking access on 200 North. However, the new design of
the parking area will increase the number of parking spaces. A traffic study is underway and not currently
available. He thanked City staff and Mestizo's coffee shop for helping to organize a community meeting
to discuss the project. He mentioned other community organizations who have contributed to discussion
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 2
such as NeighborWorks and the Rose Park Brown Berets. Mr. Baker stated that a lot of work has gone
into finding a plan for"what should be here."
Chair Barry commented that she had vocally disapproved of the 200 North parking access on the
previously plan and thanked Mr. Baker for addressing the problem. She then called for Commissioner
questions.
Commissioner Scheer asked whether there would be a retail space as previously shown with a
connection to the patio that is a "sunken living room." Bryce Baker stated that the sunken living room is
a corner space. Retail space along the east side of the building will be retained, but on the north side of
the building there will be management offices and "community space".
Commissioner Scheer also asked how removing the 200 North parking access would alter the street view
of the upper "courtyard" area of the building. Mr. Baker stated that the third-floor functions, access, and
street view would not change.
Commissioner Scheer pointed out that, unlike the current plan, the articulation of the top floor of the
original building was distinguished from the other floors of the building. Mr. Baker stated that the sixth-
floor functions (business center, business lounge, amenities, "flex office" and residential space) remain
the same, the configuration of the garden area was switched from north to south. Mr. Baker said that he
saw no significant changes in the appearance of the building.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Barry opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Chair Barry closed the public hearing.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chair Barry agreed that there had been changes between the original and the second (approved) design
and commended Commissioner Scheer for her questions related to the top floor design. Commissioner
Scheer stated that changes had been made to the appearance previously approved design, and that she
preferred the appearance of the top floor of the previously approved design.
Chair Barry then asked Mr. Baker whether he would be open to changing the articulation of the top floor
of the present design to match that of the previous design. Mr. Baker responded that the deck wraps
around three sides of the building and wondered whether the "balcony" was the concern.
Commissioner Lee stated that the 3D rendering was much clearer and showed minor changes. He also
stated that he did not care of the "big hat" effect of a large "overhang" or"balcony."
Commissioner Scheer agreed with Commissioner Lee that the issue amounted to personal preferences,
and it was not a "huge" concern, but also would be simple to fix.
Commissioner Ghent commented that votes should not be tied to aesthetics, but standards.
Commissioner Scheer said, "design is part of what we do."
Commissioner Barry called for a motion.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 3
Commissioner Adrienne Bell commended Mr. Baker for his efforts in community engagement and
proceeded to the motion.
MOTION
Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated, "Based on the analysis and findings listed in the staff report,
information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning
Commission approve the modifications to the Design Review approval, petition PLNPCM2020-
00258."
Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion.
Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman, and Commissioners Jon Lee, Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows,
Andra Ghent, Rich Tuttle, Levi de Oliveira, Adrienne Bell, and Mike Christensen all voted "yes".
The motion passed.
WORK SESSIONS
Ballpark Station Area Plan - The Planning Commission received briefing on a new Station Area Plan in
the Ballpark Neighborhood, which was initiated by Mayor Mendenhall. Planning staff requested that the
Planning Commission hold a work session to discuss this small area plan and provide feedback to staff.
Staff will then prepare the Ballpark Station Area Plan for Planning Commission review and
recommendation to the City Council. The Ballpark Station Area Plan will encompass the area that runs
roughly between 900 South to 1700 South, and State Street to 1-15. The small area plan's boundaries
are within both the Central Community and the Downtown Master Plans. The Ballpark Station Area Plan
is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at 801-
535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2022-00323
Senior Planner Nan Larsen reviewed the plan as outlined in the Staff Report. She noted extensive
community outreach and stated that the key concepts of the plan will have significant impact on the
neighborhood and enable it to absorb major growth. Included are "a sense of place," especially for the
Ball Park, pedestrian and bike friendly changes, and investment in green space. Future land use is also
featured in the plan and has been modified to accommodate public comments. Nan Larsen stated that
future land use was the most popular topic of public concern. Zoning updates and amendments will be
required. It is anticipated that the plan will be ready for transmittal to the City Council by the end of
summer or early fall.
Commissioner Barry praised the future land use map.
Commissioner Ghent stated that she would like to see better bike access along 1300 South.
Chair Barry stated that the raised pedestrian crosswalks on Main Street are impractical as presented,
although she felt that they might be appropriate for West Temple. She suggests vaguer language to allow
for multiple possibilities.
Commissioner Lee agreed that the pedestrian issue is a serious problem and suggested further study
especially around 1300 South.
Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioned Lee also suggested islands in the street to slow traffic.
Commissioner Barry identified multiple locations that she felt ought to have crosswalks and suggested
that input from "Traffic" would be needed.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 4
Commissioner Barry asked the other Commissioners whether West Temple is the most appropriate to
close for a festival and whether the land use development map is sufficient. She also asked whether the
zones identified were appropriately marked. She commented that people from adjacent areas had made
comments.
Commissioner Bell asked why only the west side of State Street was included in the Plan. Planning
Director Nick Norris stated that the east of that section of State Street is very different in terms of the
businesses it includes. Also, there is another small area plan, currently on hold, dedicated to State Street
that would be a more appropriate way to address planning for state street. (It is called Life on State.)
Commissioner Lee said that he would like to see something that incentivizes the development of small
businesses on that [east] side of the street.
Chair Barry asked why the Future Land Use Map did not include the section between Paxton Avenue
and the freeway exit as part of the core zoning area.
Nan Larsen responded that staff had reasoned that ending the neighborhood by cutting off the north side
of Paxton Avenue seemed appropriate, but she noted that a public comment similar to Chair Barry's
remarks had since been received. Nan Larsen said that the issue would be discussed further. She
confirmed for other commissioners that it is a mixed land use area.
Commissioner Barry then asked the commissioners whether the connectivity portion of the transportation
plan is sufficient to meet intermodal needs.
Commissioner Christensen stated that he shared concerns stated, especially related to biking
accessibility. He noted that Paxton Avenue is a bike route, but there is no safe way to cross Paxton
Avenue at State Street.
Nan Larsen commented that 1300 South has been previously discussed by staff and found unsafe as a
bike route. Several commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Mike Christensen wanted to know about proposed improvements for 1700 South,
especially now that a new TRAX station has been proposed and is cited on the Future Land Use map.
Chair Barry was interested in a planning schedule for the 1700 South and 300 West area.
Direct Nick Norris said there will be an update for the 300 West corridor in the next 2 to 3 months.
Downtown Building Height & Street Activation Briefing - The Planning Commission received a
briefing from Design Workshop on the Salt Lake City Planning Division's proposal to update portions of
the Zoning Ordinance related to allowed building heights, required design features, and public space
activation within the Downtown Master Plan area. The code revisions aim to accommodate growth and
respond to new development pressures and develop standards for public spaces. Changes seek to have
a positive impact on human-scale orientation, pedestrian accessibility, and community character. (Staff
contacts: Kelsey Lindquist at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com and Amanda Roman at
amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2022-00529
Consultants Jessica Garrow, principal, and Callie New, project manager, of Design Workshop and City
Planner Kelsey Lindquist, reviewed the proposal, the methodology of fact finding—including a review of
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 5
other community plans—and community engagement. Community engagement included asking for
preferences for three possible plans. Seven zones were identified within the downtown area—each with
its own design standards. The proposal includes revised code language and adds language specific to
height transitions to avoid extreme height variations between old and new buildings as a way to protect
the character of older buildings and to mitigate possible wind-tunnel effects. However, height standards
vary by district and will increase in many cases. The size of windows is also regulated with larger windows
mandated for the ground floor in some cases. Reflective glass is largely prohibited.
Chair Barry asked about height changes within the Depot district. She was told that those standards
would increase from 75 feet to 150 feet. Director Norris indicated that more changes are likely once the
review of the 300 West corridor is underway.
Chair Barry found the definition of commercial use not appropriate for residential developments. She
does not think that residential amenities are appropriate examples of commercial use and gave the
example of almost mandating that apartment buildings have a gym on the ground floor simply because
large windows and commercial use are required on the ground floor for"pedestrian activation." She said
that no positive interaction is added by that configuration. Chair Barry wants to consider "like to like
items" because the purpose of the ground floor requirements is "activation of the street level".
Commissioner Scheer made the point that "Zoning keeps you from doing something. It doesn't make
something happen." She stated that if exclusively commercial enterprises are mandated there could be
problems with vacant spaces in residential ground floors. Later, in response to Commissioner Ghent she
added that it is highly likely that ground floor space in a residential complex is rented to a retailer whenever
feasible. Responding to Commissioner Barry she said that amenities, too, have different definitions,
stating that perhaps a coffee shop in an apartment building could be called an amenity. She then
suggested that some issues might exceed the purview of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Ghent commented that she is often surprised that more large developments don't have
retail facilities like "little bodegas." She suggested that consideration should be given to whether large
residential complexes could "take a loss" on actual commercial space. Commissioner Bell responded
that "take a loss" might mean closing their doors.
Commissioner Bell then stated that, since the issue is pedestrian engagement, attention should be given
to the "design tools" available to create that engagement. She added that "we can't decide who can be
the tenant."
Chair Barry asked that Commission staff review the concerns behind this "trend" and report back.
Kelsey Lindquist responded that the trend has become an issue in other cities and agreed to follow up.
Chair Barry then asked for clarification of changes in the allowable length of building facades.
Kelsey Lindquist responded that the 200-foot fagade length would remain in place. Jessica Garrow added
that building length is not changing but rather it's trying to add more detail of what it means in terms of
materiality and transparency.
Chair Barry then asked what design factors should trigger a design review. She commented that she felt
that factors other than building height should be considered.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 6
Commissioner Lee said that he agreed. He said that building length should is a consideration of good
architecture. He gave the example of a very long building designed in the style of a "turn-of-the-century
building" can create a "Disneyland" effect because the size is not realistic for the period copied.
Commissioner Scheer asked whether there is a chart which lists proposed code changes by district and
existing code. She cited examples of height restrictions—the changes in triggers for design review and
the absolute height limits. She said that while the document, which exceeds 100 pages, does contain the
information it is "buried."
Kelsey Lindquist stated that the charts could be created.
Chair Barry then asked for overlay maps to view both zones and Council districts. She added that
because this proposal extends to 900 South rather than 600 South, which has previously been
considered the limits of downtown, it would be particularly useful.
Chair Berry then asked for clarification of exceptions to the height limits in cases of affordable housing.
Nick Norris answered that it would apply to heights above 200 feet in D1 and that in fact there is a "menu"
of public benefits, including affordable housing, that could be used to approve a petition to exceed the
limit.
Commissioner Scheer was concerned that the options available would not necessarily benefit the public
sufficiently to justify a significant increase in height—especially if some items are quite easy for the
property owner to provide. She urged the commission to look at the issue closely and focus on the issue
of incentivizing affordable housing.
Chair Barry agreed, stating that changes in the design review height threshold should be related to the
affordable housing overlay zone.
Commissioner Scheer said that the current choices included open space, which she agreed could be a
public benefit, but not at the current minimum of 500 square feet.
Commissioner Scheer commented that she liked much of the proposal. She cited setbacks and
restrictions on glass but said that she wants "a sense of an image" as a "composite" for downtown.
Consideration should focus more on material and massing, window openings, street level openings, all
of which are part of the pedestrian experience.
Commissioner Ghent commented that she likes the increased density and the changes in "by right"
heights. She said that it is hard for her to take "pedestrianness all that seriously" in the downtown area
because of her own difficulty negotiating the streets that causes her to avoid the area.
Commissioner Scheer stated that building scale should relate to the streets and to walkways. Midblock
walkways and sidewalks should be proportional to the buildings to which they provide access. She then
praised the landscaping considerations laid out in the proposal. She said that they are a major part of
urban design.
Commissioner Scheer said that failure to consider vertical and horizontal design changes in the current
design guidelines has led to some "really terrible buildings in this city." She suggested that "it might have
something to do with the way we're reviewing buildings," adding that "20 to 30 different materials for a
six-story building" is not appropriate.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 7
Director Norris responded that changes could be made to materials requirements. He then added that
changes to midblock walkways require consideration of legal standards because private property rights
are usually involved. He stated that some standards are based on cases tried in the US Supreme Court.
Commissioner Scheer commented that the walkway width could be offset by a height increase. Director
Norris agreed.
Commissioner Lee commented that midblock walkways enable design opportunities such as balconies,
pass throughs, pedestrian bridges etc. He said that they don't have to be like they are in Chicago—
essentially an alleyway with a dumpster. Rather, they should be "an opportunity to create pedestrian
engagement." He said that arcades, as protection against heat, with opportunities for outdoor dining are
also possible extensions of midblock walkways. He stated that midblock walkways lead to better
buildings.
Commissioner Christensen said that his concern is that currently there are many first-floor offices or
banks that are not busy during the day and not at all busy at night. He would like some review of options
for the situation.
Commissioner Scheer asked for Commission comments about the fact that increasing the height
thresholds triggering Planning Commission review would mean that the staff would have design review
authority over more projects.
Commissioner Ghent stated that the public always has the opportunity to address the staff and she
supports the concept of"by right" construction. She has no objections to the new proposed limits because
each additional design review leads to increased costs for a developer. Later adding that it hinders the
Planning Commission goal of creating more affordable housing.
Chair Barry suggested that perhaps, when the requested changes to the design review document have
been completed, the Planning Commission would have more confidence in the expanding the volume of
projects delegated to staff. Later, she agreed with Commissioner Burrows that a matrix in conjunction
with overlay maps would address many concerns.
Commissioner Scheer commented that design review can be a judgement call, therefore, she would like
to see an architect on staff.
Chair Barry suggested that greater specificity of intent language in the document revising zoning codes
might address the concern.
Commissioner Lee said that overregulating design leads to buildings that fit the rules, but not the
character of a city. Therefore, he said "outcomes are more important than regulations." Chair Barry
agreed saying that "outcomes" might equal intent.
Commissioner Bell suggested that a design advisory board of volunteer architects might solve the
problem of fitting design to code. She also stated her concern that additional design review added to
costs that then affected affordability.
Chair Barry, and Commissioners Scheer and Lee agreed that more scientifically based statistics are
needed regarding the relationship of building height and walkway width to the wind-tunnel effect as is
suggested in the memo that accompanies the proposal.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 8
Chair Barry reiterated Planning Commission requests for revision and Commissioner Burrows
commented that a matrix would be key to understanding those issues.
Callie New asked whether the focus of the concerns was height. Chair Barry stated that since the
downtown area was essentially moving southwards, the map overlays would become increasingly
important to deciding upon appropriate height. Kelsey Lindquist commented that the current maps reflect
the city master plan.
Commissioner Scheer commented that the expanding height limits are expanding an urban environment
to neighborhoods that might not have a high demand for tall buildings resulting in an uneven distribution
of building heights. Later suggesting that certain decisions may amount to a preference for one tall
building over multiple "medium" buildings.
Kelsey Lindquist responded that the height increases reflect an increase in requests. She also stated that
neighborhood identity was taken into consideration in the process.
Commissioner Bell stated that it would amount to market demand.
Commissioner Scheer stated that a preference for a "medium size" city should be considered.
Commissioner Lee responded that smaller developers are not able to build high buildings because of a
variety of safety codes that add to cost are triggered at the height of 75 feet, He stated that larger
developers would choose to exceed 100 feet because that is about the point at which profit can offset
the cost of additional height.
Chair Barry then thanked the Design Workshop presenters and Kelsey Lindquist for their work and called
for the next agenda item.
Update to Policies and Procedures - The Planning Commission considered changes to the policies
and procedures of the commission. The proposed changes include addressing policies for electronic
meetings, defining a quorum, and voting and the necessary formatting and numbering and correcting any
grammar or spelling errors. The purpose of this proposal is to update the policies and procedures to
comply with Utah Code requirements that took effect on May 4, 2022. The Commission may discuss
other changes to the policies and procedures at their discretion.
Director Nick Norris reported on the changes that had been made to address issues raised by the
Commissioners. Initial Land use applications have been removed from the consent agenda procedural
language because those items have been consistently pulled from consent agendas.Additional language
regarding the rules of decorum have been added. Changes specific to new state code relating to a
quorum during hybrid meetings has been added. Changes have been made relating to the way in which
recusal and abstention affect a quorum. However, no further changes to the definitions of recusal and
abstention have been made to allow for discretion on the part of commissioners. He further stated that
the reason for these changes is that there is not always a quorum if the bare minimum of commissioners
is attending a meeting but one has to recuse themselves on an item. So, they wanted to clarify what
qualifies as a quorum to address that.
Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery responded to Chair Barry's comment that the language did not
specify whether a person who recused themselves needed to leave the room, or when they could return.
Attorney Vickery stated that the language was in line with state law explaining that even though there
would be a presumption that someone with a conflict should leave the room, it was not mandated in order
to protect against the possibility of losing a quorum.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 9
MOTION
Commissioner Mike Christensen made a motion to adopt the Planning Commission Policies and
Procedures.
Commissioner Brenda Scheer seconded the motion.
Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman, and Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent,
Rich Tuttle, Levi de Oliveira, Adrienne Bell, John Lee, and Mike Christensen all voted "yes".
The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM.
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division's website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes
will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 8, 2022 Page 10