April 3, 1997

SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315

Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Max Smith, Aria Funk, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Jim McRea, Andrea Barrows, Gilbert lker, Fred Fife and Carlton Christensen.

Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Cheri Coffey, Everett Joyce, Joel Paterson and Doug Wheelwright.

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Young. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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

Mr. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, March 20, 1997 as presented. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Fife, Mr. lker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PETITIONS

PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 400-96-83 by Citv Councilmember Stuart Reid requesting an amendment to the Northwest Community Master Plan and the Zoning Map. The request is to amend the master plan to a low density residential land use classification for all of the properties on the east side of 800 West Street from 562 North to 626 North and for the property at 569 North Grant Street. The request includes rezoning the properties at 61 0 North 800 West. 612 North 800 West. 620 North 800 West and 626 North 800 West from a Residential "RMF-30" to a Residential "R-1/7.000" zoning district and rezoning the properties at 562 North 800 West. 570 North 800 West and 569 North Grant Street from Residential "RMF-30" to a Residential "SR-1" zoning district. to be consistent with the proposed master plan amendment.

Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Coffey stated that this petition is in response to a proposal presented to the State Fairpark Community Council on September 26, 1996, for a planned development of 10 apartment units contained in two structures, by the owners of the vacant properties at 562 and 570 North 800 West and 569 North Grant Street. At that meeting there was overwhelming opposition to the proposal and members of the community council were upset that this vacant land in the community was zoned for multi-family residential development. The community council members had believed that the two major recent downzoning actions in the Northwest Community had downzoned any remaining vacant land zoned for multi-family residential to single family residential. Ms. Coffey continued by stating that due to the overwhelming opposition of the proposal, former Councilmember Stuart Reid submitted this petition to amend the master plan and downzone these properties.

Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

Ms. Yvonne Jacobsen, representing the State Fairpark Community Council (speaking for the properties south of 600 North), stated that they are in favor of the downzoning of these properties. She feels that the renters in the area have been the downfall of the community. Ms. Jacobsen continued by stating that this is an area that the community is trying to improve and they would like to see more single family detached dwellings and not as many multi-family dwellings.

Mr. Kenneth Neal, Chair of the Rose Park Community Council (speaking for the properties north of 600 North), stated that they are in favor of the downzoning of these properties. He noted that the majority of the crime activities in this neighborhood take place in the apartment areas or adjacent to the apartments.

Mr. Neal then stated that the community council would like to see new developments in the neighborhood be low density residential dwellings.

Mr. John Roe, one of the owners of the vacant properties at 562 and 570 North 800 West and 569 North Grant Street, was present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Roe spoke against the proposed rezoning. He explained that when they (his wife, Mr. & Mrs. Schwurack and himself) ·first presented their proposal to the City for approval, the zoning allowed for multi-family dwellings, which is why they purchased the land. He then explained the steps they have taken to begin the process of building a multi-family dwelling. Mr. Roe then stated that if the rezoning petition is approved, they will not be able to use the property for their purpose in buying it.

Mr. Young stated that he empathized with Mr. Roe. Mr. Young then stated that the proposed rezoning classifications were chosen after a careful planning analysis and taking into consideration the community comments and the desires of Mr. & Mrs. Roe and Mr. & Mrs. Schwurack to develop a multi-family dwelling.

Mr. Ed McDowell, a resident in the proposed rezoning area, also owns a vacant lot next to his home. He asked why his home and his vacant lot were being rezoned. Mr. Wright stated that the goal of the rezoning is to zone the properties consistent with their use and to avoid a higher density use.

Ms. Joyce McDowell, a resident in the proposed rezoning area, spoke in opposition. She is against the rezoning because it will bring down the value of her property. Ms. McDowell also stated that she is concerned with having single family dwellings near an off-ramp from 1-15.

Mr. Schwurack spoke against the rezoning, stating to the Planning Commission that they take pride in what they do. He stated that their dwellings will be small in scale, well maintained and the rent will be reasonably priced for the area. He stated that they believe two four-plexes are a good compromise.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young

closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Ms. Kirk stated that she understands the concerns of the community, but she is not in favor of rezoning the properties south of 600 North (Roe and Schwurack properties). The owners bought the property believing they could build something more than what the proposed rezoning classification will allow.

Mr. Wright spoke concerning the ownership issue. He stated that the Roe's and Schwurack's bought their property after the City-wide Zoning Rewrite. Mr. Wright mentioned a letter that had been received from the attorney representing the Roe's and the Schwurack's. The letter did not mention all of the communication that had occurred regarding this petition, they were making a claim of being vested and demanding to be issued a building permit for the 10-unit building. The City's Assistant Attorney's analysis is very clear that they were not vested. Mr. Wright continued by stating that the "RMF-30" zoning classification allows a range of uses from single family units to multiple units at a certain density range. The Planning analysis has shown that the rezoning should be consistent with the surrounding density's on those blocks. The block ·frontages are all single family except for the four-plex, which is out of scale for this area. The Planning Commission should not be concerned with vesting or taking issues. The issue to consider is density and choosing the right format of housing for the future of this property.

Mr. Christensen stated that he understands Ms. Kirk's concerns. However, he stated that he is very familiar with the property and he feels that the rezoning is an appropriate solution.

Motion on Petition No. 400-96-83:

Ms. Kirk moved to transmit an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition No. 400-96-83 (requesting to amend the Northwest Community Master Plan from low density multi-family to low density residential and to amend the Northwest Community Zoning Map from "RMF-30" to "R-1-7,000" for the properties at 610,612,620 and 626 North 800 West and "SR-1" for the properties at 562 and 564 North 800 West and 569 North Grant Street) for the properties south of 600 North based on the testimony and timing of property acquisitions.

Mr. McRea seconded the motion.

Mr. lker asked if the Planning Commission were to vote in favor of Ms. Kirk's motion, can we specify what can be built on the property? Mr. Wright stated that if the property stays "RMF-30", it will carry the rights that would be available for that zoning classification.

Ms. Kirk, Mr. Fife and Mr. McRea voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Nay". Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.

Ms. Funk moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Mr. Fife and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea voted "Nay". Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING- Petition Nos. 410-244. 400-96-93.410-247 and 400-96-94.

The Planning Commission will be reviewing two development plans within the Sugar House Business District (bounded by 2100 South. 1300 East. Wilmington Avenue and Highland Drive).

Petition Nos. 410-244 and 400-96-93. The Mcintyre Center development is being considered for planned development. conditional use. subdivision. plat amendment, street closure. declaration of surplus property and zoning map amendments for the Open Space and Sugar House Business District zones in response to property boundary changes. Development of this proposal requires the closure of Elizabeth Street and adjustment of property boundaries between Salt Lake City and the developer around the Parley's Creek pond area. Proposed is a commercial retail/office development on approximately ten acres.

Petition Nos. 410-247 and 400-96-94. The Homestead Village development is being considered for planned development. conditional use. plat amendment and subdivision approvals. Proposed is a 122 room hotel and a restaurant.

Mr. Young noted that Petition Nos. 410-247 and 400-96-94, for the Homestead Village development, have been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Wright stated that the developer needed more time to thoroughly analyze their best options for the hotel and parking and to work through some of the issues that are still pending.

Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

Ms. Kirk addressed the parking issue and asked if the proposed parking will support additional retail space? Mr. Joyce stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance's minimum parking requirement, the parking could be reduced and additional retail space could be added.

Mr. Lew Swain, representing the Boyer Company, addressed the site plan discussing issues such as parking, traffic impact, bus stop locations, building locations and elevations, pedestrian access, open space and landscaping. Mr. Swain presented a slide show to illustrate the elevations of the proposed buildings and the pedestrian/bicycle accesses to the development. Speaking for all of the developers, the petitioners feel that this development will provide a considerable amenity to this community.

Mr. lker asked how the local businesses will be accommodated? Mr. Swain stated that the developers have met with the local retailers to discuss their interests in the proposed development. Mr. Swain mentioned that he feels there needs to be a mix of local retailers and regional/national retailers to make the project successful for a long period of time. Mr. lker asked how the common area will be maintained? Mr. Swain stated that the developers will provide regular and professional maintenance.

Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. He stated that several letters had been received and read by the Planning Commission. Copies of the letters are filed with the minutes.

Mr. Scott Kisling, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the community council voted at their last meeting to accept the proposed project as it had been presented with a request to the Planning Staff that they be especially sensitive to issues relating to transit, pedestrian/bicycle access and shared parking. The vote was 10 in favor; 4 opposed; 2 abstaining. Mr. Kisling presented a letter that goes into further detail of the community council's issues, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

Ms. Roselyn Kirk, Chair of the City Open Space Committee, spoke in reference to the development. She pointed out that she would like to see a pedestrian connection between Hidden Hollow Nature Park and Parley's Creek Corridor. Ms. Kirk also suggested that a professional trail designer be involved with the Planning Staff and the developers to determine the best possible routes for the pedestrian/bicycle trails.

Mr. Del Brewster, President of the East Valley Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that he feels it will be an asset to Sugar House.

Mr. Fred Fairclough, a resident in the area, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that the proposal is a good development and it maintains the commercial character of Sugar House.

Ms. Cheri Carleson, a resident in the area, spoke concerning open space issues and that she would like to see a pedestrian connection between Hidden Hollow Nature Park and Parley's Creek Corridor.

Mr. Jon Heaton, representing the Mcintyre property owners, spoke in favor of the proposal. He feels that the project will enhance this area of Sugar House.

Ms. Kathleen Stoddard, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposal. She would like to see the Parley's Creek Corridor be as wide as possible for pedestrian/bicycle access. This is a very important connection. Ms. Stoddard also suggested that the developers maintain the naturalness of the Hidden Hollow area.

Ms. Agnes Green hall, a resident in the area, spoke in favor of the proposal. She would like to see the pedestrian pathways 'user friendly' and she would also like to see an inviting connection between Hidden Hollow and Sugar House Park. Ms. Green hall then stated that the number of parking stalls should be reduced. As an incentive to not use the parking, perhaps the retailers could offer bus tokens instead of something like a parking validation.

Ms. Betsy Burton, a business owner in the area, stated that she is very concerned about having two malls so closely together in Sugar House. She also feels that if this development is approved, she will not be able to compete with the national retailers and will be 'run out' of Sugar House. Ms. Burton asked if there is any Redevelopment Agency monies being used toward this development.

Mr. Wright responded by saying that an application has been filed by the developer with the Redevelopment Agency asking for some financial assistance for the underground parking. The underground parking is being placed to support the office development that provides the mixed use opportunity.

Mr. Daniel Wahe, a resident in the area, spoke concerning the parking garage and asked how it will affect the water table for the Hidden Hollow. He also spoke concerning the proposed retail space and that it seems like the retail businesses are larger than the available retail space. Ms. Short pointed out that there is an aerial photograph with a clear overlay of the proposed plan available to look at to get an idea of the scale of the project.

Mr. Wright addressed the water table issue by stating that there have been no detailed engineering studies completed at this point, but would be required prior to building permits being issued.

Ms. Ann Ahlander, a concerned citizen, stated that she is not opposed to the proposal but she does have some concerns. She would like to see more underground parking instead of a lot of surface parking and she feels that the national retailers should be discouraged. Ms. Ahlander then stated that her biggest concern was that she would like to see the Parley's Creek Corridor naturalized. There should be native plants, trees and shrubs to maintain the native birds and small animals.

Mr. Tom Rogan, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, spoke to support

Mr. Kisling and the community council process. This development is of a scale that it will affect communities far beyond the Sugar House area. Mr. Rogan then encouraged the developers to continue involving the residents of the area and the community council members.

Mr. Mike Anderson, a resident in the area, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that he is very impressed with the efforts the community and the developers have made to bring a development to Sugar House that has long been needed.

Mr. Rawlins Young, a resident in the area, spoke in opposition of the proposal. He stated some concerns regarding transit and the overall design of the project. Mr. Young also mentioned that there is a similar town center development, associated with a creek, that is working for the community and not against the community. He mentioned that this sort of development has a 'tool kit' that is readily available to communities and developers. He would like to see the project designed for mass transit or pedestrian access and less people using the automobile to arrive at the development.

Ms. Gerri Collett, a resident in the area, spoke in favor of the design. However, she would like to see more of the local retailers in the development and very few national retailers.

Mr. Kimball Young stated that eight cards had been received from people who did not wish to speak but whose comments would be entered into the record. Their concerns included having pedestrian/bicycle accesses, too much surface parking, working current tenants into the redevelopment, preserving a sense of tradition and history, having lots of open space with many trees and having more local Utah based businesses rather than national chains.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young

closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Ms. Diana Kirk stated that she likes the project but she has some of the same concerns as the public has made. Those concerns include having small retail space for the local people and that there is too much surface parking. Ms. Barrows agreed with Ms. Kirk.

Mr. McRea asked if someone could respond to the issue of the use of Redevelopment

Agency monies and what is available to support the local businesses.

Mr. Dick Turpin, a representative from the Redevelopment Agency, stated that the Redevelopment Agency is funded through developers who are willing to build a project and there has to be tenants to occupy the project. If there is a public process that is served, money can be funneled back to the development. This particular project, the developers have requested funding for underground parking because the community did not want all surface parking. Because this development is low density, not much tax increment is generated and, therefore, funding to support local businesses is difficult.

Ms. Short, a Planning Commissioner representative for the Sugar House development Subcommittee, stated that after tonight, if the proposal is approved, some issues will need to go to the City Council for their approval. Building permits will not be issued right away. There will be a Design Review Committee, made up of five Planning Commissioners, that will continue to monitor the project and keep a tight control so that the project is successful.

Ms. Diana Kirk asked that if this project was approved tonight, would there be an opportunity to make changes to the plan as far as additions. Mr. Wright stated that if the Planning Commission grants a conceptual approval for the building, parking and open space layouts, the Design Review process could involve some minor design changes to the proposal. Any discussions for additions to the project, should come back to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Wright then stated that a condition can be placed in the motion to encourage additional retail space.

Ms. Funk stated that a professional trail designer should be included in the Design Review Committee discussions to determine the best possible routes for the pedestrian/bicycle trails, as was suggested by Ms. Roselyn Kirk.

Motion on Petition Nos. 41 0-244 and 400-96-93:

Mr. Smith moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-96-93 to vacate part of Block 8, Lots 1 through 15 and Block 9 of the Union Heights Subdivision and to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to close and declare surplus Elizabeth Street and associated City parcels to accommodate the Mcintyre Center development subject to the approval of planned development Petition Number 410-244. Mr. Smith further moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve zoning adjustments of Petition Number 400-96-93 requesting plat amendment, property adjustments and declaration of surplus properties subject to the approval of planned development Petition Number 410-244.

Mr. Smith then moved to grant conceptual approval of the planned development,

Petition No. 410-244, for a retail/office development based on the findings of the staff report and that the plan meet the guidelines of the master plan upon refinement of plans through a design review process, subject to conditions listed below:

Design Review Issues:

Certain design issues have to be further refined and developed to ensure that the project maintains adequate detail to enhance the town center concept identified within the master plan. These issues are significant design concerns that would not impact the conceptual plan's general layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian access corridors and Parlels Creek Corridor locations. Issues that need to be refined through a design review process are:

1. Building street front orientation. Require building entrances on street front and parking lot for retail buildings that front both areas. Review and evaluate to assure that the building elevations are appropriate to pedestrian scale.

2. Sprague Library. The area east of the library is adequate for access and delivery with allowance for potential expansion, specific design details need additional review.

3. On street parking. On street parking is a strong element within the Sugar House Business District and would be appropriate to incorporate within the Mcintyre development. Review of a design solution to allow on-street parking needs to consider its impact on the existing streetscape. Concerns are that an adequate sidewalk system be left in place after the provision of on street parking and the relocation of existing larger street trees can be accomplished without a negative impact upon the streetscape.

4. Parley's Creek Corridor amenities. Detailed review of pedestrian and other urban amenities of Parley's Creek corridor, mainly lighting, furniture, gathering places, landscaping and water elements.

5. Site Access. Review and strengthen the identification and function of the major access drives through appropriate widths, striping and signage.

6. Landscaping. Review of final landscaping plans to ensure parking areas, plazas and the development as a whole maintains an appropriate level of landscaping.

The Design Review Committee would consist of five Planning Commission members. Decision on design review approval would be in a public meeting setting to obtain input prior to 'final design decision. No final conditional use approval will be accepted until the Design Review Committee approves the following items:

Additional Issues:

1. Establishment of cross-over easements for public pedestrian access on pedestrian corridors as approved through Conditional Use Number 41 0-244;

2. That public access and parking crossover easements for the Sprague Library

Parley's Creek Corridor visitors are established as part of the approval of the proposed development;

3. That the city retains review and approval of the overall site plan design, including grading and the designs for the development of Parley's Creek extension and the existing pond area;

4. That the developer provides all required surveys and legal descriptions for properties to be acquired or exchanged from or for the City. The developer will be required to provide for all MAI appraisals which are to be obtained from a city approved appraiser; and

5. That the City retains the review and approval of the architectural design of all structures developed through the Design Review Committee of the Planning Commission.

Mr. lker seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Fife, Mr. lker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Mr. Young., as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING - Steiner-Centennial Segment of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Consider approval of the revised alignment for the Steiner-Centennial Segment of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. located along the City's north bench above the Avenues and Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. between the University of Utah campus and Salt Lake/Davis County line. Included in this agenda item are:

1. A proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan. Corridor Map One. and also an amendment to the Ensign Downs Development Master Plan. relative to proposed public pedestrian/bicycle trails. The amendments would change the route of the proposed Steiner-Centennial Segment of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail to include a segment which traverses "Hogsback Ridge". Located north of Ensign Peak.

2. A final recommendation to the Mayor to authorize the construction of the Steiner Centennial Segment of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail along a specific revised alignment.

Ms. Kirk declared a conflict of interest for this proposal, recused herself from the Planning Commission and left the room.

Mr. Doug Wheelwright and Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

Mr. Wheelwright requested that if the Planning Commission decides to approve this proposal that there be two motions made. The first motion is for the trail alignment east of City Creek and the second motion is for the trail alignment west of City Creek.

Mr. Kevin Steiner, President of the Steiner Foundation, stated that the foundation gave $35,000 in 1994 for the construction of the trail. He stated that he has read the Planning Division's staff report, he agrees with the recommendations and he urges the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendations. Mr. Steiner then stated that he is opposed to the alternate alignment being proposed by the North Cove residents. Their trail proposal is too steep to be realistic for a recreational facility for runners, walkers and bicyclists.

Mr. Rick Reese, Co-Chair of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, expressed the enthusiastic support of the Committee for the favorable staff recommendation. The route of the trail is a superb improvement, and he urges the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendations.

Mr. Jim Byrne, Co-Chair of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, spoke in favor of the proposal. He would like to see the Planning Commission adopt the staff recommendations so that construction can begin as quickly as possible.

Mr. Rick Knuth, representing the North Cove Homeowners Association, stated that their objection to the trail is only to the portion located west of City Creek. He then mentioned that a letter outlining their concerns is 'Attachment 4' of the Planning Division's staff report. Some of the concerns mentioned in the letter are that the homeowners feel that the trail and switchbacks are very steep and narrow which would require bicyclists to carry their bikes out of City Creek Canyon. The trail provides neither visual nor physical privacy to either homeowners or hikers. Mr. Knuth then referred to an analysis done by Mr. Larry Holmstrom which responds to 'Attachment 1' of the Planning Division's staff report, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The analysis has data regarding both routes, the proposed route and the alternate route (being recommended by the North Cove Homeowners Association) and gives reasons why the alternate route should be used.

Mr. Greg Thorpe, a home owner in the North Cove area, spoke in opposition of the proposed trail. He stated that he feels the proposed trail is too steep and too narrow. The alternate route would be more of a gradual incline and would be wider, which would make it easier for hikers and bicyclists.

Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant Attorney for the City Attorney•s Office, spoke in reference to the legality of the agreements that were executed by the developer of the Ensign Downs and the North Cove Subdivisions. He stated that there is no legal obstacle to put the trail where the Planning Staff has recommended.

Mr. Tom Rogan, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that when this proposal was presented to the community council, the vote was 31 to 3 in support of the Planning Divisions staff recommendations for the realignment of the trail. Mr. Rogan also stated that issues such as trailheads, maintenance and enforcement still need to be addressed.

Mr. John Schumann, representing residents on Northmont and 18th Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment. He then mentioned five conditions that he would like the Planning Commission to consider. The conditions are:

1. That there be a trail north of the steel water tank at the top of Terrace Hills that connects with the trail going down into City Creek.

2. The trail down into City Creek be north and west of the power pole line.

3. That little oak as possible be cut to give users of the trail and residences visual screening from each other.

4. Before any construction on the trails' east side starts, the neighborhood be allowed to walk the proposed trail to ensure alignment shown by the Planning Staff.

5. Propose a use tax in City Creek Canyon and use the revenues to maintain and secure the canyon.

Mr. David Chapman, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed trail. He stated that he has hiked many trails and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail is very well designed. Mr. Chapman noted that if the trail were to follow the shoreline, it would be a level trail and a level trail provides access for all ages and all abilities. He then stated that city's are known for their green spaces and recreational areas, so he suggested that the Planning Commission be visionaries.

Ms. Debbie Clark, a concerned citizen and Realtor, stated that she likes the trail alignment. However, the property owners need to be considered for issues such as property values and privacy.

Mr. Domenick Tresch etta, a North Cove home owner, spoke in opposition of the proposed trail alignment. He stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission approve the alternate proposal which will provide a wider, safer trail and privacy for the homeowners. The construction would be able to get started sooner then if the proposed alignment were approved because the North Cove Homeowners Association is willing to pay to secure the alternative alignment across the Higley/Peterson property and pay to relocate the existing trail.

Mr. Craig Jacobs, President of the North Cove Homeowners Association, stated that the association is in favor of having a pedestrian/bicycle path across the foothills of the Western Wasatch Range. He then stated that in order to avoid condemnation (across Higley/Peterson property), additional funds and further delays, the Planning Commission should accept the home owners alternate proposal. If the Planning Commission chooses the proposed alignment, the process will continue to dead-end into the Higley/Peterson property.

Mr. Carleton DeTar, property owner in the Terrace Hills area, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment and the recommendations listed in the Planning Division's staff report. He also stated that he would like to see the construction begin on the trail as quickly as possible.

Mr. Fred Oswald, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment. He acknowledged the participation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff in making a good decision in reference to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Alignment.

Mr. Willy Littig, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment. He stated that there will always be problems with any design, but that should not stop the design from being implemented. He was also concerned that the "ski trail" route would now be used by bikes, as he has used it extensively in the past as a pedestrian.

Mr. Bill Rosquist, President of Davis Trails (which is the citizen organization in Davis County), stated that he supports the staff recommendation and he encouraged the Planning Commission to make a decision tonight. He also stated that the trail was intended to follow the Bonneville Shoreline so that more people could use it.

Mr. Rob Macleod, a member of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee and Vice Chair of Salt Lake City's Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment. He also mentioned some of the benefits of trails, as identified in a research effort by the Bonneville Shoreline Committee, for the community. Generally speaking, trail use can reduce crime in urban areas and they increase property values in the vicinity of recreational trails.

Mr. Stan Christensen, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment because it will help make 'our' larger community unique and a better place to live. He also stated that studies confirm that property values on urban trails do go up and security problems go down when there are more people utilizing the trail.

Mr. Ted Wilson, a resident near the proposed trail, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment. He stated that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail is something that will bring the community together with the surrounding environment.

Mr. Thomas Huckin, a resident from Ensign Downs, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment of the trail and urged the Planning Commission to take action tonight. He is opposed to the alternative realignment being recommended by the North Cove residents. He stated that he resents the arrogance of the North Cove owners and their lawyers in trying to make an issue of the alignment and not allowing people to use the trail in the North Cove area. He said that the 'entire' Bonneville Shoreline Trail is a treasure that should always be available to anyone wishing to get away from noise and traffic of the City.

Mr. William Thompson, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment. He commented that the North Cove residents do not own the land, it is public land and it ought to be available for public use.

Mr. John Bowman, a member of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, urged the Planning Commission to approve the Planning Division's staff recommendations

presented tonight. He commented that the switchback's on the trail (located on the west side of City Creek between the 'ski trail' and the North Cove Subdivision) are not difficult for bicyclists and he feels that the proposed alignment does not harm anyone.

Mr. Bill Binger, a concerned citizen, strongly urged the Planning Commission to

approve the Planning Staff's recommendation. He also stated that he would not like to see another housing development proposed and approved by the City which uses private streets and restricted public access.

Ms. Cheri Carleson, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the proposed alignment. She stated that she likes the connections that trails make which provides access from one end of the foothills to the other.

Mr. Marv Stoddard, Co-chair of the Construction and Maintenance Committee for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, would like to see both segments of the proposed alignment approved.

Ms. Kathleen Stoddard, Co-chair of the Construction and Maintenance Committee for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, spoke in favor of the proposed alignments. She stated that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee will insure that the trails will be maintained and kept in good condition for all those who will be utilizing them. She clarified that the reason why the trail is narrow in the North Cove area is because the work had to be stopped prior to completion. Once the work can be continued, the trail will be widened to accommodate the users.

Mr. Jim Jenkins, a concerned citizen, stated that he supports the Planning Division's staff recommendation. He hopes that this issue can be approached as a community with everyone working together.

Mr. Randy Long, a concerned citizen, stated that he is very much in favor of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. He stated that it is time to finish the construction so that it can be made available to the community.

Mr. Rawlins Young, a concerned citizen, noted that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail seems to be accessible to everyone except those who would use public transportation to get to it.

Mr. Kimball Young stated that 58 cards had been received from people who did not wish to speak but whose comments would be entered into the record. All of the corr1ments were in support of the Planning Division's staff recommendation and they urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed alignment. Some of the specific comments included maintaining public access to public lands, maintaining easy access to the trail, keeping the grades manageable for everyone and making the trail accessible to bicyclists. It was also mentioned that the trail adds to the quality of Salt Lake City and is essential to the community and to the surrounding communities.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Mr. Smith asked what the timeline is for resolving the issues related to the trail alignment in the North Cove area. Mr. Wheelwright explained that there is no possibility of resolution during the upcoming construction season due to the Higley/Peterson property issue.

Mr. McRea asked if the motion tonight included organizing a subcommittee to start addressing design issues and concerns related to the proposed alignment.

Mr. Wheelwright replied in the affirmative.

Ms. Barrows asked if there is anything written that requires the North Cove residents to put a fence around their property. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Zoning Ordinance includes a provision to allow a three strand wire fence to be placed to identify where the public land ends and where the private land begins. This could be installed to separate the North Cove Subdivision area from the public land. In addition to that boundary fence, the owners can install a six foot high security and privacy fence within the buildable area of each lot.

Mr. Wheelwright gave the Planning Commission members some background information regarding the Ensign Downs Master Plan and the North Cove Subdivision, relative to the acceptance of the bypass trail in exchange for the denial of public pedestrian access through the North Cove area to public land beyond. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Planning Staff may have made two mistakes in the Ensign Downs Master Plan. The first was when the Planning Staff agreed to recommend to the Planning Commission that pedestrian access to North Cove not be allowed and that we would accept, in place of that, a bicycle/pedestrian trail on public lands at the perimeter of the development. The second mistake is that we probably gave up too much of the 14 acres of City owned land in trying to acquire large areas around Ensign Peak. Mr. Wheelwright then stated that the Planning Staff does not see an acceptable alternative to make adjustments to the trail in the North Cove area because we probably allowed the North Cove development to be too far to the north. The developers contract with the City legally binds its successors and assigns to his interest which includes the North Cove property owners. The City may have to discuss the contract in court to know if our assumption is accurate. Mr. Wheelwright noted that it is unfortunate that the developer or the real estate sales people did not disclose all of the aspects of the proposed trail location, as claimed by North Cove residents.

Ms. Funk asked if there is anything to be gained by the City in renegotiating with the North Cove Homeowners to get a trail access through the North Cove area.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that the latest plat for the Ensign Downs Development, recently processed through the Planning Division, did not preclude pedestrian access. The Planning Staff retained the right of public use of some of the streets in the community because the public vehicles were being denied access, along with the pedestrians and the bicyclists, up to publicly owned land.

Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Wheelwright about the outcome of the Public Utilities Advisory Board Meeting. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Board members' concerns were to protect the water source and the water quality that the City Creek Canyon represents, and that the alignment with the least impact on those resources is the most acceptable to them. Therefore, they are not in favor of the alternate alignment proposed by the North Cove Homeowners Association. Motions on the Proposed Alignments for the Steiner-Centennial Segment of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail:

Mr. Smith moved to approve the proposed alignment of the Steiner-Centennial Segment of the Bonneville Shoreline and favorably recommended to the Mayor that construction be authorized for the trail alignment east of City Creek Canyon, including:

1. Dry Creek to Limekiln Saddle

2. Limekiln Saddle to Southwest Ridge of Twin Peak (Mtn. Fuel gas line)

3. Southwest Ridge of Twin Peak to City Creek Saddle (northeast of gas line)

4. City Creek Saddle to Terrace Hills West Ridge (Water Tank)

5. Terrace Hills West Ridge to Morris Meadow

6. Morris Meadow to Bonneville Boulevard

Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short,Mr. Fife, Mr. lker, Mr. McRea and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk, who had recused, was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

1. The City Creek Ski Trail

2. The City Creek Ski Trail to North Cove Small Reservoir

3. North Cove Small Reservoir to Hogsback Ridge Saddle

4. Hogsback Ridge Saddle to Communication Tower Saddle (Tower Road)

5. Communication Tower Saddle (Tower Road) to Davis County Line

Mr. Smith further moved that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the City Council to hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Open Space Plan to add the additional trail connection between Bonneville Boulevard at the hairpin turn, the North Cove reservoir property and the traverse over Hogsback Ridge Saddle. Mr. Smith further moved to approve the amendment of the Ensign Downs Development Master Plan by adding the traverse over Hogsback Ridge via the Higley/Petersen 144.88 acre parcel (the Planning Commission is the final approval body for the amendment to the Development Master Plan). Mr. Smith then moved to have a Planning Commission member be appointed to replace Ralph Becker on the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Subcommittee.