SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present "from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Diana Kirk, Jim McRea, Kimball Young, Judi Short, Aria Funk, Ma~ Smith and Fred Fife. Gilbert Iker was excused.
Present "from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Doug: Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Elizabeth Egleston and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who~ attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Becker. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. 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. Young moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, July 11, 1996 subject to the correction given to the secretary being made. Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Mr. Smith. voted “Aye”. Mr. Iker was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
SUBDIVISIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Ivory Homes requesting preliminary plat approval for the Westpointe1 Plat 110" Subdivision consisting of 70 single family lots located at 1000 North 1950 West in a Residential “R-1/7000" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to require landscaping along the freeway frontage. Mr. Wright stated that they did have that option but added that studies indicate that landscaping does not mitigate noise impacts from the freeway. Mr. Ivory, the petitioner, said they were looking at planting some tall, fast growing trees on the freeway side of the project since a wall would not be practical.
Mr. Ellis Ivory, representing Ivory Homes, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission and outlined their proposal. Mr. Ivory stated that they were in agreement with the staff report and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Fife asked what the impact would be to the school system in this area.
Mr. Ivory stated that he thought the good news was that no schools were closing down in this area.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Sharon Durr, a resident of the area, stated that the schools in this area had a capacity for 600 students and already had 800 students. Ms. Durr stated that these schools were already overburdened and had been placed on year-round
schedules in an attempt to handle the number of students.
Mr. David Wolfgramm, representing Ivory Homes, stated that the Salt Lake City School Board had given up a site just north of 1700 North in this area and added that this kind of issue was for the School Board to consider.
Ms. Durr stated that she had approached the School Board about the need for another school in this area and they had informed her they would not even consider another school until the renovations at West High and Highland High Schools had been completed.
Mr. Ernest Hughes, a resident of the area, stated that part of the property involved in this project had originally been designated as a proposed park. Mr. Hughes stated that the children in the area had to cross Redwood Road in order to gain access to a park. He said he feared the residents between Redwood Road and the freeway were being ignored and that he thought
Mr. Ivory should give some consideration to the residents between 700 and 900 North Streets relative to access to that park.
Mr. Wright stated that there was a park north of this proposal and pointed out the access to that park on a briefing board. Ms. Durr stated that the access Mr. Wright had referred to was not a vehicular access.
Ms. Sharon Durr expressed concern that flooding had occurred last year on the site where the north cul-de-sac would be located and suggested the City make sure repairs had been properly done before this subdivision was constructed. She also expressed concern relative to traffic issues and safety for the children trying to cross Redwood Road. Ms. Durr suggested a stop sign be installed on Morton Drive and 900 North. Ms. Pahl stated that the staff had also talked to the Utah Department of Transportation about the possibility of a traffic light on 900 North and Redwood Road and added that they would study the traffic patterns to determine if that site warranted a traffic light.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Diana Kirk moved to grant preliminary approval of this plat subject to the requirements of the Salt Lake C.ity Subdivision Ordinance, the Noise Abatement Ordinance and all departmental requirements being met and to grant final approval authority to the Planning Director. Ms. Kirk further moved to direct the Planning Director to look into sound attenuation barriers such as trees and landscaping as well as to look at possible bike paths. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted "Aye." Mr. Iker was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - MAC Development requesting preliminary plat approval for the California Place Plat 11D". Subdivision consisting of 24 single family lots located at approximately 1 200 South and 1 050 West in a Residential “R-1/5000" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Young asked how many homes in the City were not connected to the City's sewer system. Mr. Wright said the Mayor's Office was studying that issue and it appeared that about 400 properties, approximately half of which were commercial, were not connected to the City's sewer system. Mr. Wright stated that the City Administration was studying this issue to determine if those properties should be forced to hook up to the sewer system.
Mr. Bruce MacMullen, representing MAC Development, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. MacMullen said they were offering to provide a lateral connection, through an easement, into the sewer main which some of the neighboring properties would be able to connect to if they chose to do so. Mr. MacMullen requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Steven Johnson, a resident of the area, stated that several concerns had been raised by residents of this area at the administrative hearing on this matter. Mr. Johnson stated that he had offered to purchase some of the property surrounding his property in an effort to mitigate some of the impacts to the them. Mr. Johnson stated that this subdivision would abut his property on two sides and the impacts of this development would be greater to his property than to others in the area. He expressed concern relative to their quality of life, their privacy and views that would be affected by this proposal. He also expressed concern for the trees that would be lost during the construction of this project. Mr. Johnson asked if the curb and gutter would be installed on both sides of 1000 West or just on the west side, and what the cost for those improvements would be to the residents of the area. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that the older homes in the area could experience damage to their plumbing and water heaters due to higher water pressure requirements for newer developments. He stated that these issues had been raised in the administrative hearing but answers had not been provided to the residents of the area.
Ms. Pahl responded to the issues raised by Mr. Johnson and stated that Mr. MacMullen had indicated to her that he would be willing to sell some property to
Ms. Kimberly Stern, the property owner of record, for the abutting property.
Ms. Pahl stated that it was not typical of the City to require construction of curb and gutter on both sides of the street if the developer was not developing both sides of the street. Ms. Pahl stated that the City would require the developer to transition the street from the City standard width to the more narrow existing right-of-way in front of the neighboring properties.
Ms. Kimberly Stern Townsend, the abutting property owner of record, stated that the existing transition of the road width was very rough and she felt it would be beneficial if she could work with the developers to resolve some of the issues involved in this matter. Ms. Townsend expressed particular concern relative to the disturbance that would occur to the wildlife. She stated that they were supportive of this project but wanted to be a part of it.
Ms. Pahl suggested she contact Mr. John Swain of the Parks Department relative to concern for the wildlife that might be displaced during the development of this subdivision. Ms. Pahl stated that it might be possible to install vegetation along the Jordan River Parkway in this area that would encourage the wildlife the remain in the area.
Mr. Ken Tingey, representing the Knudsen family and one other family in the area, asked if any amortization would be provided for sewer connections that might be desired.
Mr. Wright said that question needed to be directed to the Public Utilities department and requested Mr. MacMullen demonstrate on a briefing board exactly where the lateral lines would be installed that other residents would be able to connect to. Mr. MacMullen complied and demonstrated where those lateral lines
would be installed.
Mr. MacMullen stated that the responsibility of the other residents would be to bring their own line down to the lateral line and that they would have to bear the cost of that construction.
Mr. Wright stated that the development of this subdivision would offer the opportunity for residents of this area who currently used a septic system, to connect to the City's sewer system. He stated that if those residents had questions relative to costs involved in that process, they needed to contact the Public Utilities Department.
Ms. Pahl stated that the only property that would be required to connect to the City's sewer system was the Larson property; that the other property owners could choose whether or not to make that connection.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to grant preliminary approval of the California Place Plat liD" Subdivision, subject to the requirements of the Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance and other departmental concerns being met. Ms. Kirk further moved to require a public utilities easement be placed on the plat between Lots 1 5 and 1 6 for a sewer lateral to be installed by the developer to connect the Larson property Sidwell No. 1 5-11-376-040, to resolve the septic drain field conflict. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted “Aye”. " Mr. Iker was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-232 by Ernest Hughes requesting a conditional use for a Class “B" private club license located at 659 North 300 West in a Commercial “CB" zoning district.
Mr. Becker explained that this matter would be heard as an issues only hearing and that no decision would be made by the Planning Commission on this matter at this time. He stated that the staff would give an overview of the issues involved, that public comment would be received and the hearing would then be closed. Mr. Becker stated that the staff would prepare their recommendation at a later time and the Planning Commission would make their decision on this matter at a future meeting, following the presentation of the staff recommendation.
Ms. Elizabeth Egleston outlined the major issues of the case and the staff's findings of fact, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Ernest Hughes, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission hearing and stated that the statement in the staff presentation that the Beehive Elks Lodge had had their liquor license revoked was not true. Mr. Hughes stated that they had operated from 1984 to 1991 with no problems. Mr. Hughes said they had surrendered their license, that it had not been revoked. Mr. Hughes explained that he had installed the fence around this property following a theft of some of his personal property when his insurance company had suggested either a fence or an alarm system be installed. He said he had purchased this property because he believed it would become a valuable property in the future. Mr. Hughes stated that he had been operating a restaurant at this site for the past two years during which time his profits had doubled. Mr. Hughes said he believed this establishment was a valuable establishment and a benefit to the community. He added that he had not received any complaints about this establishment during the time he had been in operation. Mr. Hughes stated that his hours of operation were compatible to the surrounding neighborhood and any noise from his operation was contained on their site.
Mr. Hughes informed the Planning Commission that his proposal was to create a club with entertainment ranging from music to small acting performances in an atmosphere where cocktails could be served without the necessity of dinner being served. Mr. Hughes stated that other establishments with liquor licenses were not frowned upon, such as the Salt Palace, the Delta Center, Franklin Field and hotels in the City. He stated that he was a IJTIPS" trainer who taught his employees how to serve liquor responsibly and he believed it was important for him to be permitted to do the best he could and be as accessible as possible.
Mr. Becker reminded everyone that no decision would be made at this time and added that when the Planning Commission did take action on this matter, they would only be considering the conditional use application before them.
Mr. Hughes stated that he was asking for two other things that had not been mentioned yet, a permit to use his fence and a permit to provide outdoor service on his patio.
Mr. Wright explained that the first two items requested were not Planning Commission issues and would be dealt with by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Wright added that the outdoor dining could be pursued under his current licensing, unless he were to prefer to wait and see if he received approval for a private club license.
Mr. Hughes stated that he was not seeking a license for a private club. Mr. Hughes stated that he wanted to be able to continue operating as he currently was but to be able to close down the kitchen at a certain hour and still be able to serve liquor.
Mr. Wright stated that a determination would have to be made by the State as to whether or not that type of operation would be permissible. Mr. Hughes said a State representative had told him that what he wanted to do would be allowed by the State but he would have to obtain approval from the City.
Ms. Gloria Hughes asked what the time frame was for a final decision on this matter.
Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission would probably hear this matter again at their September 5, 1996 meeting. Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission would make the final decision on this matter.
Mr. Hughes stated that he had been required to provide addresses of all property owners within 300 feet of his business and added that he would like to know which of the speakers at this meeting lived within that 300 feet parameter.
Mr. Becker stated that anyone had the right to speak on the issues involved.
Mr. Hughes stated that he had been limited to the 300 foot parameter.
Mr. Wright explained that the 300 foot parameter was only a notification requirement, that it did not restrict someone farther away from addressing this issue.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Don Williams, a property owner in the area, stated that he had known Mr. Hughes for a number of years, that he had been a customer of Mr. Hughes on many occasions and added that he was in support of this project.
Mr. Eric Jergensen, Chairperson of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that they had discussed this matter in great detail. Mr. Jergensen stated that the surrounding property owners were opposed to this proposal due to the potential for negative impacts to their community from such an establishment. Mr. Jergensen stated that this community was in the process of being revitalized with the master planning and redevelopment that was occurring and they felt this type of business would be a step in the wrong direction. He added that there had been many problems when the Beehive Elks Lodge had been in operation and they were afraid those kinds of problems would recur.
Mr. Becker stated that the differences between the two types of establishments were so small that he questioned any change to the community from what currently existed.
Mr. Jergensen stated that the previous club had had the same kind of license that Mr. Hughes was requesting and there had been a dramatic difference relative to negative impacts to the neighborhood.
Mr. McRea asked if those differences might have been due to the management of the previous club, rather than the license under which the businesses were operating.
Mr. Becker stated that the City often felt the opposite would occur and in the past had preferred some establishments in the downtown area operate under a private club license because the impacts were less.
Ms. Kirk asked if the community council had examined the differences between the two kinds of licenses and what the differences would mean.
Mr. Jergensen stated that it had been discussed nominally but added that many people probably had not understood those differences. Mr. Jergensen stated that their major concern was not the differences between the two kinds of licenses, but if they were headed back into a situation like before with many negative impacts on their neighborhood.
Mr. Harv Jeppsen, representing his parents who owned the motel abutting this property to the north, stated that he could spend hours and hours disputing everything that had been stated at this meeting but he did not want to do so. Mr. Jeppsen showed a map demonstrating the number of properties surrounding Mr. Hughes' business which were residential in nature. He stated that the property to the south, which was only 20 feet away from the Hughes property, housed five families with many school-age children who needed a good night's sleep. Mr. Jeppsen stated that the customers of the motel expected to be able to get a good night's sleep as well. Mr. Harv Jeppsen stated that he had a video tape demonstrating the negative kinds of behavior that occurred in this area. Mr. Jeppsen stated that one night, a woman had walked out of the club, removed her clothing and shouted profanities; that on another occasion, a young man had walked over to the motel property and beaten his father, Mr. Glenn Jeppsen, the motel owner. Mr. Harv Jeppsen stated that his father had video taped some of these negative occurrences. He stated that he did not believe Mr. Hughes had told these people to commit these acts but added that allowing Mr. Hughes to serve alcohol in such a confined space would result in these kinds of problems. Mr. Jeppsen stated that even though Mr. Hughes was aware of the video tape made by Mr. Glenn Jeppsen and the problems they had experienced, Mr. Hughes had told the community council that his business would be good for the community. Mr. Harv Jeppsen stated that even though Mr. Hughes had stated that he had not had any problems, on June 25, 1996 a woman had run to the motel to use the phone and had screamed for someone to call the police because they needed help to break up a fight behind Mr. Hughes' establishment.
Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission was here to listen to the issues connected to the conditional use.
Mr. Harv Jeppsen stated that they were also concerned about a lack of parking in the area for this establishment. He begged the Planning Commission to not put this neighborhood through the same kinds of problems they had been through before by allowing Mr. Hughes to serve alcohol without food.
Mr. McRea asked if Mr. Jeppsen was referring to the Elks Lodge operation or the restaurant run by Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Jeppsen said he was referring to both operations. Mr. McRea asked if Mr. Jeppsen felt the current establishment was okay if the liquor license for a private club was not approved. Mr. Jeppsen said he believed no liquor should be served in an establishment in proximity to so many residential uses. Mr. Jeppsen asked if Mr. Hughes could be stopped from having a restaurant liquor license.
Mr. Wright stated that under the current zoning, that type of use was allowed.
Mr. Glenn Jeppsen, the motel owner to the north, stated that the City had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on improvements to this community and had recently changed the zoning for the better. He said he felt allowing this private club liquor license would be a step in the wrong direction.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Hughes addressed some of the comments made by the public and stated that June 25th, as referred to by Mr. Harv Jeppsen, had been a Tuesday and on Tuesdays he closed at 2:00 p.m., not 2:00 a.m. He stated that the comments made by Mr. Jeppsen were a lie and the Planning Commission could check with the Police Department if they desired. Mr. Hughes stated that he had no connection to the Elks Lodge other than being a member, which he had the right to be as a citizen of the United States. Mr. Hughes stated that he now owned this property and that he had purchased this property to stop the 11foolishness" that had been going on and to stop Mr. Jeppsen from purchasing it. Mr. Hughes stated that this was a “color" issue. He stated that every complaint he had received had involved the Beehive Elks Lodge, not him or his business. Mr. Hughes said the process he had gone through had been the most insensitive thing he had ever gone through and he felt it was appalling behavior for the 1990's. Mr. Hughes stated that there was no difference between him operating his restaurant and him operating a private club. He said the law would allow him to rent his building out any time he wanted to and serve liquor any time he wanted to without serving food. Mr. Hughes stated that anyone he rented his building out to could serve all the food they wanted and he could serve all the liquor he wanted to as long as he paid the taxes on the food. Mr. Hughes stated that if there were five families living in the house to the south of his business, they were breaking the law. He stated that the courts had just forced the previous owner to move people out of the back of that house since it was being used illegally. Mr. Hughes said he was trying to be a law abiding citizen, that he did not want to break any laws; he wanted his requests to be considered in a fair manner. Mr. Hughes said he did not want to be slandered and the previous comments were slanderous. Mr. Hughes said he had never seen the tape referred to by Mr. Jeppsen, that he had asked to see the tape and that he had no knowledge of the people who had been involved in the recorded actions.
Mr. Jeppsen spoke up and stated that when he had referred to problems on the 25th of June, the correct date had actually been June 28th.
Mr. Becker explained that the public hearing portion of the meeting was over.
Mr. Smith said it seemed to him that even though Mr. Hughes was not interested in operating a private club, the only way he could serve liquor without serving food was through a private club license. Mr. Smith asked if his understanding was correct that the only issue before the Planning Commission was whether this
restaurant license should be changed to a private club license.
Mr. Becker said that was correct.
Ms. Kirk expressed concern that the differences between the two kinds of licenses had not been discussed at the community council meeting.
Mr. McRea said it seemed to him, the previous club was the culprit of the problems the area had experienced.
Ms. Funk stated that a private club could extend their hours of operation and stay open one hour later at night. Mr. Becker asked if the Planning Commission could limit the hours of operation under the conditional use approval process.
Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission could limit the hours of operation under the finding of compatibility with the neighborhood.
Mr. Fife asked if the current license was the same as the license had been for the Beehive Elks Lodge.
Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative and added that the Elks Lodge had voluntarily surrendered that license.
Ms. Kirk stated that Mr. Hughes was currently operating under the same kind of license but doing it correctly.
The Planning Commission suggested the staff look at buffering issues, parking, coordination of the administrative decisions on this matter with the Planning Commission issues and a process to educate the neighborhood on the differences between the two kinds of licensing and their impacts. Mr. Wright said the staff would also get more information from the State relative to the types of licensing that might be best for this operation as well as the availability of private club licenses.
Mr. Wright said he would try to have State representatives present at the next meeting on this issue to answer questions.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-217 by Rod Chamberlain requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development located at 4305 West 1980 South in an Industrial M-1 " zoning district. Mr. Ray McCandless 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. Rod Chamberlain, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Chamberlain agreed to reduce the size of the buildings by 1481 square feet as recommended by the staff. Mr. Chamberlain requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 410-217 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report including reducing the size of the buildings by 1,481 square feet. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted “Aye". Mr. Iker and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-230 by Terry Bland requesting a conditional use for expansion of an existing landfill located at 7040 West 1300 South in an Open Space Landfill Overlay 110S/LO, zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. Terry Bland, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff report with the exception of the landfill elevation. Mr. Bland requested they be allowed a height that would be consistent with the height of the County landfill. Mr. Bland stated that relative to Condition #4, the federal government did not issue permits, that the State handled those permits for the federal government. Mr. Bland requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-230 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the exceptions that no written approval would be required from the Federal Government and that the height be allowed to be the same height as the County landfill. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, and Mr. McRea voted “Aye”. Mr. Iker, Mr. Smith and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-194 by JM Consulting Group for Western PCS II Corporation requesting a conditional use of a 195 foot telecommunications lattice tower located at 1497 South 700 West in an Industrial M-1 " zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless outlined the major issues of the case and stated that this was an issues only hearing and no decision would be made at this time.
Mr. Glen Nelson, representing Western PCS II Corporation, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and presented computer enhanced slides to demonstrate how the lattice tower would appear relative to its proposed surroundings.
Mr. Brian True, also representing Western PCS II Corporation, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that this tower was necessary for the successful operation of their telecommunications system in the event of a U.S. West service failure. He explained how the lattice tower would provide service for the community in the event of an emergency, a natural disaster or major problems U.S. West might experience. Mr. True stated that this tower would operate simultaneously with the U.S. West operations, as a backup system, providing two routes of communication lines in the event either system failed.
Ms. Kirk asked if the subcommittee had studied this matter.
Mr. McRea responded in the negative and added that it might be something the subcommittee needed to study. Mr. Fife asked if this were a means to bypass U.S. West.
Mr. True responded in the affirmative but added that their intent was not to bypass U.S. West, but rather, to provide themselves with a backup system in the event the U.S. West system failed. Mr. True stated that about 95% of their system had been built through U.S. West and they would be just as vulnerable as they were now if they tried to rely on their own system only without utilizing the services of U.S. West. Mr. True stated that a number of portable communication sites were maintained locally which could be up and running in a matter of hours in the event of an emergency or a natural disaster. Mr. True stated that another 30 to 40 portable units could be brought into the Valley within a few days, if needed. He stated that the portable units needed to be located in such a manner as to maintain a line of sight with the tower in order to function properly.
Mr. Becker asked if this tower were to be located at another site if the same height requirements would be necessary. Mr. True explained that this site was a hub site that tied into their switching center and if it were moved, they would have a single point of failure, which they were trying to get away from in their current situation with U.S. West, without any backup. Mr. Becker asked if they had looked at any existing structures that were 200 feet high where they might be able locate these facilities.
Mr. True expressed concern that, with the switching center located where it was, they not be limited to a single route to another location. Mr. Becker asked if the switching center could be relocated. Mr. True explained that relocating the switching center would be phenomenally expensive.
Mr. Wright asked why this tower needed to be 196 feet high.
Mr. True responded that if they needed to bring in the portable units and place them on one of the mountain benches, they needed the line of sight a 196 foot tower would provide. Mr. True added that initially they had looked at a 300 foot tower but had lowered it to the 1 96 feet they were now requesting. Mr. Wright asked if they had examined seismic issues. Mr. True stated that all of their engineering was done for seismic zones three or four. Mr. Wright pointed out that their location was in the highest liquefaction zone in the Valley and asked if they had taken that fact into consideration. Mr. True said they explained to their engineers what they needed and the engineers then informed them how to construct what they needed.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address
the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to
the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk said she would like the subcommittee to study this matter before the
Planning Commission was asked to make their decision. Mr. McRea stated that the subcommittee could be reconvened in the next couple of weeks and the staff would contact the representatives from Western PCS to let them know when they would meet to discuss this issue in greater detail.
PLANNING ISSUES
Discussion with UDOT concerning the 1-1 5 reconstruction project.
Mr. Vance Hansen, representing the Utah Department of Transportation, and Ms. Kristine Cartwright, Mr. Craig Frisbee and Mr. Owen Mills, representing Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., the 1-1 5 Corridor Project Consultants, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cartwright handed out copies of their proposed City street vacations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Hansen and the Parsons Brinkerhoff consultants gave a presentation using briefing boards to demonstrate the City streets proposed for vacation in order to construct the 1-15 Corridor Project, the properties that would be impacted by those street closures and a chart outlining the process necessary to accomplish the closures.
A lengthy discussion took place including the location of the reconstruction project, the need for public input in the process, the time frame for the project, the design of the freeway interchanges, federal requirements for sound attenuation walls, advantages and disadvantages of freeway landscaping, and freeway and landscaping maintenance requirements and problems. The discussion also included the need for notification to affected property owners, input needed from the various City departments relative to the street closures, the need to keep access to the City viable, and the management of traffic during the reconstruction of the freeway.
Mr. Hansen stated that the State was not pursuing the typical low bid process but would be evaluating the cost analyses, quality of proposals received, construction sequence, engineering and the management of traffic proposed by those bidding for the job. Mr. Hansen said they had already completed the pre-qualification process and now had three joint venture teams who would be bidding on this reconstruction project. He stated that their completion target date for the entire project was October 2001.
Update on the Shoreline Trail Issues
This item was postponed for a future Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wright
explained that the staff had been unable to get together with the Forest Service due to scheduling conflicts. Update on the “Open Space Land Trust" This item was postponed for a future Planning Commission meeting.
Update of appeal of Planning Commission decisions.
Mr. Wright stated that several appeals of Planning Commission decisions were still pending. He stated that the Westminster College parking structure appeal was scheduled for a City Council hearing on September 19, 1996; the Eastland Regency appeal would be heard by the City Council on September 5, 1996, the same night as a Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wright stated that the dinner break could be scheduled at the same time so those interested in attending that appeal could attend the City Council meeting. Mr. Wright stated that the Critchlow housing project for women, located at 322 East 300 South, had been appealed by Mr. Steven Harmsen. Mr. Wright explained that the Watts Almond Street project was on hold since they had redesigned their project as a single building and that their proposal would be heard by the Historic Landmark Commission on August 7, 1996. Mr. Wright stated that the City Council might need to reconsider the fee structure for filing an appeal. He added that their decisions on the appeals before them were critical in setting precedents and would send a signal about how supportive they were of the Planning Commission's decisions.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50p.m.