SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City and County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Jennifer Seelig. Lauri Noda was not present.
Present from the Planning Staff were Acting Planning Director, Brent Wilde; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; and Planner Joel Paterson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be returned in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which time they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR ONE AGENDA ITEM FROM DECEMBER 5, 2002
Piper Down Pub Private Club
Prescott Muir referred to Page 17, the last sentence of the first paragraph and asked that the phrase, “.... that it one thing” be changed to “....that is one thing”. Mr. Muir referred to the motion and recalled that the Planning Commission had previously required a management plan at the original hearing. He felt that intent slipped through this time and should be required as part of the approval. Chair Jonas requested that the minutes be corrected to reflect that a management plan was required as a condition of the approval and he asked that the language from the first approval be included.
Chair Jonas referred to Page 2, the motion to approve the minutes, and requested that “Jeff Jonas, a chair,” did not vote be changed to read, “Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote”. Chair Jonas referred to Page 3, the third paragraph, seventh line down and the statement by Mr. Muir regarding business licensing provisions. The sentence reads, “it does not apply to colleges so Salt Lake Community College is not reviewed for a business license”. Chair Jonas felt the language read, “.....Salt Lake Community College is not considered....”. Chair Jonas referred to Page 9, second paragraph, first sentence, and requested that culture center be changed to cultural center. Chair Jonas referred to Page 13, second paragraph, second to the last line which reads, “If alcohol is involved then they do not need more bars”. He requested that the sentence be changed as to read, “If alcohol is involved then it will be worse. They do not need more bars”. Jeff Jonas referred to Page 14, first full paragraph, the second line and noted that Mr. Marion should be changed to read, Mr. Marino. Chair Jonas referred to Page 15, comments by Jeff Zapato that “The law does not allow pilots to drink when they drive”, and asked that it be changed to “The law does not allow pilots to drink when they fly”.
Motion
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk and Ms. McDonough abstained since they did not attend the meeting. Laurie Noda was not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA - Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
1. Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake City Property Management - Request to allow the transfer of fee title ownership from Salt Lake City Corp. to the City Municipal Building Authority, for a portion of the 500 West median park block island located between South Temple and 100 South Streets, for bonding security purposes.
2. Fourels Investment/Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Fee title deed exchange to relocate the East Jordan Canal at 1400 East Fort Union Boulevard (6900 S.) And 6924 South Park Center Drive - and also a revocable permit to the Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Company to locate an irrigation ditch onto City Public Utilities Property - said locations are in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
3. B&G Properties and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – Salt Lake City will receive a deed of easement for a new 8” waterline, located at 1136 East 3300 South, located in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
4. UDOT and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Salt Lake City will grant an easement and temporary construction permit to UDOT for the construction of a box culvert, roadway, and two storm drains across the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal, located at 83 West 12300 South, near I-15, located in Draper, Utah. Also included are various permits and easements to South Valley Sewer District and Utah Power.
5. Utah Power and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Fee title purchased by Salt Lake City for 8.82 aces of Utah Power property presently occupied by the Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant at 3931 East Big Cottonwood Canyon Road (6950 South) located in unincorporated Salt Lake County.
6. Utah Power and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Exchange of easements between Utah Power and Salt Lake City Public Utilities related to the Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant. A conservation easement from UP&L to Salt Lake City Public Utilities for the hillside property located north and adjacent to the treatment plant at 3931 East Big Cottonwood Canyon Road. In exchange, Salt Lake City will convey to UP&L an easement for the existing UP&L Substation located at 8181 East Parleys Canyon Road (2700 So.) (Hwy 65) in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
Robert “Bip” Daniels referred to Item D and the mention of temporary permits. He wanted to know if the easements stay in place once the construction is completed. Doug Wheelwright replied that the easements will remain. He explained that typically the construction easements are larger areas than the final easement.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to recommend approval of the six convenience items presented and the recommendation for their acceptance.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the word convenience is a typographical error and they are actually conveyance matters.
Ms. Funk amended her motion to approve the six conveyance items. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted Aye. Ms. Noda was not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-02-33, requested by Salt Lake City Corporation, to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow an intermodal transportation hub in CG General Commercial zone as a conditional use, and to develop a definition for intermodal transportation hub and related terms
Petition No. 410-619, requested by Salt Lake City Corp., to grant conditional use approval for an intermodal transportation hub at 280 South 600 West. The property is located within the CG General Commercial zoning district.
Petition No. 410-620 requested by Salt Lake City Corp., to grant a planned development approval to allow multiple buildings, one of which does not have frontage on a public street, on the site of the proposed intermodal transportation hub at 280 South 600 West. The property is located within the CG General Commercial zoning district.
Planner Joel Paterson stated that Petition 400-02-33 is a petition to amend the text of the zoning ordinance to allow intermodal hubs in the General Commercial district. Currently, the zoning ordinance does not include a definition or line item in any of the zones that would allow intermodal hubs. Many of the uses associated with a hub are included as permitted uses in these zones. The proposal is to add intermodal hub as a conditional use in the General Commercial zone and a definition of an intermodal hub to the definition section of the zoning ordinance. The proposal would also add a new parking standard for an intermodal hub.
Mr. Paterson noted that this petition was presented to the Rio Grande Community Council on November 20 and the People’s Freeway Community Council and the Poplar Grove Community Council on December 4. An open house was held on November 26. The Rio Grande and People’s Freeway Community Council support these proposals. The Rio Grande Community Council was not able to send a representative this evening and sent a letter to be entered into the record. Mr. Paterson read the letter which stated their support of the intermodal hub and the proposed changes to the general commercial zoning to allow the hub. The Community Council expressed their appreciation to the City for their willingness to link light rail to the intermodal hub and encouraged them to pursue those plans for the earliest completion.
Mr. Paterson stated that the Poplar Grove Community Council is outside of the noticing area for rezoning and conditional uses but because of their interest in the hub, based on the reactivation of the freight lines on 900 South, this project was presented to their community council. Mr. Paterson reported that the Poplar Grove Community Council unanimously opposed these proposals.
Mr. Paterson noted that the Gateway Master Plan identifies this site as an intermodal transportation hub where Amtrak, Greyhound Bus, Utah Transit Authority buses, TRAX light rail, and regional commuter rail may all come together. Taxi cabs and tour company uses may also be part of the intermodal facility. Mr. Paterson read the proposed definition for an intermodal transit passenger terminal as a publicly owned and operated central passenger transfer facility servicing rail bus, shuttles, limousines, taxis, bicycles and pedestrians, and may include, but is not limited to the following complimentary land uses such as offices, retail sales and services, bus line terminals, bus line yard and repair facilities, taxi cab facilities and limousine service. The proposed parking requirement uses the same standard as those used for bus facilities which is one space per two employees plus a space per bus. Mr Paterson believes this requirement will be sufficient because of the nature of an intermodal hub where people come in and go out on mass transit. Additional parking will be required in the future for people who would drive to this site and take commuter rail to the north. The City is looking at potential sites to house that parking in the future.
The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation on these amendments to the City Council.
Mr. Daniels clarified that this particular intermodal hub will be 100% passenger use and no commercial freight. Mr. Paterson replied that Amtrak does carry small package freight on their passenger trains but the overall general use is for passengers.
Mary Guysell, the intermodal hub project manager from the Mayor’s office, explained that Amtrak currently does handle freight consisting of U.S. mail and items such as furniture, textbooks, and smaller items shipped by individuals. They do not handle any type of hazardous waste. Greyhound also will ship small packages that fit alongside baggage.
Chair Jonas asked Mr. Paterson to clarify the issue of the main line versus the track for commuter rail and light rail. Mr. Paterson explained that UTA is proposing that a separate line be constructed for the passenger commuter rail adjacent to the freight lines to avoid having to separate the two by time of use and disrupting the freight traffic on the Union Pacific line. Mr. Paterson commented on the issue of the freight line on 900 South and noted that Union Pacific has a backlog at Grant’s Tower located north of the intermodal hub. Due to the radius of the curve of the tracks, the freight trains need to go through that area at a slower speed. This creates a large back up of trains coming in from the north. Union Pacific has stated that the reason for reactivating the 900 South line is to avoid Grant’s Tower and it has nothing to do with the intermodal facility.
Jennifer Seelig asked if building the hub at the proposed location would prevent Union Pacific from ever removing the trains currently traveling on the recently reactivated 900 South line. Mr. Paterson replied that it would not prevent them from removing those trains.
Ms. Guysell clarified some issues in the staff report. The first item is in the zoning text amendment petition under the definition of the intermodal transit passenger terminal. At this point it is defined as a publicly owned and operated central transit passenger transfer station. Ms. Guysell wanted it clear that the intention for this project has always been to ultimately turn the intermodal hub over to UTA. The City Attorney can determine if UTA fits within that definition but she wanted the intent clear for the record that the definition should fit for the City as well as UTA’s operation of the facility.
Regarding the cross platform transfer, Ms. Guysell noted that the staff report mentions Amtrak, commuter rail and light rail, but cross platform is also included with UTA bus service. She wanted that clarification entered into the record. Ms. Guysell commented on the TRAX design and noted that they are currently putting together a scoping document and anticipate designing the TRAX extension from the Delta Center to the hub in 2003. The staff report makes references to 2004 and 2007 which is incorrect. If they can obtain funding for the TRAX expansion from the Delta Center, they will actually construct it prior to commuter rail opening at the site. Ms. Guysell noted that the Staff report states that commuter rail and light rail will use the main line corridor. She clarified that UTA has now acquired the eastern portion of the Union Pacific main line corridor. Therefore, if they receive funding, UTA they will run commuter rail through their own corridor and not the Union Pacific corridor.
Mr. Guysell walked the Planning Commission through the intermodal hub project. She presented a conceptual landscaping layout and explained the general operation of the site. Ms. Guysell reviewed a colored rending of the intermodal hub. They have worked closely with the Utah Heritage Foundation and they are very comfortable with these plans. She stated that they are also working with lead certification which is basically sustainable building practices, and it appears that they will be awarded lead certification on this project. Ms. Guysell noted that they have worked closely with public utilities, CEPTED, and all other City agencies to ensure that the hub project is complete.
Commissioner Chambless asked Assistant City Attorney, Lynn Pace, if there are any federal issues involved. Mr. Pace was unaware of any and he did not think the land use decisions before the Planning Commission this evening would implicate any federal transportation issues. Chair Jonas asked if the definition of publicly owned could apply to UTA. Mr. Pace replied that he has not reviewed the language and was not prepared to answer that question. He is aware of the issue of UTA’s status and whether or not they are a public entity. He suggested that the intention be made clear and that the Planning Commission take action subject to further modification to the language from the City Attorney’s office.
Mr. Chambless asked if the envisioned sidewalk thoroughfare is above ground and Ms. Guysell replied that it is. He asked her to explain how the sidewalk is envisioned. Ms. Guysell replied that there will be a double row of trees with sidewalk pavers along the pedestrian way. Mr. Chambless asked about lighting and Ms. Guysell stated that they anticipate using street lights similar to Washington Square.
Mr. Daniels was concerned about the use of pavers in terms of mobility for disabled people. Ms. Guysell felt this would not be a problem if the pavers are installed properly and maintained. The intent is to accommodate all people with disabilities at the intermodal hub and the design does meet all ADA requirements. Mr. Daniels remarked that people with disabilities do not see inclines and pavers as being easy to navigate and he hopes that will be considered when the actual layout is started. Ms. Guysell stated that mobility for the disabled is a high priority.
Ms. Funk agreed that pavers are more difficult to maneuver either walking or in a wheelchair or using some other device. She personally felt that pavers are not appropriate in a transit hub.
Chair Jonas noted that the key plan labels a portion of the south end of the building for future expansion. Ms. Guysell explained that the area is technically for Amtrak, anticipating that Amtrak will still be viable when this facility is completed. If it is not viable, the space will either revert to UTA for commuter rail or the space can be leased out. They will not get a commitment from Amtrak until October 2003 and until then the fate of that space is unknown.
Chair Jonas stated that when the plan was first presented to the Planning Commission a while ago, the intent was to bring the bus traffic off of 200 South into the site. At that time the Planning Commission had questions relative to the flow of the buses and whether or not they would go West on 200 South into the neighborhoods. Ms. Guysell explained that the Greyhound buses will operate on 200 South as they get to and from the freeway. They have looked at putting an “exit only” access for the buses so instead of turning left and then right, they will be able to access an exit that turns right directly on to 200 South.
Peggy McDonough asked about the surface material for the vehicle path and she was told that it would be 12 inch concrete.
Mr. Paterson reported that part of the planned development approval is a request for the Planning Commission to modify three standards in the zoning ordinance as outlined in the staff report. The zoning ordinance allows the Planning Commission, through the development process, to modify standards as needed. The first issue is that originally the right-of-way along 600 West was the standard 132 foot right-of-way. Some time ago, the western half of that right-of-way was vacated leaving the front of the warehouses 45 feet from the current property line. The way this is currently designed, what appears to be on-street parking is actually parking within the current front yard of the intermodal hub facility. The Staff is requesting a modification to allow parking in the front yard if necessary which is currently not allowed. The second issue is that the general commercial zone requires a ten foot front yard landscape area along the front yard or the corner side yard and the Planning Commission is being requested to waive the 10 foot landscaping requirement along 600 West to accept the landscaping as proposed. The third issue addresses the street trees along 200 South. With the proposed development of light rail along 200 South, they are not sure where the curb line will end up and that will be determined during the design process. The applicant is proposing to place a row of trees along the property line and add a second line of street trees as a second phase. The Staff recommends that they enter into a special improvement district waiver which is how this is typically handled.
The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant the three modifications to the zoning ordinance as described, as well as conditional use and planned development approval subject to the approval of Petition 400-02-33 by the City Council, the three conditions written in the staff report, and the SID waiver for improvements along 200 South.
Mr. Paterson referred to the paving patterns along the 600 West frontage and explained that the standard pattern used throughout the Central Business District 80% concrete and 20% brick. Main Street and South Temple are reversed with 20% concrete and 80% brick. When the Gateway Mall was constructed, the paving pattern was moved over to 500 West to include the Gateway area. The Staff is looking for direction on whether that pattern should be extended to the intermodal hub to tie into the Central Business District.
Ms. Funk asked if an exit for the buses on 200 South is still be considered and Ms. Guysell replied that it is being considered as a definite preference.
The Planning Commission and Ms. Guysell discussed parking and ingress/egress points, as well as landscaping and pedestrian circulation.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Samantha Francis, representing the People’s Freeway Community Council, stated that the Council has been very involved from the beginning and she has been chair throughout that time. There has been tremendous support from the community. Everyone believes it will be an asset to the community and bring more people in and out of the area. Ms. Francis commented on the number of rumors and misrepresentation of actual facts that were brought to the Community Council. They have been told the facts by the Mayor’s office and the Planning Staff and any misrepresentations have been cleared up. Regarding the handicapped issue, Ms. Francis stated that her mother travels on the bus from Alabama. She is in a wheelchair and picking her up from the existing bus station has been a horrible experience. As a family, they are very ecstatic to think that they can use light rail to pick her up and bring her back to their house on 1300 South. The People’s Freeway community believes this intermodal hub will be wonderful for the City. When the Community Council met on December 4, twenty seven people were present and twenty five voted to support this project. As chair she did not vote and the council secretary chose to abstain. Ms. Francis asked the Planning Commission to listen to them because they are the ones who will be impacted by the buses and trains coming in and out. They are all very excited to see this happen and it will be an asset to the area of 600 West and the residents and business owners who reside there. She urged the Planning Commission to vote in favor of this request.
Mark Smedley, representing the Poplar Grove Community Council, stated that they support the project in general but on the advise of their attorney, they are challenging every step that the City takes to develop the intermodal hub. Ms. Francis does not feel deceived by the previous administration and the information presented because 900 South is not in her neighborhood and she does not have a personal interest. The Council met today and their attorney believes that when projects like this are done, it is sometimes necessary to do an EIS rather than just an EA, particularly if a lot of development takes place in a short amount of time. You cannot look at the impact of one component. You need to look at the whole redevelopment project. Their attorney believes they have a case and they have chosen to take his advice and oppose the changes in zoning. On his advice, they will oppose this project at every step to build their case. Mr. Smedley noted that their Community Council voted unanimously to oppose the zoning changes until the City addresses their issues.
Mr. Smedley also represented the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and asked the City to consider that there is a bicycle lane on 200 South. They need to make a safe crossing across those tracks that make a hard left turn and they need a wide bike lane so they can position themselves to ride across those tracks at a 90 degree angle. Mr. Smedley noted that the bicycle master plan shows a bike lane on 600 West. Ms. Guysell indicated that the bike lane is shown on the rendering.
Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Smedley if he could speak more specifically on the grounds that they are contesting the zoning change. Mr. Smedley remarked that the community believes the process was flawed and that the EA did not look at all the impacts of this large redevelopment being done in downtown Salt Lake. Union Pacific decided to move their trains to 900 South after stating a number of reasons. It is hard to believe why the railroad does things or the statements they make. From a broad perspective, a lot of things are going on downtown and the City has encouraged Union Pacific to find a way to get the freight out of downtown. He believes that the City had the information that Union Pacific was not going to abandon the rail line in 1998 and they quit advocating for their community. Mr. Smedley believes an EIS should be done and it should look at the impacts.
Michael Clara, secretary of the Poplar Grove Community Council understood that the Council opposed this project based on the fact that the zoning issue is inconsistent with the West Salt Lake Master Plan. Zoning ordinances are designed to protect and not burden neighbors. Mr. Clara stated that he would like to know what Union Pacific official told Mr. Paterson that Grant’s Tower was the reason they put trains in his neighborhood. He quoted from two newspaper articles referring to the 900 South rail line.
Chair Jonas explained to Mr. Clara that the Planning Commission appreciates the concerns of the 900 South rail line but that issue is not connected to the petitions before them this evening for the intermodal hub.
Mr. Clara felt that he could make the connection and continued to talk about the 900 South rail line. Chair Jonas explained that the Planning Commission has been given all the information and they have been told that there is no connection between the 900 South rail line and the intermodal hub. Mr. Clara noted that this is a public hearing and he wanted to know if Chair Jonas was asking him not to speak. Mr. Jonas replied that if Mr. Clara’s comments only pertain to the 900 South rail line and not the land use issue scheduled this evening then he would need to sit down. Mr. Clara express his respect for Chair Jonas’ authority and sat down.
Ms. Francis clarified that she has purchased property a block away from the 900 South line so she is personally involved with both of the issues. As a community council they have explored both issues and she agrees that they are in no way linked together. The City needs an intermodal hub to bring all the buses and trains together.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas explained that none of the Commissioner’s support the trains running on 900 South but that is unrelated to the issue being heard tonight.
Kay Arnold commented on the pavers and felt that the pavers at Gateway are impossible for people with walkers and difficult for all people with disabilities. She assumes the pavers will be bricks that close together and of the same height. Ms. Arnold felt the Staff should consult people with disabilities because they are the ones who have to deal with them. Mr. Paterson agreed that the pavers should be flush and close together and he offered to consult with some disability groups.
Mr. Chambless asked about lighting. People will walk the sidewalks if they feel safe in that area and he wanted to know what the planning Staff envisions for the sidewalks. Mr. Paterson stated that they envision the same cactus style light poles that are used in the downtown area.
Ms. Seelig echoed the concerns regarding pavers. She commented on the bicycle lane on, particularly the one on 200 South. Ms. Guysell explained that the bicycle path on 200 South already exists and another bicycle lane is proposed for 600 West. The plan does not show the 200 South bicycle lane because they are unsure how light rail will affect the configuration of the bike lane.
Ms. Funk asked if parking along 600 West is still uncertain. Ms. Guysell replied that they will definitely do that parking but they are struggling with the alignment from the north side to the south side.
Motion for Petition 400-02-33
In the matter of Petition 400-02-33, requesting a zoning amendment to allow the intermodal transit hub as a conditional use in the general commercial CG District, based on the findings of fact and the hearing this evening, Arla Funk moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to request the amendment of the text as outlined in the staff report. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion.
Chair Jonas added a clarification that the Planning Commission intends for the UTA to be included in the definition of publicly owned should they come to own that facility. He noted that Recommendation C simply states, “amending the parking and off-street loading requirements by adding a standard for an intermodal transit passenger hub”. He requested that they identify that standard as recommended by staff which is the same standard as a bus facility.
Ms. Funk accepted that amendment to her motion. Ms. McDonough seconded the amendment.
Findings of Fact
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
2. The proposed amendment provides a process to evaluate specific developments as to whether they are harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
3. The proposed text amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The proposed text amendment provides opportunity for public input through the conditional use process and allows the Planning Commission to mitigate potential impacts by placing conditions on the development of new intermodal hubs.
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services will be determined through the conditional use process.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted Aye. Ms. Noda was not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 410-619 and Petition 410-620
Arla Funk moved to approve Petitions 410-619 and 410-620 requesting conditional use approval and planned development approval for the intermodal hub located at 280 South at 600 West, based on the findings of fact and with the recommendations found in the staff report and the additional stipulation that pavers not be used. Prescott Muir seconded the motion.
Brent Wilde referred to Condition #2 and asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable giving the Planning Director the latitude to make adjustments as outlined in the discussion this evening. Ms. Funk was comfortable with that and amended her motion to include a special improvement landscaping waiver. Mr. Paterson clarified that the language should be subject to the signing of a special improvement district waiver.
Mr. Daniels understood the concern with not using pavers but he also understood that pavers could be laid flush so they will not be an impediment. He was concerned that restricting the use of pavers may give the latitude to use something else less desirable. He requested that Ms. Funk include language in her motion that the maximum ADA requirements are utilized throughout the project. Ms. Funk was willing to do something but she had concerns with specifying maximum ADA requirements because pavers fit that requirement. She does not have much of a disability compared to many people but she still finds pavers difficult to walk on. Ms. Funk preferred to stipulate that the surface be concrete sidewalks as level as possible. Ms. Seelig suggested that the motion require that the surface material be reviewed by the Mayor’s Committee on Accessibility. After further discussion, Chair Jonas asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable with moving the pavers to 600 West as suggested earlier by Mr. Paterson based on review and input from the Mayor’s Committee on Accessibility.
Chair Jonas commented on a modification to the plan regarding egress out to 200 South and he wondered if that should be included as an acceptable condition to the approval. Mr. Wilde felt it was acceptable to make that clarification. Ms. Funk wanted to know if the egress issue would have to come back if it is not included in the motion. Mr. Wilde stated that it would depend on how much authority they give to the Planning Director. Ms. McDonough felt there were a number of critical issues that are undetermined and this point and she preferred to see it come back.
After further discussion and amendments, Ms. Funk withdrew her motion and restated a new motion.
Ms. Funk moved that the Planning Commission grant planned development approval for Petitions 410-619 and 410-620 for an intermodal transit passenger hub located at 280 South 600 West, based on the findings outlined in the staff report with the addition of special improvement district waiver and with the requirement that the modifications, which will be made after the alignment of light rail, be brought back to the Planning Commission, and that the accessibility on the sidewalks be specifically addressed with the Mayor’s Committee on Accessibility and in compliance with ADA requirements. Prescott Muir seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact - Planned Developments
1 The use of the planned development process for the intermodal hub facility allows the creation of a more desirable environment that would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations.
2. The proposed design of the intermodal hub facility represents the promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities.
3. The design of the intermodal hub combines and coordinates the architectural styles, building forms and building relationships found in the warehouse neighborhood.
4. The proposed development will assure that the preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features, and the prevention of soil erosion is accomplished.
5. The proposed development partially restores the historical architectural resources found on the site.
6. The intermodal hub facility will use design, landscaping and architectural features to create a pleasing environment.
7. The proposed intermodal hub facility will include special development amenities.
8. Blighted structures and incompatible uses will be eliminated through the proposed redevelopment of the site as an intermodal transit hub.
Findings of Fact - Conditional Uses
1. The City is considering a text amendment that would list the proposed land use as a conditional use in the CG General Commercial District.
2. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with any implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
3. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
4. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
5. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and will be designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
6. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
7. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
8. Preliminary landscaping design is appropriate for the scale of the development.
9. The proposed development partially restores the historical architectural resources found on the site and incorporates design elements from the warehouses.
10. Operation and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
11. The development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
12. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances. The Planning Commission may modify certain zoning standards to accommodate the development of the intermodal hub.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir and Ms. Seelig voted Aye. Ms. Noda was not present. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Wilde stated that the memo the Planning Commission received from Cheri Coffey reflects a need to make mapping adjustments. Ms. Coffey has done an exhaustive search to find any mapping errors dating back to 1995. Ms. Coffey requested that 780 South 900 West be added to the list.
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to initiate the mapping petitions listed in Ms. Coffey’s memo.
Mr. Wilde commented on ongoing struggles regarding vending carts and taco stands which has introduced a new set of issues such as snow cone shacks and coffee huts. The ordinance needs to be reconciled for consistency with taco stands. Mr. Wilde requested that the Planning Commission create a petition that would enable them to address other seasonal temporary uses.
Arla Funk moved to initiate a petition for seasonal sales.
Mr. Wilde commented on revisions to the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan and requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to process that plan.
Arla Funk moved to initiate the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan update.
Mr. Wilde referred to the walkable community ordinance that was forwarded to the City Council and noted that the City Council brought in a consultant from Colorado to look at the walkable communities ordinance. The City Council wants to know if the Planning Commission would like to spend some time meeting with this consultant to discuss walkable communities and transit oriented development. Chair Jonas reported on a phone call he received asking if the City Council should form their own subcommittee or whether the Planning Commission wanted to be involved. He felt it was best to have it come back to the Planning Commission and made that recommendation. The commissioners concurred.
Mr. Wilde asked the Planning Commission to establish a subcommittee meeting to look at the Smith’s site plan on 2100 South. The planned development subcommittee that has served in the past consists of Peggy, Arla, Prescott, and Laurie. Mr. Wilde stated a preference to meet on Wednesday, December 18. Chair Jonas suggested asking two representatives from Elm Street and two representatives from the community council to participate. After further discussion, the committee agreed to meet on Monday, December 16 at 7:30 a.m. or 12:00 p.m. Mr. Wilde will inform them of the exact time. Prescott is recused from the subcommittee and Jeff Jonas will attend. Chair Jonas suggested that Prescott Muir be involved as the architect representing Smith’s. Ms. Arnold wondered if this would present a problem since Mr. Muir is conflicted. Mr. Muir was not interested in setting this up for appeal but he was willing to attend if they wanted. Ms. Arnold wondered if it would be problematic to the Sugar House Community Council. Mr. Wilde offered to discuss the matter with Lynn Pace. Mr. Chambless was interested in participating as either an additional member or as an alternate.
Chair Jonas reminded everyone that the Planning Commission meetings have been moved to the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month beginning with January 8, 2003.
Mr. Daniels felt it would behoove the Planning Commission to meet with the director of the RDA and to ask questions and share ideas. Mr. Wilde stated that David Oka is looking forward to meeting with the Planning Commission but they have held this off because of difficult agendas. He offered to set up a meeting after the first of the year.
Ms. Arnold understood from their discussion that the Planning Commission would see the results of their retreat. Mr. Wilde stated that Cheri Coffey is making final corrections and the Planning Commission will receive a list of issues with a staff recommendation attached to each. This should be available for their first meeting in January.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission adjourned at 6:45 p.m.