SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Gilbert Iker, Aria Funk, Fred Fife and Max Smith. Richard Howa, Kimball Young, Jim McRea and Ann Roberts were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Joel Paterson and Cheri Coffey.
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
Ms. Kirk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, February 8, 1996 as presented. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-5 by Salt Lake City Property Management Division requesting the City to declare surplus 84 acres of City-owned property at approximately 900 North and 2200 West in a Business Park JJBP" zoning district.
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.
Mr. Becker asked if the funds 'from the sale of the surplus property would go into the general fund.
Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Becker asked if the Planning Commission could recommend they be directed elsewhere.
Mr. Wright stated that it was City policy that the money paid for surplus property went into a fund similar to the Capital Improvement Program and disbursement of that fund was the responsibility of the City Administration.
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. 400-96-5 based on the findings of fact
contained in the staff report. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye” Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-203 by Temple Pointe, LC, requesting a conditional use for a planned development to construct a Blockbuster video center at 838 West North Temple Street in a Commercial Shopping Center IICS" zoning district.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright 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. Iker asked if the easement area would be open and if people would be able to drive through it. Mr. Paul Hatch, the project architect, responded that the area was open but contained poles which would prevent people from driving through the easement area.
Mr. Fife asked if this approval would result in any demolition.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the theater would be demolished.
Mr. Becker stated that some of the other buildings on the block were not set back as far as this project was proposed to be set back and asked if it would be possible to bring the building closer to the street and locate the parking in the rear.
Mr. Wright explained that locating the parking in the rear was not a good idea since that was also the loading dock area for the grocery store but with the proposed design, the back doors to both businesses would be in the same area.
Ms. Funk said she agreed with Mr. Becker about bringing the business closer to the street. She asked if another building design, such as an “L" shaped building, could accomplish that while not forcing the parking in the rear next to the grocery store's loading dock.
Mr. David Fjeldsted, representing the petitioner, stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendations and added that they had studied many different building configurations before deciding on the existing proposal. Mr. Fjeldsted stated that Blockbuster, the proposed tenant, disagreed with the suggestion to bring the building closer to the street. He stated that they believed this project would clean up the block and enhance the overall character of the area.
Mr. Iker said he had had the opposite reaction to building orientation on the lot than Mr. Becker had expressed.
Mr. Wright stated that due to the problems with gangs and transients this neighborhood experienced, the staff would conclude that the proposal before the Planning Commission at this time exhibited the best use of this property.
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.
Mr. Iker moved to approve Petition No. 410-203 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye” Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-202 by Sprint Telecommunications Venture requesting a conditional use for a private utility building at 47 South Orange Street in a Business Park "BP" zoning district.
Mr. Brent Wilde 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. Wilde also suggested a condition of approval that the petitioner maintain compliance with all of the previously approved planned development requirements.
Mr. Steve Carrillo, the project architect, and Mr. Dennis Paschke, representing Sprint Telecommunications, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
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. 410-202 based on the findings of fact and subject to the condition listed in the staff report as well as the condition suggested by Mr. Wilde that the petitioners maintain compliance with all of the previously approved planned development requirements. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye” Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petitions No. 400-96 9 and 400-96-10 by Susan Mickelsen of Lupine Enterprises. Inc., requesting to amend the front lot line of Lot 2. North Bonneville Subdivision (953 East North Bonneville Drive and that the northern twenty feet of North Bonneville Drive right-of-way be closed and declared surplus from approximately 939 East to 1003 East North Bonneville Drive.
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. Becker asked why the staff recommendation stated that the 80 foot right-of way was excessive without mentioning that it was excessive by 20 feet.
Mr. Paterson stated that it would be okay to state it as Mr. Becker suggested.
Ms. Susan Mickelsen, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that she was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that this house would still have a front yard setback of 35 feet even with the proposed adjustment.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hal Cole, a resident of the area, stated that he felt there needed to be a compelling reason to approve this request and allow this house to be set forward more than the other houses on the street. Mr. Cole also expressed concern about the height of the garage.
Mr. Tom McIntyre, an abutting property owner, requested the Planning Commission not allow this to be constructed closer to the street than the other houses on the street. He suggested they should all line up with each other.
Mr. Larry Terlach, a resident of the area, stated that he lived directly across the street from this proposal and believed the entire integrity of the neighborhood would be compromised if this request were approved.
Ms. Teresa Spigel, a resident of the area, expressed opposition to this request and stated that other people in the neighborhood had been required to go to the expense to make sure their houses met the City's requirements and she felt this property should be held to the same standards.
Ms. Gayle VanWagoner, a resident of the area, stated that this request would benefit only the petitioner, not the neighborhood and added that the petitioner was not even building the house to reside in, but rather, to sell. She stated that she was opposed to this request.
Ms. Mickelsen responded to some of the comments made by the residents of the area by showing them the plans for this house and its garage and by reiterating that the house would still be set back 35 feet 'from the street improvements.
Ms. Nonna Frisbee, a concerned citizen, stated that she was opposed to this request because she did not believe it would be in keeping with the existing housing in the neighborhood.
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. Wright stated that the staff believed it would be a good policy to declare the 80 foot right-of-way as excessive and added that the Planning Commission had several options relative to how the buildable area on this parcel could be utilized.
Mr. Smith moved to adopt the policy stating that the 80 foot right of way be changed to 60 feet for North Bonneville Drive, that the City Council schedule a hearing to close the northern twenty feet of North Bonneville Drive in front of Lot #2 and that twenty feet of land be declared surplus and the property offered for sale to the abutting property owners at fair market value. Mr. Smith further moved to grant preliminary subdivision approval for the amendment of Lot #2, North Bonneville Subdivision and to recommend that the City Council schedule a public hearing and approve the proposed amendment of Lot #2, North Bonneville Subdivision. Mr. Smith also further moved that the proposed buildable area be modified to be in line with the southern- most edge of the house at 975 North Bonneville Drive. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye” Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wright explained that this matter would be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration but no hearing date had been set at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING - Rehearing of Petition No, 410-188 by Westminster College requesting a conditional use for a parking structure located at 1 200 East and 1 700 South in the northwest corner of the campus in an Institutional zoning district.
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.
Mr. Wright explained that the Planning Commission had received a letter from
Mr. Everett Joyce informing them that this matter had been appealed to the City Council and due to a notification error, the City Council had remanded this matter back to the Planning Commission for a rehearing prior to any discussion on the appeal before the City Council, Mr. Wright stated that attached to that letter had been a copy of the previous staff report, Planning Commission minutes from the hearing on September 7, 1995 and a new staff report addressing the appeal issues raised by Mr. Joseph Rohan, the appellant on this case.
Mr. Wright explained that the purpose of this meeting was to rehear the parking lot conditional use request that had been heard on September 7, 1995 since there had been an error in that notices had not been postmarked the necessary 14 days in advance of the Planning Commission hearing.
Mr. Steven Morgan, Executive Vice President for Westminster College, requested the Planning Commission approve this request for a parking structure on the northwest corner of their campus. Mr. Morgan stated that there was a great need for this parking structure, that they had bids in for the library they were planning to construct. Mr. Morgan stated that their original plans had been to have the parking structure already built before the construction on the library began in order to minimize traffic and parking impacts. Mr. Morgan explained that they currently had 2009 students and approximately 1090 were full time students. He stated that their goal, through an aggressive marketing strategy, was to have 2500 students. Mr. Morgan stated that they had 95 full time faculty, 1 25 adjunct faculty, and 1 50 staff members who utilized the campus on a daily and weekly basis. He added that they also invited the public onto their campus for various activities, and their need for parking was great. Mr. Morgan stated that they currently had 707 parking stalls on the campus and that the new parking structure would provide approximately 300 parking stalls. Mr. Morgan explained that the new structure would replace a few of the existing parking lots and increase the number of parking places by an additional 40 stalls. Mr. Morgan gave a brief history of the parking lot requests made by Westminster College and stated that in August 1994 the Planning Commission had approved a parking structure on the southern end of the campus. He stated that a condition of approval had been that they provide a traffic study which had suggested they construct the northern parking lot prior to the southern parking lot. Mr. Morgan stated that the Planning Commission had approved the northern parking structure on September 7, 1995 and had revoked their approval for the southern parking lot as a condition of approval for the northern parking lot. He explained that that approval was the issue before the Planning Commission at this time due to the notification problem.
Mr. Morgan stated that they had met with the community council and the neighborhood on several occasions to inform them of the plans for this parking structure. He stated that the College had incorporated several of the neighbors' suggestions. Mr. Morgan said the College was in favor of restricted parking in the area surrounding the College; that they wanted their students to park on campus. Mr. Morgan stated that the facts of this case were the same as they had been when the Planning Commission had previously considered this matter and
requested they approve this request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Joseph Rohan, a resident of the area and the appellant of this matter, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and handed out copies of the comments he was prepared to make, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Rohan stated that he did not believe the Planning Commission had been provided with meaningful information on which to base the decision they needed to make in order to balance the competing interests of the neighborhood and the College. Mr. Rohan stated that this structure would more than double the number of stalls on this parking lot, that the Jewett Center would be used more often and that many of the neighbors' concerns had not been addressed. Mr. Rohan stated that he believed his property would be devalued in the amount of $3500 and handed out copies of a portion of an appraisal to support his claim, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Rohan said he believed that other properties in the area would also be devalued if this parking structure received approval and were constructed. He also suggested that more and more of the residential homes in this area would be converted to rental units if this request were approved and the overall character of the neighborhood would suffer as a result of that conversion. Mr. Rohan suggested the College should proceed with plans to construct the southern parking lot before they constructed the northern lot. He stated that when their plans had been presented to the neighborhood, the parking structure had consisted of two stories yet at the Planning Commission meeting in September 1995 the structure had grown to three stories. He stated that he believed the Planning Commission had a responsibility to choose the least damaging alternative and asked what financial damage Westminster had shown. He stated that he had demonstrated that he, and possibly others, would be financially damaged if this structure were approved but Westminster had not demonstrated any potential financial loss. He added that if the southern parking lot were built first, they might not need the northern parking lot.
Mr. Rohan said he believed the Planning Commission was biased in favor of Westminster College and unable to render a fair decision because of that bias based on the following: 1) the cavalier attitude of the Planning Commission relative to sufficiency of notice to the neighborhood proving that the Planning Commission had already made up their minds; and 2) that the Planning Commission considered notice, neighborhood input and gathering full information to be trivial matters which stood in the way of granting approval of Westminster's requests. Mr. Rohan stated that this parking structure would take away his right to quiet enjoyment of his property due to noise, pollution, garbage and vandalism as well as the fact that it would destroy his view and the residential character of the neighborhood. He stated that he believed it was a foregone conclusion that the Planning Commission would approve the request for the northern parking lot. He requested that if the Planning Commission did approve this request, that they take action to stay the decision pending his immediate appeal to the City Council. He added that if a decision to approve were not stayed, the neighbors' rights would be unfairly prejudiced, that he would not be able to pursue his administrative remedies and would then be forced to seek legal intervention.
Mr. Becker asked if an appeal of this matter would go to the City Council.
Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative. Mr. Wright stated that the request to stay the Planning Commission decision by Mr. Rohan was a significant indication that this matter would be appealed and that stay would prevent the issuance of building permits to the College.
Mr. Becker addressed several of the issues raised by Mr. Rohan and stated that it was his understanding that notice had been sent from the Planning Division on one date but not mailed from the Post Office for several days, therefore, the 14 day requirement had not been met. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Division and the Planning Commission had believed that proper notification had been given prior to the September 7, 1995 hearing on this matter. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission was not inconsiderate to the neighborhood. Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission heard a great many parking lot in residential district issues and were well educated on these kinds of issues and were sensitive to all of the issues involved with these kinds of cases. Mr. Becker stated that it was not possible to make everyone happy with their decisions but added that it did not mean the Planning Commission had not listened to each side and did not try to address all of the pertinent issues.
Ms. Sandy Hiskey, a resident of the area representing herself and her mother, also a resident of the area, stated that their driveways were accessed on 1 200 East even though they lived on Blaine Avenue. She stated that if Blaine Avenue were narrowed, it could create more of a problem for them. She expressed concern relative to security and safety with the proposed parking structure, water drainage problems, snow removal and lighting from the parking structure. Ms. Hiskey stated that Westminster had failed to survey the students to try and determine why the students did not utilize the free parking offered by the College. She stated that the students parked on the street, not in the parking lots and she questioned if the proposed structure would really be utilized.
Mr. Carl Triolo, a resident of the area, questioned that the students would utilize the proposed structure and pointed out that they did not use the existing parking lots. Mr. Triolo stated that the only way this parking structure would be successful would be if there was restricted parking on all of the streets surrounding the College.
Mr. Becker asked if he would be in favor of a residential parking program. Mr. Triolo informed the Planning Commission that he had been trying for more than three years to get one established in the neighborhood but to no avail. Mr. Triolo stated that he would contact the City about every two or three months only to be informed that no one was available and that his petition was under consideration. Mr. Triolo stated that he had just recently received a letter from Public Services informing him that since his petition was more than three years old, it would have to be repetitioned in order to be acted on. A copy of this letter is filed with the minutes. Mr. Triolo expressed frustration at not being able to get any action from the various City departments relative to his requests. He explained that at the previous Planning Commission meeting on this matter he had been promised that the Planning Staff would work with him to resolve this matter and he had heard nothing from them. Mr. Morgan stated that the College was in support of a residential restricted parking program. Mr. Triolo questioned whether the actions taken by the Planning Commission would be followed through. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission could request the Planning Staff report back to the Planning Commission on a regular basis on the status of the residential parking program for this area. Mr. Triolo stated that he had already been promised twice that this would be looked into and nothing had been done to this point.
Ms. Kathleen Anderson, a resident of the area, stated that she agreed with the complaints made by previous speakers at this meeting and added that the major snow storms recently experienced had exacerbated all of the traffic and parking problems in this area. She expressed concern about the existing lack of security and enforcement on the campus and said she believed the new parking structure would experience a serious "tagging" and graffiti problem. Ms. Anderson said she expected there would also be a problem with transients spending the night in the structure. She expressed concern than narrowing the opening into Blaine Avenue might not be the best thing to do.
Mr. Morgan stated that they would work diligently to prevent graffiti and "tagging" and any other type of criminal activity. Mr. Morgan also stated that the College was not in control of snow removal along Blaine Avenue since that was a City street.
Ms. Donna Klenk, a resident of the area, stated that they were in favor of this request only because of the parking problems that existed in this area. Ms. Klenk stated that the City had tried to remove the snow from Blaine Avenue but could not get close to the curb because of the students who parked along Blaine Avenue. Ms. Klenk also expressed concern at the speed of the cars leaving the College traveling down Blaine Avenue. She requested something be done to limit that speed.
Ms. Anderson asked where the 106 displaced cars would park during construction of the new structure. Mr. Morgan stated that this was the very reason they had hoped to be able to construct the parking structure before they constructed the library. Ms. Anderson suggested they still build it prior to the library.
Mr. Morgan explained that it would not be economically feasible since the library was already completely funded. Mr. Morgan stated that they would offer free bus passes to their faculty and staff and would try to create some additional internal parking.
Mr. Joyce stated that drainage issues would have to be dealt with under the building permit requirements. Mr. Joyce explained that there would be screening walls on the parking structure to protect the residential components of the neighborhood from the parking structure lights. Mr. Becker stated that parking permit programs were not easy to work out but added that the Planning Commission could request the staff work on this matter.
Mr. Smith stated that there would have to be a consensus in the neighborhood to establish one and he had heard there was not a consensus in this neighborhood.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Triolo if he had received the necessary number of signature on his petitions.
Mr. Triolo responded that he had obtained the necessary number of signatures.
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. Smith requested extra care be taken to preserve the mature trees on the campus.
Mr. Jim Christopher of Brixen and Christopher agreed with Mr. Smith relative to the preservation of the mature trees.
Mr. Wright said a penalty could be assessed to a contractor for any trees that might be destroyed.
A short discussion followed on possible alternatives for handling the traffic on Blaine Avenue and ways to deter traffic and control the speed of cars traveling along Blaine Avenue.
Mr. Wright addressed the issue raised by Mr. Rohan about the possible devaluation of his property due to the construction of the parking structure and stated that a privacy fence along the property line might help ease the negative impacts to Mr. Rohan's property and might be something the Planning Commission would want to consider.
Ms. Short raised the issue of criminal activity relative to such a fence and suggested this be carefully studied.
Ms. Funk said she wanted to make sure the Planning Commission had adequately addressed the issue of closing the southern parking structure. Mr. Becker stated that that had been part of the previous approval and could again be part of the motion on this matter.
Motion on Petition No. 410-188:
Ms. Short moved to approve Petition No. 410-188, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and as part of that approval, the conditional use approval for the parking lot on the south western portion of the campus was revoked, that the Planning Staff be directed to assist Mr. Triolo in pursuing a residential parking program and that the Planning Staff report to the Planning Commission on the progress of the parking program on a monthly basis. Ms. Short further moved that construction trucks not be allowed to travel along Blaine Avenue and the City examine alternatives to control the speed of cars traveling on Blaine Avenue. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye”. Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Rohan asked if they were staying their decision on this matter.
Mr. Becker stated that it had not been part of the Planning Commission motion to stay the decision.
Mr. Wright stated that the staff would recommend they stay their decision on this matter since there was enough reasonable evidence that this matter would be appealed. Mr. Wright explained that the appeal would have to be filed within thirty days and a stay of the decision would prevent the petitioner from obtaining building permits until that time limit had expired.
Mr. Rohan stated that he would be willing to expedite the filing of the appeal.
Ms. Short moved to stay the Planning Commission's decision to approve Petition No. 410-188, pending the outcome of the appeal. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Review and receive public comment on the City-wide Transportation Master Plan presented by the Salt Lake City Division of Transportation.
Mr. Becker disclosed that in the past he had been professionally involved in a number of transportation projects in the region that included light rail and park and
ride lots. Mr. Becker stated that his firm was not under contract at this time for any of those projects, but they were part of a team that had been selected to work on the light rail and major investment study from the Airport to the University. Mr. Becker stated that if anyone had a problem due to his connections to the transportation field, they could let him know and he would be happy to discuss this matter with them.
Mr. Tim Harpst, representing Salt Lake City Transportation Division, and Mr. Jim Nelson representing MK Centennial, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission and presented the draft “Transportation Master Plan," The draft "Transportation Action Plan," and the "Transportation Master Plan Maps. "The presentation included a history of the development of the master plan, public participation in the development of the plan, land use issues, regional planning, street system issues, transportation demand management, parking, public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian issues, funding, air quality and education issues and implementation of the master plan. The presentation of the "Transportation Action Plan" addressed how each of the above issues would be dealt with as well as a progress report on those items that were already in the process of implementation. Copies of the plans are filed with the minutes.
Ms. Short, the Planning Commission representative on the Advisory Committee for this matter, stated that she was very comfortable with the draft master plan. Ms. Short stated that the League of Women Voters had reviewed the draft plan and had no negative comments about the plan. Ms. Short asked how the plan would work in terms of evaluating individual projects that came before the Planning Commission. She suggested that a Transportation Impact Report might help the Planning Commission with their decision making on specific issues.
Mr. Becker explained that since this was a City master plan, it was required to go through the adoption process that all master plans had to go through, including a recommendation to the City Council from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Short stated that suburban traffic was creating a lot of traffic within the City limits and asked how those kinds of problems could be solved using this plan.
Mr. Becker stated that this plan was not designed to handle that level of detail. Mr. Becker asked if the next step might be a plan that was directed to specific streets.
Mr. Harpst stated that this was not a typical master plan and the level of specificity had been raised several times during their public input process. Mr. Harpst stated that transportation was never a stand-alone topic and thedraft “Transportation Master Plan" outlined all of the influences with respect to transportation such as air quality and education issues. Mr. Harpst stated that this plan dealt with the livability of a community and they needed to start with some way to let people begin to understand the issues pertinent to transportation. He stated that once people began to understand all of the issues involved, site specific issues could then be dealt with.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tom Mitchell, a concerned citizen, expressed concern about the types of land uses developing along 1100 East and that 1100 East was depicted as an arterial street from 2100 South to 1 700 South and as a collector street from 1 700 South to 800 South on the maps. Mr. Mitchell stated that he believed 1100 East should be designated as a local street since it was similar to 1 500 East.
Mr. Brian Isaac, representing the Salt Lake City School District, stated that they really appreciated the concept of a transportation master plan. He requested that the schools be designated on all of the maps since they should be considered as a major design criteria. He stated that schools located on major arterial streets experienced major safety concerns relative to heavy, high-speed traffic.
Mr. Harpst stated that the major arterial street growth was projected to occur to the west, not through established residential neighborhoods. Mr. Harpst expressed appreciation for the suggestion to include the location of schools relative to the streets. He said they hoped to have updated maps in the future that would provide more information relative to future development plans.
Mr. Steve Meyer, the Transportation Manager for the Sear Brown Group, stated that he had worked as part of the consultation team on this master plan. Mr. Meyer stated that as the City looked at the implementation of this plan, it needed to look at how it would fit in with the existing community master plans.
Ms. Short moved to continue this hearing until the March 7, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, and Mr. Iker voted “Aye" Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea, Mr. Smith and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Becker stated that written comments from Ms. Hermoine Jex and Mr. Tom Rogan, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council had been received and would be reviewed by the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission prior to the continuation of this hearing. Copies of those written comments are filed with the minutes.
PLANNING ISSUES
Update on the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Master Plan and Redevelopment Plan.
This item was postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.