SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Arla Funk, Gilbert Iker, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Gregory DeMille was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Emil Pierson and Joel Paterson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Short moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, January 7, 1999. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-98-74 by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division requesting closure of a section of 600 South Street, west of the 600 West Street intersection, through the Union Pacific railroad yard. The street closure will reduce the number of crossings over the mainline railroad tracks.
Mr. Emil Pierson 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. Tim Harpst, Salt Lake City Transportation Director, was present for this portion of the meeting to answer questions of the Planning Commissioners.
Mr. Smith 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.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-74:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to hold a hearing and adopt an ordinance to approve Petition No. 400-98-74 to close the right-of-way on 600 South west of 600 West for approximately 214 feet subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. An appropriate access into and out of the affected properties be maintained in a condition that will not hinder their businesses.
2. All requirements and regulations from the Transportation, Engineering, and Public Utilities Divisions and the Police and Fire Departments must be met along with all applicable City Ordinances.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
“ISSUES ONLY” PUBLIC HEARING - 400-98-79 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) requesting the closure of Main Street between North and South Temple Streets to construct a landscaped plaza and an underground parking structure. The Planning Commission will not make a decision on this petition on February 4th.
Mr. Emil Pierson 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. Kevin Young, Planning Engineer for the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, was present for this portion of the meeting to discuss transportation issues as they relate to the closure of Main Street between South Temple and North Temple. Mr. Young stated that he has reviewed the traffic analysis prepared by The Sear-Brown Group for the proposed closure and found that, from Transportation’s standpoint, the assumptions made and the methodology used were appropriate and within industry standards. Mr. Young then stated that a lot of the traffic concerns relate to issues that have been ongoing for the Capitol Hill and Avenues neighborhoods not specifically to the proposed closure. Mr. Young continued by stating that the Transportation Advisory Board has also addressed this issue and concluded that Main Street be closed subject to several conditions. One of the conditions made by the Transportation Advisory Board was that a consultant be hired and a study done to address the traffic issues that are affecting both the Capitol Hill and Avenues neighborhoods. Mr. Young concluded by stating that there will be some traffic impact if Main Street were to close between South Temple and North Temple. He feels that the City can comfortably make this closure knowing that the traffic impact can be handled within the bounds of the transportation system.
Mr. Marc Mascaro, attorney representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Mascaro then introduced Mr. Don Adams, from the Sear-Brown Group, and Mr. Kerry Nielsen, project manager. Mr. Adams will present the traffic issues and then Mr. Nielsen will explain the project.
Mr. Adams briefly addressed the traffic analysis report pointing out some of the major traffic issues. He stated that the traffic analysis contains recommendations that would discourage traffic from using neighborhood streets and recommendations that would improve the flow of traffic on 300 West and 400 West Streets and give people an alternate route to get around the closure.
Mr. Nielsen began by thanking the Planning Staff for their preparations. He then presented the details of the project to the Planning Commission members by using presentation boards. Mr. Nielsen then stated that he feels that their challenge is to do a design, plan and project that is world class and that services the needs of not only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but to become an enhancement and opportunity at the edge of Downtown in the Central Business District while working with the neighbors to the north and the businesses to the south.
Mr. Iker stated that he has studied the all of the information pertaining to the proposed street closure and stated that he feels that street closures require automotive turning which then adversely impacts the pedestrians. Mr. Iker then stated that he loves the beautification aspect and the potential that it offers, however, he is concerned about fully closing Main Street. Mr. Iker then respectfully suggested a third option which should be considered. The option consists of keeping a single lane of traffic in each direction along the sidewalk edges and then beautifying the area in between the two lanes. Leaving a single lane of traffic open in each direction will mitigate some of the automotive turns which will make the pedestrians safer.
Mr. Snelgrove asked if there are examples of this type of proposed closure, selling a public street to a private entity, in the City’s history and what precedent there might be for this kind of sale. Mr. Wright stated that closing streets is not unheard of and that staff could prepare some examples to share with the Planning Commissioners for their next meeting if it is desired.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Sittner, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that at their regular meeting on February 3rd, a vote was taken. Written ballots were distributed giving residents an opportunity to vote for or against the closure of Main Street. At the bottom of the form was a line for them to initial to affirm that they are an Avenues resident; some people neglected to initial the bottom. The total count of all of the ballots received was 116 against the closure and 113 for the closure. The total count of the ‘qualifying’ ballots (with initials) was 104 against the closure and 105 for the closure. Essentially, the community was split. Some of the community comments are: 1) how will the closure affect the businesses; 2) how will the Capitol Hill and Avenues communities be impacted by the closure both on a traffic and design basis; 3) is the traffic report valid and how can we accurately estimate the cumulative impact of the reopening of I-15, Gateway build out, North Temple build out and light rail; and 4) issue of perpetuity.
Ms. Samantha Francis, Chair of the Peoples Freeway Community Council, stated that the community is not in favor of closing Main Street. She did speak in favor of keeping one lane open in each direction.
Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that the community has not yet taken a vote on the proposed closure of Main Street. She stated that she feels that the plaza would be a natural tourist center for the City. However, the community is concerned with the traffic issues. Ms. Gardner stated that if everyone works together to solve the traffic issues the proposed closure could have distinct possibilities.
Ms. Mary McDonald, Chair of the Traffic Committee for the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that the Traffic Committee had many concerns regarding the closure of Main Street. Some of the concerns are as follows: 1) How will the closure of Main Street create a viable downtown? 2) Why are future growth scenarios not included? and 3) Is the basic traffic assumption valid? Ms. McDonald then stated that the community council supports the Transportation Advisory Board’s recommendation which states that the closure of Main Street should not be approved until an acceptable traffic management plan and implementation schedule is obtained for the Capitol Hill and Avenues neighborhoods. (Ms. McDonald distributed a handout to the Planning Commissioners further explaining the concerns mentioned above, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Phil Carroll, a concerned citizen, stated that he would like to suggest the following three things to the Planning Commission: 1) accept the Transportation Advisory Boards recommendations, particularly to establishing a high level task force to deal with long term traffic problems; 2) build the structure so that in the future it can support a street if it is needed; and 3) leave one lane of traffic open in each direction.
Mr. Willy Littig, a concerned citizen, stated that he is not in favor of totally closing Main Street. He asked that the Planning Commission consider the third option mentioned earlier which is keep one lane of traffic open in each direction.
Mr. Bill Thurman, a concerned citizen, stated that over the past several years has become familiar with traffic patterns downtown. He feels that Main Street is not convenient or an efficient way to travel because of all of the traffic lights every half block. As a result, he has noticed that the traffic patterns have continually decreased. Mr. Thurman then stated that he would like to see plaza approved because he feels that it be a beautification of the City that will be unparalleled, in his opinion, with any
other City in the United States. The plaza will be beautiful, it will enhance the downtown area and make a great place for the visitors to Salt Lake City.
Mr. Tom DeVroom, a member of the Avenues Community Council Board, stated that is opposed to the proposed closure of Main Street because permanent sale eliminates concerns of possible future needs. Street closures also creates traffic and business complications. Mr. DeVroom suggested that perhaps the street could be dipped under a mid three quarter block plaza. The community would win by having the street open and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would win by having a plaza.
Mr. Richard Wirick, Public Relations Office for the Downtown Merchants Association, stated that he feels that a beautiful plaza can be built and still leave two traffic lanes open. (Mr. Wirick distributed a handout to the Planning Commissioners detailing his comments mentioned above, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Ms. Edie Trimmer, Chair of the Transportation Advisory Board, stated that the Transportation Advisory Board is very concerned about impacts on the Capitol Hill and Avenues neighborhoods and are interested in the possibilities for some solutions to long standing problems for those neighborhoods. Ms. Trimmer then stated that she hopes that this will be an opportunity to bring Utah Department of Transportation, transportation officials and the Capitol Hill and Avenues neighborhoods together to work on the solutions. As a citizen, she feels that it seems natural that the two blocks be joined by closing a portion of Main Street. Ms. Trimmer continued by stating that as the City tries to make its way toward a city that is less dependent on its cars and the streets that accommodate cars, there are some risks (i.e. closing one block of Main Street).
Mr. Alan Barnett, a concerned citizen, stated that is opposed to the proposed closure of Main Street because he feels that it will exacerbate the traffic problems in the downtown. He also feels that the arbitrary removal of such streets tears at the fundamental fabric of the city structurally, visibly and conceptually. Mr. Barnett then stated that he is uneasy with the idea of selling a primary public thoroughfare to a private entity. What precedent will it set for the future? Mr. Barnett continued by stating that he is in favor of Mr. Iker’s comments to leave one lane of traffic open in each direction.
Mr. Rawlins Young, of Coalition for Livable Streets, stated that one of the basic tenants of the Coalition is that neighborhoods are destinations and not routes. The Utah State Code allows municipalities to develop pedestrian malls without vacating the public street. This type of solution will give the City great flexibility for alternatives in the future. Mr. Young then stated that the City could develop a mall system for transportation and restrict automobile traffic but encourage bicycle, pedestrian and bus travel.
Ms. Hermoine Jex, a concerned citizen, stated that she feels that the Capitol Hill area cannot take additional density. She then stated that the Planning Commission should consider a plan for a pedestrian place on Main Street that allows vehicular traffic and can be closed for special events, evenings and weekends. Please consider all issues and concerns before making a decision to close a portion of Main Street. (Ms. Jex distributed a handout to the Planning Commissioners detailing her comments mentioned above, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Frank Bernard, a concerned citizen, stated that he uses Main Street every day of the year by either car, bicycle or foot. He is opposed to the proposed closure of Main Street. Mr. Bernard then stated that if the closure of Main Street is approved, he feels that the plaza should be at street level and that portion of Main Street could go underneath the plaza.
Ms. Bonnie Mangold, a concerned citizen, stated that she feels that the single most damaging factor to the Capitol Hill district has been a pattern of making decisions and planning piece meal rather than addressing an area and all related issues as a whole. The community members who have been working on the Capitol Hill Master Plan would like to see the area between 300 West to State Street and between South Temple to 200 North planned as a whole. Ms. Mangold then urged the Planning Commission that a decision to close the proposed portion of Main Street not be made prior to the completion of the Capitol Hill Master Plan and to the resolution of the existing interrelated problems.
Mr. Seymour Liechty, a concerned citizen, stated that he lives in the Avenues and he is concerned about the increased traffic that will occur on Second Avenue if the proposed portion of Main Street is closed.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she has not yet formulated an opinion on this particular road closure, but in general she is opposed to road closures in this community because of the huge size of the blocks and the subsequent circling that occurs. The closure of Main Street is a permanent decision and she feels that it will have a significant change on downtown users behaviors. Ms. Cromer then stated that she feels that the closure of Main Street is clearly to the benefit of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Ms. Cromer also feels that City employees or Planning Commissioners who are members of that Church should not participate in any decision making because it would be a conflict of interest.
Mr. Bill Robbins, a concerned citizen, stated he does not have a strong position on the closure of Main Street. He does feel that the plaza would be a wonderful facility to give downtown more open space. Mr. Robbins then stated that he is involved in the right-of-way business and he noted that closing streets are a common occurrence.
Mr. Briant Stringham, a concerned citizen, stated that he operates a business on South Temple. As a merchant, the construction and the permanent closure of the proposed portion of Main Street is disastrous because it will bring a lack of traffic movement. He feels that it has come at a bad time because of the other construction that has been going on in the downtown area. Mr. Stringham then stated that it is nice to have beauty, however, he feels that Salt Lake City has been beautified to a detriment.
Mr. John Francis, Vice-Chair of the People’s Freeway Community Council, stated that the extension of the current street scape implemented along the light rail corridor to this block would physically and socially tie the Temple block of Main Street to the Central Business District. The option of reducing the number of traffic lanes and the elimination of on-street parking and the implementation of traffic calming techniques could and probably would reduce some of the traffic problems which seem to be the primary concerns in this proposal. Mr. Francis then stated that the street could be designed with the options of temporarily closing this portion of Main Street during special events. He believes that the City should not set a precedent and close and sell Main Street to make up the current budget short falls.
Ms. Lorille Miller, a concerned citizen, stated that she feels that the proposed portion of Main Street should not be closed because Salt Lake City needs the streets. She also wonders how accurate the traffic studies are because of the high volume of traffic that already exists.
Mr. Wirick commented again by stating that the Downtown Merchants Association does not oppose the plaza, we just want a beautiful plaza and still have one lane in each direction open.
Mr. Michael Packard, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that Main Street has been ruined because of mistakes that have been made (i.e. the light rail path). He then stated that the closure of Main Street may turn out to be positive, however, he feels that this is not the time be closing it. Mr. Packard then stated that the Planning Commissioners and staff should look at this project with a longer viewpoint of what the effects of it may be. Mr. Packard then suggested that the City should close off the proposed portion of Main Street for a month to test the hypothesis on whether or not it will have an effect on the community.
Mr. Nielsen responded to the timing for the construction schedule. He stated that the design is underway based on the previous conditions being established. Ideally, the construction should begin this Spring with a goal to have it completed by Spring of 2000. The project is expected to be done as aggressive as possible and also expect to maintain traffic on North Temple, both directions. There should not be a significant impact on South Temple in the two key lanes.
Mr. Mascaro stated that he has appreciated the comments made tonight. He has reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Mascaro then addressed the options mentioned, namely having one lane stay open in each direction. What is perceived for downtown? Is it to be a street with landscaping or is it to be a park with pedestrian walking? Our vision is that there is a downtown pedestrian plaza not a street.
Mr. Iker stated that he feels that it would be beneficial, from a public relations point of view and also to gain more support for the proposed project, if Mr. Mascaro could share the long range plan for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mr. Iker then asked if the Church has considered keeping one lane in each direction open.
Mr. Mascaro stated that while The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has general ideas for its properties, there are truly no specific plans other than current projects being worked on at this time. Generally, the Church wants to disperse organization throughout the world not just in Salt Lake City. Mr. Mascaro then stated that he believes that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints interests are to truly benefit Salt Lake City to make the downtown as beautiful a downtown as there is in this country. He does not believe it is self motivated. Mr. Mascaro continued by stating that the Church has looked at one lane of traffic in each direction. The decision was based on the Church’s vision, which is to create a pedestrian plaza.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger stated that one of the comments that has been repeated several times refers to if there is enough flexibility. This sale would be permanent. Mr. Mariger then asked if there is any reason why a pedestrian plaza could not be constructed by the City without giving up its interest in the Main Street right-of-way? Mr. Wright responded by stating that staff will explore this option and bring a recommendation back to the Planning Commission prior to this issue returning for another hearing.
Ms. Kirk spoke concerning leaving one lane of traffic open in each direction. She stated that she does not agree with keeping one lane of traffic open in each direction because the jay walking right now on Main Street is outrageous and she believes that it will become dangerous for pedestrians.
Mr. Iker stated that construction phases regarding all downtown projects needs to be considered and City staff and Planning Commissioners need to be concerned about what effects the construction will have on the commercial viability of our beautiful city.
Ms. Barrows stated that this portion of Main Street, from a land use perspective, is public property. Ms. Barrows then asked if the City sees a pedestrian plaza as a vision for this section of downtown and if the City would choose to make this section a pedestrian plaza? If so, why is the City selling the right-of-way? Ms. Barrows continued by stating that she feels that a lot of the concern from the public is the idea of selling public property to a private institution and the fact that it will then be gone from the public realm. Mr. Wright responded by stating that staff will explore this option and bring a recommendation back to the Planning Commission prior to this issue returning for another hearing.
Mr. Snelgrove spoke concerning the traffic issues that were mentioned during the public hearing. He stated that he feels that the traffic problem existed before the Main Street proposal was considered. Mr. Snelgrove then stated that he is an avid pedestrian and he realizes that pedestrians are guilty of many crimes and they could do many things to
change their behavior, however, drivers could also do many things to make life easier for pedestrians. Drivers do not respect pedestrians in Salt Lake City, therefore, the issue of pedestrian safety is not a sufficient reason for wanting to maintain two lanes on Main Street. Mr. Snelgrove then mentioned that decisions should be based on if closing Main Street is an asset to Downtown or a liability to Downtown.
Mr. Steed asked if the City should really be selling public property to create something that may actually be the City’s responsibility. He then stated that he feels that the City should maintain the surface rights for future use, whatever it may be.
Ms. Funk spoke concerning traffic and stated that there needs to be a long term solution to the traffic regardless of what happens on Main Street. All of the surrounding neighborhoods need to be addressed not just some of them.
In response to a comment made by a citizen at the public hearing, Ms. Kirk stated that in all the years that she has been a member of the Planning Commission she has never questioned the integrity of the other Commission members, nor their ability to recuse themselves if they felt they had a conflict of interest. The Planning Commission looks at the issues and makes a decision based on those issues.
Mr. Smith stated that it had been suggested to him that the Planning Commission had already made their decision. Mr. Smith made it known to those in attendance that the Planning Commission has not made a decision and that they will be spending the next month deliberating this issue.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.