SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Acting Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Kimball Young, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gilbert Iker, Aria Funk, Max Smith and Fred Fife. Ralph Becker, Diana Kirk and Jim McRea were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were· Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Egleston, and Alex Beseris.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of aU who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Howa. 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.
Mr. Howa Chaired the meeting in the absence of Mr. Becker and Ms. Kirk. He introduce the two new Planning Commission members, Mr. Max Smith and Mr. Fred Fife and welcomed them to the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of November 16, 1995 subject to the
correction given to the secretary relative to adding the words during heavy traffic hours" to his motion on Petition No~ 400-95-84. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Fife, Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Ms. Roberts voted “Aye." Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-96 by the Salt Lake City Council requesting an amendment to the Planned Development ordinance providing for infrastructure cost disclosure to property owners in planned developments.
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. Wheelwright stated that the twenty year time period for infrastructure maintenance estimates had been questioned and it was likely the City Council would amend that number.
Mr. Iker questioned whether or not the ordinance was strong enough to ensure adequate funds were accrued for major infrastructure repairs. Mr. Iker also asked if it would help to require property owners to sign a document stating they were aware of the fact that they would be responsible for future infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Smith stated that his understanding of the ordinance was that it was intended to remove the City from the problem of having to deal with future infrastructure problems# not to protect the property owners and ensure they accrued adequate funds to handle infrastructure improvement costs. Mr. Wheelwright said that was the intent of the ordinance amendment.
Mr. Howa 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. Short moved the approve Petition No. 400-95-96 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report with the understanding that the City Council might amend the twenty year time period for infrastructure maintenance estimates.
Mr. Jker seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Me Smith, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Ms. Roberts voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-68 by David Norton for Macrotech Fluid Sealing, Inc requesting Salt Lake City to declare surplus city-owned property located at the intersections of 400 and 500 South Streets at approximately 1800 West in an Industrial "M-1" zoning district.
Mr. Beseris 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. Howa 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. Young moved to approve Petition No. 400-95-68 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Ms. Roberts voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-74 by Steven Erickson for Roger Brockbank requesting a plat amendment to Lots #8 and #9 of the Valley View Subdivision located at 2604 South McClelland Street in a Residential uR-1/700Q zoning district.
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. Steven Erickson, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff report.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Julia Geiger, the property owner of the front parcel, stated that she had purchased this property from Roger Brockbank on April 13, 1994 and later discovered the subdivision of the property was not legal. Ms. Geiger said the staff report erroneously stated that her driveway was twelve feet wide but in reality, her driveway was only ten feet five inches wide. She stated that by creating an easement on her driveway, she could not use it for parking, she would not be able to control the amount of traffic or the speed of traffic on her driveway, or the time of day the driveway was used by the parties living in the house at the rear of the property.
Ms. Geiger expressed concern about possible liability to her if an easement were created on her driveway. She stated that Mr. Brockbank, the owner of the rear parcel, did not live on the property but rented it to five young men. She requested the Planning Commission take into consideration the characteristics of this home, the value of this home and the size of this home considering the rest of the homes in her neighborhood.
Mr. Howa asked what she believed the solution to the problem to be.
Ms. Geiger stated that when she had purchased the home, it had been represented to her that everything had already been taken care of and that she had no say in the matter. She stated that if an easement were created, the responsibilities and liabilities of both parcel owners would have to be very clearly stated and exactly how the driveway was to be shared. Ms. Geiger expressed concern that she was required to provide a twelve foot access to the rear property but the driveway was only ten feet five inches wide.
Mr. Howa pointed out that she had to have noticed the property in the rear and asked if it had been represented to her that the driveway would be her driveway.
Ms. Geiger responded in the affirmative and added that at the time she had purchased the property there had been a garage on the property which she had had demolished because she had been informed it was a hazard. She stated that when she had attempted to obtain a permit to rebuild the garage, she had been informed of Mr. Brockbank's building code violations which had been filed against her property and how she had discovered the illegal subdivision of the property. She stated that she had intended to rebuild the garage in her back yard and had fenced in her yard to prevent vehicles turning around in her back yard.
Mr. Howa asked how the rear property would be accessed if the easement were not granted.
Mr. Paterson responded that there would be no access to the rear property without an easement on the driveway. Mr. Howa stated that in 1945 the Board of Adjustment had allowed the conversion to living space of the building on the rear parcel. Mr. Paterson reminded the Planning Commission that the property had been owned by a single property owner at that time. Mr. Paterson explained that the easement was already in existence and had been created when the front parcel had been deeded to Ms. Geiger in April, 1994.
Ms. Short asked if the building in the rear met existing building code requirements.
Mr. Paterson stated that one of the building inspectors had informed him that at this time there were no housing code violations that he could enforce on but had added that if the house were remodeled, it would have to be brought up to code.
Ms. Funk asked if the city could enforce on the issue that more than the allowed number of nonrelated individuals were living in the house on the rear parcel.
Mr. Paterson responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Lisa Pettit, a resident of the area, stated that she supported all of the
comments made by Ms. Geiger. Ms. Pettit stated that there was really no way the
City could enforce on the number of nonrelated people living in the house because
they couldn't prove who was really living there. She stated that she believed the
house in the rear was a hazard. Ms. Pettit added that when she had purchased her
home in 1992, the house in the rear had been vacant and nearly gutted. She stated that this property brought down the values of the surrounding properties because it did not appraise for even half of what their properties appraised for.
Mr. Smith asked if the building in the rear had been significantly remodeled in the recent past.
Ms. Pettit responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Short asked if anyone had considered purchasing the rear property from Mr. Brockbank and restoring the property to its original configuration. Ms. Geiger stated that the rear property had been offered to her at nearly double what she had paid for her property.
Mr. Roger Brockbank, the owner of the property in the rear, stated that the home on the rear parcel had been there for about 40 or more years, probably even before the construction of the home on the front portion of the property. Mr. Brockbank said they had obtained a building permit and had redone the roof on the house in the rear. He stated that they had sold the front property and were intending to sell the rear property and that they believed people would prefer home owners in the houses rather than renters. He said they had not yet sold the rear property because the problems being discussed at this meeting had come to light, and therefore, he was still the owner of the home in the rear.
Mr. Howa asked if there was sale pending on the rear property. Mr. Brockbank responded in the negative. Mr. Smith asked how long the rear property had been vacant. Mr. Brockbank responded that he did not have that information since the home had been vacant when he had purchased the property in 1992 or 1993. Mr. Smith asked if building permits had been obtained for the remodeling, not just the roof. Mr. Brockbank stated that they had painted, carpeted, installed a new furnace and the roof and for that, they had obtained a permit.
Ms. Geiger stated that the tenants of the rear house stated that they paid their rent to a Mr. Michael Moore, and therefore, she questioned whether or not Mr. Brockbank really owned the property.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Howa requested the staff explain what the consequences would be if this request were approved or denied. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council who would have the final authority on this matter. Mr. Wright added that if the Planning Commission and the City Council both denied this request, it would result in a technical violation of the subdivision ordinance for separating the two properties and enforcement would be difficult since the two properties were owned separately.
Mr. Wright said one of the two properties would probably have to be sold to the other property owner to remedy the situation.
Mr. Howa asked if his understanding was correct that if this request were denied, Ms. Geiger would not be able to rebuild her garage and Mr. Brockbank would not be able to sell his portion of the property; however, if the request were approved, the garage could be built and the rear property sold. Mr. Wright said that was correct.
Mr. Wright reminded the Planning Commission that the easement already existed and would not be created by this action. Mr. Wright stated that removal of the easement from the deed would require the agreement of both property owners.
Mr. Young moved to forward a favorable recommendation on Petition No. 400-95-74 to the City Council, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Iker moved to deny Petition No. 400-95-74 based on the fact that the original Board of Adjustment decision had anticipated single ownership of the property.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Smith, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, and Ms. Roberts voted IIAye"; Mr. Young voted HNay." Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. MeRea were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONDITIONAL USE PETITIONS
ISSUES ONLY HEARING - NO DECISION Will BE MADE AT THIS MEETING
petition No. 410-199 by Watts Corporation requesting a conditional use for a 34 unit planned development to be located at 263 Almond Street in a Residential URMF-45" zoning district. Mr. Joel Paterson gave a short presentation of the issues involved in this matter and reminded the Planning Commission that no decision would be made at this meeting since it was an issues only hearing. A copy of the issues presented by Mr. Paterson is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Russ Watts, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and gave a brief history of the property involved.
Mr. Watts used briefing boards and a scale model of the project to describe it. He addressed ingress and egress to the project and explained that 1 5 units would exit and enter from West Temple, ten from their garages located on Almond Street and the other nine would enter at 300 North Street and exit at Almond Street. Mr. Watts also described the project density, architectural features and building materials, and explained that they had met with the community several times on this matter. Mr. Watts stated that they had originally intended to construct 48 units, had dropped that number to 30 following community input and then raised it to 34 after the purchase of an additional parcel of land adjoining the project.
Mr. Greg Schlenker, representing AGRA Earth and Environmental, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and addressed the geotechnical issues involved in this project. Mr. Schlenker stated that their findings basically agreed with previous geotechnical findings for this site done by RB&G Engineering, Inc., in that they believed this site was free of fault rupture hazards. They also concluded that the site soils were not susceptible to movements resulting from liquefaction or land sliding and the only earthquake hazard that needed to be considered was strong ground shaking. A copy of their report is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Howa asked if they had conducted any drilling on the site.
Mr. Schlenker responded that RB&G had done test pits and a trench and AGRA had done fault trenches extending from four-and-a-half to thirteen feet below the surface. Mr. Schlenker said drilling did not seem necessary due to the geological structure of the soils near the surface in terms of bedding and that there had been no deformational movement from natural causes during the past 12,000 years. Mr. Schlenker added that there had been four or more major earthquakes during that 12,000 years.
Mr. Howa asked if they knew what the conditions were 80 feet down.
Mr. Schlenker responded in the negative.
Mr. Smith requested he address the slippage issue.
Mr. Schlenker stated that it was typical at all sites that slippage would occur where there were temporary or permanent unretained cuts.
Mr. Smith asked if they had found anything unique, from a slippage standpoint, at this site.
Mr. Schlenker responded in the negative.
Mr. Smith asked if these soils were susceptible to unusual telegraphing of vibrations due to equipment during the construction phase.
Mr. Schlenker said he did not believe these soils were any more susceptible to transmitting vibrations than soils in most areas.
Mr. Watts stated that their intent was to provide as many additional visitor parking stalls as was feasible and attractive in order to create a good project. Mr. Watts stated that traffic was an issue of concern in this area even without the construction of this project.
Mr. Jay Nelson, representing MK Centennial Engineering, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and addressed the traffic study issues. A copy of the traffic study is filed with the minutes. Mr. Nelson explained the factors they had used in their analysis and had determined there would be approximately 200 additional daily trips over a 24 hour period to this site. Mr. Nelson said they had broken down the 24 hour traffic and forecasted that during the critical afternoon peak hour there would be 19 trips coming to or leaving the site. He stated that this number of trips would not have a significant impact on the existing residents of the area.
Mr. Nelson stated that they had also addressed parking issues and explained that the project would provide two parking spaces for each unit, 1 8 visitor parking spaces, as well as 1 5 available parking spaces located in the individual driveways. Mr. Nelson said they anticipated that all of the parking demand for this project could be accommodated on site. He said they were well aware of the parking problems in this area, particularly during special events in the downtown area, but added that they did not anticipate the existing parking problem would be impacted by this project. Mr. Nelson addressed the concerns relative to traffic hazards on 300 North Street and stated that they did not agree with statements that 300 North was a death trap" as some community residents had called it, and explained that over the last eight year period, there had only been eight traffic accidents on 300 North, four of which were property damage only and none of the accidents had resulted in fatalities.
Mr. Nelson explained that their traffic and parking study had not incorporated a larger geographical area because the purpose of the study had been to evaluate traffic and parking impacts by this project, not problems for the entire area.
Mr. John Weaver, a consulting architect for the project, stated that the zoning for this area would allow a project of 68 units and the petitioners were only requesting approval for a 34 unit project. Mr. Weaver addressed master plan issues and stated that the proposed plans were sensitive to existing parking problems and responded to the desire to attract new and in fill housing to the Capitol Hill area. He stated that the design and massing of the project demonstrated the petitioner's sensitivity to the area.
Mr. Watts stated that they were committed to creating the best possible project for this area.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked jf anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Eric Jergensen, Chairperson of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, stated that they appreciated the fact that the Watts Corporation had worked with the community council on this project. Mr. Jergensen stated that their interpretation of the master plan differed from the petitioner's interpretation. He said they wanted housing in this area that met the master plan criteria and that would fit in well with the existing community. Mr. Jergensen stated that they were concerned about the proposed density for this project. Mr. Jergensen said they did not feel that a workable compromise between the petitioner and the community had been reached and discussions had been ended. He stated that at their last meeting Mr. Russ Watts had given them an implied ultimatum, in writing, that if this concept did not work he would apply for a permit to build a single high-rise tower of 68 units. He stated that they had presented their concerns and suggested alternatives in a position paper to the petitioner who had responded that their suggestions were not feasible. He expressed concern that the communication process had ended at that meeting which occurred on December 7, 1995. Mr. Jergensen said they did not feel the proposal met with the master plan goals of preserving scale, character, livability and the historically important buildings in the neighborhood. He stated that they did not believe the design of this project met the architectural legacy of the surrounding area. Mr. Jergensen said he did not believe this project would not have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood relative to traffic. He stated that the parking allowed in driveways was really illusory parking and could not be counted. He proposed that no parking be allowed on Almond Street.
Mr. Jergensen stated that geotechnical surveys had more than likely been completed for Trevi Towers, Zions Summit and Capitol Hill Condominiums, and that all of those buildings had subsequently experienced difficulty in dynamic soil movement. He questioned whether or not the same problems would be experienced on this site. He suggested those not concerned with unstable soils at this site go into the neighborhood and examine the damage that had been done by large moving vehicles and construction vehicles. Mr. Jergensen stated that they were very concerned about the ingress/egress proposed for 300 North. He stated that there had to be a better way to access this project. Mr. Jergensen said they had offered several alternatives to the developers which had been rejected as not feasible but no reasons were given as to why they were not feasible. Mr. Jergensen said they were not opposed to sensible, sensitive development but added that this project in its present state did not meet the criteria of the area's master plan or the criteria of the community's hopes and desires relative to quality of life. Mr. Jergensen stated that the community subcommittee had spent many hours studying this matter and requested the Planning Commission give the comments that would follow by Dr. Carolyn Andree very serious consideration.
Dr. Carolyn Andree, the spokesperson for the community subcommittee assigned to review and propose alternatives for this project, presented their study of traffic and parking issues, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Dr. Andree stated that their committee had studied historic district issues, continual parking problems versus special event parking problems, problems caused by illegal parking, the narrowness of the streets in the area, emergency vehicle access, snow removal and garbage pick up problems. She displayed enlarged photographs depicting the various types of parking problems and the steepness and narrowness of the streets in the area. Dr. Andree stated that findings of this study indicated a need to divert commuter traffic and parking for downtown events away from this neighborhood, as well as a need to study the feasibility of resident-only parking and one-way streets. Dr. Andree said no new developments should be considered that would add traffic to 300 North, or that would place structures, or provide access to structures, on the 200 North block of Almond Street via 300 North. She stated that no guest or residential parking should be allowed onto the already overburdened and failing infrastructure in the area.
Mr. Jerry McLall, a resident of the area, stated that he was a member of the subcommittee which had studied this proposal extensively and added that they did not believe this project, as proposed at this time, should be approved. Mr. McLall stated that Mr. Watts was correct in stating that he could construct a 68 unit tower but added that that zoning had been designated for this area when it had been believed that existing structures would be demolished and the roads would be reconfigured. He stated that the residents of this area believed this neighborhood needed to be rezoned to better reflect the existing use of the land and the historical character of the area. Mr. McLall stated that there were four major issues that needed to be considered: 1) parking and traffic issues, 2) geotechnical concerns, 3) historic preservation, and 4) master plan criteria. Mr. McLall stated that the master plan was currently being updated and this project was not appropriate for this site. He requested the Planning Commission not approve this project.
Ms. Robin McLall, a resident of the area, stated that the density suggested in the staff report did not match the density called for in the master plan. She stated that she had never heard any members of the Landmark Commission refer to this project as a possible bridge between two pieces of the historic district, but rather several members had expressed concern relative to possible impacts this project would have on the historic district. Ms. McLall also stated that the Centennial Engineering report was very unrealistic and said she believed this area was already at its physical and emotional traffic capacity. She stated that the parking problems in the area would not be alleviated by the resident parking permit program suggested in the staff report. She stated that traffic enforcement would not resolve the already existing problem. Ms. McLall stated that the staff report ignored the double jeopardy of this land relative to geotechnical issues since there was a possible fault in the area. She stated that there was a known history of slippage of the land in the area.
Mr. Kent Knowley, a resident of the area, stated that he felt the area was not zoned correctly and needed to be reconsidered relative to proper zoning.
Ms. Laurie Love, a resident of the area, stated that the concerns raised about the traffic problems on 300 North were very valid. Ms. Love asked if drilling to 1 3 feet was sufficient for this site. She questioned the geotechnical consultant's comments that they generally agreed with the previous geotechnical study done on this site and said this comment made her wonder what they had not agreed with. She expressed concern relative to too much traffic and too many blind spots in this area.
Ms. Florence Butler, a property owner in the area, stated that relative to soil slippage, the ages of the buildings in this area should be considered. She pointed out that several buildings near the proposed project site were about 100 years old which proved that, the soils were pretty solid there. Ms. Butler stated that a vacant lot did not pay its way on this planet, that it was an eyesore and a drawback as well as attracting the students from West High School and transients who littered the lot and built fires. She stated that they welcomed this project and believed it would aesthetically improve this area, bring variety to the area and upgrade and beautify it.
Mr. William Call, a resident of the area, stated that he agreed with most of the speakers who were against this project. He expressed concern about traffic in the area and the density of this project. He encouraged the Planning Commission to do whatever necessary to ensure this area remain a beautiful, historic area. Mr. Call said he did not believe the Watts project was adequate at this time.
Mr. Hardin Whitney, a resident of the area, stated that he had lived in this area for ten years and had never been bothered by transients or students from West High School. Mr. Whitney expressed concern relative to traffic if this project were approved.
Mr. Oait Butler, a property owner in the area, stated that the three properties he owned had withstood the construction of aU of the buildings in the area without damage. Mr. Butler stated that it was understandable that the residents of the condominiums in the area would not experience problems from the transients and the students, that it was the other residents in the area who experienced those problems. He stated that he drove through this area daily and had never experienced problems because of large vehicles blocking the wayan the narrow streets.
Mr. Jerry Tertocha, a resident of the area, stated that the community council agreed that this property should be developed though they unanimously opposed the Watts project as proposed at this time. He stated that he felt those who did not live in the area did not understand the scope of the problems relative to traffic and the steep and narrow streets.
Ms. Robin McLall stated that Florence and Dail Butler did not live in this area and the land that had been purchased by Watts in order to increase the density of the project by four units had been sold to them by the Butlers. Ms. McLall stated that according to Mr. Russ Watts, one condominium would be exchanged for that piece of land.
Mr. Butler said it was true that they did not live in the area but added that they had owned their properties for 24 years and intended to eventually move into the area. Mr. Butler added that they had discussed the condominium exchange with Mr. Watts but no papers had been signed and no commitments had been made.
Ms. Laurie Love showed one of the renderings of the project to the Planning Commission and stated that she did not believe it was compatible with the rest of the neighborhood.
Speaker cards turned in by Ed Gallick, Steve Graser, Velma Harvey, John Girffith and Mark and Regina Peery who did not wish to address the Planning Commission but who expressed strong opposition to the approval of this project.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Iker commended the community for the time and efforts expended in studying this matter but expressed concern that this matter was at an impasse and the community would not accept any proposal that might increase traffic on 300 North.
Mr. Iker stated that any project, even a single family dwelling would increase traffic on 300 North. He stated that he believed the community needed to consider some alternatives even though traffic would be increased with any proposal.
Mr. Smith stated that he agreed with the comments made. by Mr. Iker in that he was hearing very little desire to compromise from the community. He stated that the Planning Commission had to deal with real information relative to geotechnical issues not emotional information when making their decision on this matter. Mr. Smith said he believed that this property needed to be developed in some manner and he believed some density this close to the downtown area was desirable in order to help create a 24 hour population in the downtown area. He said he hoped the doors of communication could remain open in this matter.
Ms. Short stated that she would prefer to see 28-30 units developed and more parking rather than the proposed parking with 34 units. Ms. Short asked Mr. Kevin Young of the City Transportation Division if he could suggest any alternatives that might work. Mr. Young stated that this was a difficult issue and that coming up with alternatives would require study on his part.
Mr. Howa stated that the proposed design did not work from parking and traffic perspectives. Mr. Howa stated that he believed West Temple Street at this site could be closed and access to the project could be designed from the southern end of the site on 200 North. Mr. Howa suggested that parking could be located at the inside of the site rather than on the perimeter of the site and that no driveways or parking should be allowed on Almond Street. Mr. Howa stated that the Planning Commission could file a petition to close the appropriate portion of West Temple.
Mr. Howa said he believed the biggest problem was access, not density. Mr. Howa stated that he had no ties to the Watts Corporation but added that their history indicated a willingness to work with practical suggestions and to compromise when necessary.
Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Howa's suggestions could be studied. Mr. Wright stated that Alternative #1 proposed by the community council suggested something similar in their cul-de-sac proposal but added that he felt there was a better way to use that land than as a cul-de-sac. Mr. Wright stated that the matter needed to be studied and that it might be possible to access 300 North at the widest portion of 300 North where it was not so steep. Mr. Wright added that there might be some people who would not want to see West Temple closed.
Mr. Howa asked when this item would be brought back before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Wright stated that the first possible agenda this could be placed on would be the February 8th agenda.
Mr. Smith stated that even though someone had earlier mentioned that a resident only parking program would not work, the area of town where his business was located had incorporated such a program and it was a great success. He stated that he had not believed it would solve their parking problems but added that it had worked very well for them.
Mr. Wright stated that not all of the neighborhood's problems should be attributed to this project and resolution to the project's problems would not solve all of the neighborhood's parking and traffic problems. Mr. Wright stated that this project should also not place additional burden on the neighborhood's problems.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.