SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Kimball
Young, Jim McRea, Judi Short, Gilbert Iker, Max Smith and Fred Fife. Diana Kirk,
Ann Roberts and Aria Funk were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent
Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Doug Dansie, Joel Paterson and Alex
Beseris.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Becker. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, June 20, 1996 as presented. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Mr. Smith voted IIAye." Ms. Kirk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - petition No. 410-227 by Matthew Benjamin Belman. D.V.M. requesting a conditional use for a veterinary clinic at 1760 South 1100 East in a Residential Business “RB" 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. Matthew Belman, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and gave a brief description of his proposal. Mr. Belman stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Beesley, the owner of the building proposed to house the veterinary clinic, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and described the other tenants of the building. Mr. Beesley expressed his support for this proposal.
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. Young moved to approve Petition No. 410-227 based on the findings of fact and subject to the condition listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Mr. Smith voted "Aye." Ms. Kirk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-42 by Salt Lake City Planning Division requesting to rezone properties located at 1796 and 1820 North Redwood Road from Open Space “OS" to Residential I'R-1/70001f.
Mr. Alex 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. Beseris explained that this rezoning was proposed in order to correct a mistake made during the zoning rewrite process.
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. 400-96-42 based on the findings of fact
contained in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Mr. Smith voted “Aye." Ms. Kirk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-225 by Zions Securities, Inc. requesting a conditional use for an office building with a setback greater than the five foot maximum for the Gateway Towers at 15 West South Temple Street in a Downtown "0-1 If zoning district.
Mr. Doug Dansie 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 Planning Commission had full design review of the entire building.
Mr. Wright responded that technically, by ordinance, the Planning Commission did have design review of the entire building. Mr. Wright added that if the Planning Staff had felt there were design review issues that would merit Planning Commission consideration, those issues would have been presented to them.
Mr. Kent Gibson, representing Zions Securities, stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation and requested the Planning Commission approve this request. Mr. Wright stated that Concept II A" would be preferable to the petitioner.
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. Smith moved to approve Petition No. 410-225 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Mr. Smith voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as
Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-228 by Sinclair Oil requesting a conditional use for a hotel development to exceed the five foot front and corner side yard requirements. an exception to the maximum height of 100 feet in the mid-block area and an exception to the minimum height of 100 feet in the block corner area located at 501 South Main Street in a Downtown IID-1 " zoning district.
Mr. Doug Dansie 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. Neil Stowe, representing Sinclair Oil, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Stowe gave a slide presentation of a scale model of their proposal for this block, excluding the northeast corner of the block containing the Flower Patch and Safe Lite Glass businesses. Mr. Stowe addressed the various ingress and egress locations, auto stacking, bus unloading, parking, street frontage, building facades and materials, traffic and pedestrian circulation, landscaping, lighting and their plans to include retail services in portions of the hotel.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Becker requested that all comments be limited to land use issues which were the only issues before the Planning Commission relative to this proposal.
Mr. Robert Wilde, an attorney representing Stewart Nelson, the property owner of the Safe Lite Glass business, stated that they believed this was an appropriate conditional use for this property. Mr. Robert Wilde stated that their sole concern related to the proposed utility entrance to the hotel site adjacent to his client's property and requested that entrance not come out to the sidewalk. Mr. Robert Wilde stated that they believed there should be a setback for the hotel's utility entrance to match the adjoining properties' setbacks.
Mr. Neil Stowe said that entrance had already been set back to maintain consistency. Mr. Robert Wilde stated that the slides shown did not reflect that setback.
Mr. Mack Livingston, representing the Flower Patch, stated that they were pleased that Sinclair Oil would be upgrading the block. Mr. Livingston stated that the issue of whether or not this block would receive designation as a redevelopment project by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency had not been decided and asked how Sinclair Oil could obtain building permits and proceed with this project until that decision had been made. He stated that they had made an offer to build the executive suite tower for Sinclair Oil, on the existing Flower Patch site and leaseback space for the Flower Patch operation in that tower, but added that they had not received a response to their offer.
Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission was only dealing with the land use issues in this matter, not matters related to property ownership or redevelopment project status. Mr. Livingston stated that the redevelopment project status of this block would impact the land use issues as well as their plans for their building.
Mr. Livingston said he believed the redevelopment project status should be decided before the Planning Commission acted on this proposal.
Mr. Becker asked Mr. Wright if Planning Commission approval of this hotel project would still provide opportunity for Mr. Livingston, either through redevelopment action or through his own property ownership.
Mr. Wright responded that if this project were approved it would not affect any request by Mr. Livingston to develop his own property. Mr. Wright stated that all the Planning Commission was doing at this time was responding to a development request of a property owner and added that there was no preclusion of a property owner to file a development request because of a pending redevelopment project area determination. Mr. Wright explained that this block was not in a redevelopment area at this time and added that the petitioner had not shown a development project on any properties that they did not own or control the ownership of.
Mr. Livingston asked if this area were to be designated as a redevelopment area site, if the Planning Commission's decision tonight to grant building permits would be impacted by that decision. Mr. Wright responded in the negative. Mr. Livingston asked if the building permits that might be granted tonight meant the plan would be accepted by the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Wright explained that the Planning Commission would not be granting any building permits at this meeting, but rather, they were considering a conditional use application.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission was considering the proposed uses for this block and whether or not they fit the guidelines and policies the Planning Commission was required to follow. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning
Commission did not issue building permits.
Mr. Livingston asked if a decision tonight on this matter would impact the redevelopment if this block were to become a redevelopment project area.
Mr. Wright referred the question to the Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Lynn Pace.
Mr. Pace stated that he believed the redevelopment and conditional use issues were entirely separate issues. Mr. Pace stated that the Planning Commission needed to decide whether or not the zoning regulations that governed the downtown area could be modified as requested by the petitioner. Mr. Pace stated that granting or denying that request would have no impact on the redevelopment project area issues.
Mr. Livingston stated that Mr. Pace's statements were his opinion and added that he believed there were other opinions such as a statement that this was the plan the Redevelopment Agency should adopt. Mr. Livingston said he believed the Planning Commission should wait.
Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation was not to the Redevelopment Agency or their Board of Directors. Mr. Livingston stated that he had made his objections for the record because he felt it would impact the redevelopment issues.
Mr. Livingston asked how this plan might impact the parking for the Flower Patch and whether or not the City intended to remove the parking on the street.
Mr. Wright stated that there were no proposals to change the on-street parking or the management of the curbs.
Mr. Livingston asked if the fact that this project had not demonstrated any plans for parking, and if the Flower Patch decided to expand, if that would have an impact on their parking. Mr. Becker asked if Mr. Livingston were referring to on-street parking. Mr. Livingston responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Wright explained that the City and the State controlled the on-street parking, not the petitioner.
Mr. Dansie explained to Mr. Livingston that the hotel would be providing about nine acres of underground parking on two levels for the hotel project. Mr. Dansie added that the proposed parking nearly doubled the City's parking requirements. Mr. Livingston asked if that parking would be public parking. Mr. Dansie responded that it would be private hotel parking.
Mr. Livingston asked if they would provide parking for Flower Patch patrons.
Mr. Dansie said they were not obligated to offer parking for anyone else's patrons. Mr. Livingston said that meant the parking issues still remained.
Mr. Livingston asked if, under the current zoning ordinances, the Flower Patch would be able to build out to the property lines, if they chose to rebuild on this site.
Mr. Wright said that was correct. Mr. Livingston questioned how it would look if the Flower Patch built out to the property line and the hotel project were granted the setbacks they were requesting. Mr. Becker stated that that issue would have to be studied at the time a development request was presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright stated that under the existing ordinances, the Flower Patch would have the right to build out to the property line.
Mr. Becker stated that they would have to meet the minimum 100 foot height requirement.
Mr. Dansie said he believed the height requirement was a bigger issue than the setback requirements for the Flower Patch. Mr. Dansie stated if the Flower Patch proposed to construct a building out to their property line that met the minimum 1 00 foot height requirement, they would not have to go before the Planning Commission for approval.
Mr. Livingston asked if they could construct a building lower than 1 00 feet.
Mr. Dansie said that request would have to be heard and decided by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Livingston asked what the maximum height allowance was.
Mr. Becker stated that it was 375 for permit counter approval; that above 375 feet would require Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Livingston asked if it bothered anyone that the design of the hotel project might be impacted by the design of his building. Mr. Becker responded that the Planning Commission would have to examine those design issues at the time Mr. Livingston's proposal was ready for review by the City. Mr. Livingston said that was why he thought this matter should be suspended, that he had just received notice of this project and had not had enough time to make his own plans since he did not know if this block would be designated as a redevelopment project area or not. Mr. Livingston said they also did not know if they were going to build the executive tower for Sinclair Oil. He stated that he believed the Planning Commission was moving too quickly. He said that since the Redevelopment Agency was holding a meeting on this matter upstairs, or at least waiting for the outcome of this meeting, that his plans had gotten caught in a "squeeze" and he wondered if that had been done on purpose to accommodate Sinclair Oil's plans. Mr. Livingston said he would like the same rights, time and consideration afforded to him that were being given to Sinclair Oil. Mr. Livingston stated that if they were not going to be asked to construct the executive office tower for Sinclair Oil, they needed time to work on their plans. He stated that he believed his request for time was a reasonable request for master planning this block, rather than being pushed into making quick decisions that may not be in their best interests. He asked the Planning Commission if they wouldn't rather wait until the Redevelopment Agency had determined whether or not to designate this block as a redevelopment project area so the entire block could be master planned as a whole unit. He said he was simply asking for some equal rights.
Mr. Becker addressed several of the issues raised by Mr. Livingston and stated that the legal notification requirement was 14 days prior to Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Becker stated that this project had been in the press often enough that the possibility of review by the City should have been obvious. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission could only consider projects that were before them. He stated that the Planning Commission could only hope Mr. Livingston would design a project that would be compatible with the rest of the block. He added that the Planning Commission was not in the business of holding up one developer's proposal to wait for some other property owner to take action; that they could only review what was before them at this time.
Mr. Livingston stated that there were two meetings on the same day dealing with this issue that conflicted with each other. Mr. Livingston stated that they had received the Planning Commission notice earlier than the Redevelopment Agency's notice which they had just received the previous week. He stated that their attorney had written to the City requesting that both meetings not be held on the same day at nearly the same hour pending an awesome decision for the Flower Patch.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission would take Mr. Livingston's comments under advisement while considering this matter.
Mr. Livingston expressed concern that this project would direct the major traffic to Main Street and the impacts that might have to the Flower Patch which was located on State Street. He asked again if the parking along 500 South Street would be removed and if State Street would be closed off to this project other than for service vehicles. He asked how that might impact his business if State Street were closed off. Mr. Livingston asked why State Street was being closed off as an entrance to the hotel and the main entrance located on Main Street.
Mr. Smith explained that 600 South would also provide public entrance to the hotel project.
Mr. Livingston asked if this would create major traffic congestion with light rail going in on Main Street and with the Little America hotel entrance on Main Street. Mr. Livingston asked if this were being done to accommodate their hotel across the street.
Mr. Becker stated that traffic circulation had been carefully studied and the Planning Commission would consider all of the issues relative to this matter before making their decision.
Mr. Livingston asked if the Planning Staff had considered the redevelopment problem and pointed out that the staff report did not mention this in their findings and recommendations. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission was not the Redevelopment Agency and they did not consider redevelopment issues unless they involved land use issues. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission could not answer redevelopment questions, only land use questions. Mr. Livingston said he did not mean to imply that the Planning Commission should answer redevelopment questions but asked if the staff should have considered the redevelopment issues relative to this block. Mr. Livingston stated that there were questions that needed to be answered through the Redevelopment Agency and the courts before proceeding. Mr. Livingston stated that the staff had not considered that in the staff report. Mr. Becker reminded Mr. Livingston that he had already explained at least twice, that the Planning Commission was here to consider land use issues only and to please refrain from asking questions relative to the Redevelopment Agency at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Livingston stated that he believed the Planning Commission should consider that this matter was before the courts and to wait and give everyone a fair break. Mr. Livingston stated that he had not understood a statement in the staff report referring to 600 South as the end of the master plan. Mr. Becker explained that 600 South was considered the southern anchor for the downtown area. Mr. Livingston asked if some kind of monument was going to be placed in the area.
Mr. Becker stated that the idea of some kind of monument for this end of downtown had been discussed for quite some time.
Mr. Livingston asked if the Planning Commission was going to make a decision on this matter at this meeting. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission had the options to either approve, deny or table this issue. Mr. Livingston stated that he was very concerned about this project because of the redevelopment issues and if the Planning Commission approved this matter tonight, he would be stopped from being able to build what he wanted on his own property. Mr. Livingston stated that he had not proceeded with his plans because of the redevelopment issues which had come into being because of Sinclair Oil. He requested the Planning Commission let him present his plans before making a decision on Sinclair Oil's request to ensure compatibility for the block. Mr. Livingston requested they be given a definitive answer "from Sinclair Oil and the Redevelopment Agency relative to their plans to construct the executive suite on the corner, because the Redevelopment Agency was involved in this matter whether the Planning Commission acknowledged that or not. He expressed concern that the Planning Commission might not approve his plans if they approved the Sinclair Oil project at this time.
Mr. Smith asked if the petitioner could develop the land on this block that they owned without the block being designated as a redevelopment project.
Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative. Mr. Smith stated that the developer had every right to petition the City, exclusive of any decisions by the Redevelopment Agency, with any request they chose to make. Mr. Smith stated that the Planning Commission was obligated to look at the Sinclair Oil proposal and make a decision on it.
Mr. Livingston said he was not sure that statement was correct. Mr. Livingston stated that if Sinclair Oil's land was in a redevelopment plan, they would need Redevelopment Agency approval before they could proceed.
Mr. Wright explained that this block was not a redevelopment project area at this time, and therefore, the supposition made by Mr. Livingston was not correct. Mr. Wright stated that a private property owner had the right to submit plans to build on his property if he followed the City's regulations that were already adopted.
Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Livingston had mentioned several time that he thought he did not have the right to submit building plans for his own property and added that he did not understand where Mr. Livingston had obtained that information. Mr. Wright stated that if Mr. Livingston were to submit plans to develop his own property, he would be treated the same as Sinclair Oil was now being treated; that the City would review his plans through whatever procedures the Zoning Ordinance required.
Mr. Livingston stated that they had not submitted any plans because they did not know what the Redevelopment Agency's decision would be.
Mr. Wright explained that that was Mr. Livingston's choice.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission was behind schedule and they seemed to be retreading the same ground and he did not want to go over the same issues again. Mr. Becker stated that Mr. Livingston had asked at least four times whether or not the Planning Commission was acting in consideration of what the Redevelopment Agency was doing. Mr. Becker stated that they were not; the Planning Commission was only considering the conditional use before them relative to land use issues. Mr. Becker stated that if Mr. Livingston desired to file a development proposal on the property he owned, which included something that needed to be considered by the Planning Commission, they would consider it just as they considered the proposals of other petitioners.
Mr. Becker told Mr. Livingston he did not want him to mention the redevelopment issues again during this meeting. Mr. Becker stated that if Mr. Livingston had something to add, they would welcome that information but reiterated that he was not to mention the redevelopment issues again. Mr. Livingston said he took objection to that because of the redevelopment issues.
Mr. Livingston stated that if he had known this was going to happen, he would have been here at this time with his own plans. Mr. Livingston said he viewed this as an end run, by Sinclair Oil, to squeeze them out of their own property. He said they were asking for a chance to present their own plans; for the same rights being given to Sinclair Oil, to see if the two projects were compatible, before any decisions were made by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Iker stated that if Mr. Livingston had submitted his plans to the City several weeks ago, they would be considering his plans at this time. Mr. Iker stated that if Sinclair Oil came to a meeting while Mr. Livingston's plans were being presented and requested they stop everything because they had their own plans,
Mr. Livingston would find that to be unfair. Mr. Livingston said he thought that would be fair since they were developing the entire block.
Mr. Iker stated that he thought it was unfair to terminate consideration of a proposal filed by a petitioner, because some other property owner had an idea of how that property should be developed.
Ms. Cheri Carlson, a concerned citizen, asked if there were adequate power utilities for this project. She stated that she had heard a new substation would have to be built and asked if that were accurate information. Mr. Wright explained that the Morton Court substation on 700 South and 200 East was in the process of expansion, following conditional use approval by the Planning Commission several months ago. Ms. Carlson asked if that expansion would intrude into the residential uses of the neighborhood. Mr. Wright responded in the negative. Ms. Carlson suggested Sinclair Oil set aside some land on their site for a light rail station.
Mr. Wright explained that light rail stations were planned at 450 South Main during the first construction phase and another at 550 South later on.
Mr. Jim Baud, attorney for the Flower Patch, expressed concern that the Flower Patch and the Safe Lite Auto Glass Company would be impacted by the ramp by the proposed service entrance to the hotel project on State Street. Mr. Baud said that ramp would be used by large, heavy vehicles and would impair the parking to the Flower Patch and the glass company. Mr. Baud also expressed concern at how close to the curb that ramp would be located relative to its impact on the adjoining properties.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Short asked if the existing on-street parking would remain. Mr. Dansie stated that the on-street parking issues were under the purview of the Transportation Division but added that there was an indication that there would be more room for on-street parking with the removal of the existing driveways.
Mr. Becker asked how the service entrance would impact the adjoining properties.
Ms. Short said the petitioner had already explained that the ramp to their underground parking would be long enough to allow the delivery trucks to go all the way into the underground parking lot and turn around. Mr. Becker asked for additional information about the proposed wall separating the hotel property from the adjoining properties. Mr. Dansie responded that the construction of the wall was a building code issue and that if the wall were a solid wall, it could be constructed to the property line on either parcel of property.
Mr. Wright explained that the Planning Commission did have some discretion as to whether or not the wall should have a setback from State Street.
Mr. Stowe explained that they would be willing to work with the adjoining property owners and added that the wall would be constructed as a fire safety wall.
Mr. Becker asked if they expected any stacking of trucks out on State Street.
Mr. Stowe responded in the negative.
Motion on Petition No. 410-228:
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 410-228, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker voted “Aye". Ms. Kirk, Ms. Roberts and Ms. Funk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING - Public comment on a proposed ordinance to establish an 1I0pen Space Land Trust".
Mr. Becker explained that this was an issues only hearing and that no decision would be made on this matter at this time. Mr. Becker stated that following this meeting, the staff would address the issues raised by the public and any directions given to them by the Planning Commission before this matter was brought back to the Planning Commission for a decision.
Mr. Steven Allred, representing the City Attorney's Office, and Ms. Renee Tanner, representing the Mayor's Office, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright outlined the proposed ordinance for an “0pen Space Land Trust", a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Wheelwright used briefing boards to demonstrate the properties owned by the City which could be considered to be placed in the “0pen Space Land Trust" for a total of 3,940 acres. Mr. Wheelwright stated that easements on these properties, obtained through subdivision approvals, had not been included in this figure.
Mr. Becker asked why the City was looking at investing in a land trust rather than the typical private land trusts.
Ms. Tanner stated that this ordinance would not preclude private land trusts. She stated that this ordinance had been designed for the properties the City already owned or properties that the City might be able to more easily maintain than a private land trust.
Mr. Allred stated that most of the land on the list for consideration was either under the oversight of the Airport or Public Utilities. Mr. Allred stated that much of the land near the Airport had been obtained through federal funding and would have to be dedicated to Airport operations. Mr. Allred stated that the ordinance did not preclude the City's ability to transfer property to a public land trust as long as the operation was retained as open space.
Mr. Becker asked if anything had been specifically identified, as part of the ordinance, to provide revenue for this land trust. Mr. Wheelwright stated that there had been appropriations for open space land acquisitions "from the City Council the previous year. Mr. Becker said it made sense to apply some of the proceeds from surplus land sales to the acquisition of open space. Mr. Wright stated that the current policy was that those funds would go into the Capital Improvements Projects budget.
Ms. Short asked why the City parks had not been included in the consideration list.
Mr. Wheelwright said the parks had intentionally been differentiated "from the open space lands considered for the land trust since parks were long-standing budget items for the City included in the Capital Improvements Project.
Mr. Wright stated that there was also a certain amount of development associated with parks.
Mr. Becker asked how the City staff would "function relative to this ordinance and who would be responsible to make sure it was working properly.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that a staff position could be created for this ordinance.
Mr. Iker expressed concern that this would be created without the creation of a system to fund it to ensure it would be well managed. Mr. Iker expressed concern about the veto power of the Mayor and the fact that properties could be taken back out of the trust once they had been placed in it. Mr. Iker stated that he believed it should be difficult to remove property from the trust through a public process. Mr. Iker said he was comfortable with Mayor Corradini but stated that no one knew who would be in office in the future.
Mr. Wheelwright said the most effective method he was aware of was a reversion clause in the deed of transfer stating that if a property wre not used for the intended purpose, the fee would revert to the donator of the property. Mr. Smith stated that the trust needed to be flexible enough that if someone donated a parcel of land, for a tax advantage, that was not located near the City, the City should be able to exchange that parcel for something more appropriate.
Mr. Allred stated that because of our form of government, there was a separation of powers issue. Mr. Allred stated that the ordinance had been drafted to allow some general policy statements on a trust-wide basis, but because of the separation of powers, the Mayor still had the ultimate authority to deal with specific parcels of property. He added that they had tried to incorporate enough public process to create political pressure before the Mayor would be able to take action on individual parcels. He added that they had tried to create as much balance as possible in the ordinance.
Ms. Tanner stated that the ultimate authority of the Mayor related to lands the City already owned but added that if someone donated land in the future, the Mayor would be required to follow the constraints under which the property was donated.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Tanta Lisa Clayton, a member of the Open Space Land Trust Review Committee, and a member of the Arcadia Heights Community Council, stated that she had been involved with land trust issues for several years. Ms. Clayton said she believed the City needed to preserve its open space but added that she wasn’t sure a trust was the best mechanism to ensure that preservation. She suggested that as many checks and balances as possible be created if the City did choose to adopt the "Open Space Land Trust". Ms. Clayton asked how the authority for the land trust would interact with other City boards and commissions and whether or not there would be fair representation by agencies and parties within the community. Ms. Clayton stated that there might be alternatives to a land trust such as bonding for open space, protection of open space through master plan implementation, or a special service district that needed to be studied prior to adopting an ordinance for a land trust.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a member of the Open Space Land Trust Review Committee, stated that the Planning Commission had discussed the issues of an Advisory Board on the open space issues during the consideration of the Open Space Master Plan. Ms. Cromer stated that she supported the idea of an Advisory Board that would provide oversight on open space lands and open space trust. Ms. Cromer stated that the definition of open space in the Zoning Ordinance was not the same as the definition in the proposed ordinance which she felt would be confusing. She suggested the definitions be standardized. Ms. Cromer expressed concern about the veto power of the Mayor on the "Open Space Land Trust." Ms. Cromer said she felt it would be better to have the Advisory Board make their recommendations to the Planning Commission or directly to the City Council. Ms. Cromer also expressed great concern at the possibility that lands could be transferred out of the trust as outlined on Page 7 of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Cromer stated that she felt this government had very few of the component behaviors necessary to deal with a land trust. Ms. Cromer stated that the City had consistently fallen short over and over again on preservation of open space. She added that copies of the Open Space Master Plan had not yet been distributed. Ms. Cromer stated that the issues involved in Tanner Park caused her great concern relative to the intentions of the donors being undone. Ms. Cromer said there had been a legal loophole in that land donation which she believed the City had been willing to take advantage of which was morally bankrupt since there was no question of what the donors had intended. Ms. Cromer stated that these kinds of actions by the City reduced her level of trust. She suggested the Planning Commission look carefully at the issue of an Advisory Board and added that she did not think the City was ready to establish an “Open Space Land Trust." Ms. Cromer said she felt there might be other mechanisms already in place that could be orchestrated better to protect open spaces.
Ms. Cheri Carlson, a concerned citizen, stated that a policy established in the 1970's by the City relative to preservation of foothill open space and ridgeline protection still had not been implemented. Ms. Carlson challenged the City to implement these twenty year old policies and requested the City not let whatever had happened to prevent the implementation of these policies to occur again. She requested the City take charge of the implementation of open space preservation and to provide adequate staff and support to assist in this implementation. Ms. Carlson stated that the alleys on the east side of the valley were an excellent example of open space corridors that could be preserved. Ms. Carlson expressed concern that the City's policy was to close these alleys whenever possible. She urged the Planning Commission to preserve the alleys for open space corridors. Ms. Carlson said she felt urban trails should be added to the consideration list for open space preservation; that underdeveloped land should also be considered, not just undeveloped land. Ms. Carlson suggested the language defining the members of the proposed Advisory Board be clarified since it was not clear if the ex-official members were included in the nine voting members or in addition to them. She said she agreed with the comments made by Mr. Iker and Ms. Cromer relative to veto power involved with closing open land that had been put into a trust. Ms. Carlson said she believed the placement of this land should be irrevocable.
Mr. Becker informed Ms. Carlson that under the new ordinance there was ridgeline protection in the foothill development regulations.
Mr. Wayne Martinson, a member of the Open Space Land Trust Review Committee, stated that though he had spent some time involved with this committee, his comments were personal comments. Mr. Martinson stated that he agreed with other comments made about concern over the Mayor's veto powers and the makeup of the Advisory Board. He suggested the staff meet with the Review Committee to work out some of the issues raised. Mr. Martinson said he felt the representation on the Advisory Committee needed to be clarified with more detail and that the word “Trust" might be replaced with better wording such as restrictive covenants" or something that might work better.
Ms. Roselyn Kirk, a former Council member of the City, gave a brief history of how this issue had come about. Ms. Kirk explained that open space issues had been a major concern of District #6 causing them to organize an open space committee which had later been enlarged to encompass the entire City. She stated that this committee was a very active committee which met every month and added that they were anxious to get moving in the right direction and assist the City with this matter in any way they could.
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. Fife suggested that urban open space also needed to be considered, such as the Jordan River corridor, for the “Open Space Land Trust".
Mr. McRea expressed concern that a trust would not be able to do everything they would like it to do or allow the City to do everything it wanted to do and said he thought other alternatives should also be explored.
Mr. Young said he felt there was a need for the City to be involved in the preservation of open space but added that he did not believe the residents of the City were of a mind-set at this time to promote bonding for the preservation of open space. Mr. Young stated that the success of a goal to preserve open space lands would depend on the ability to fund it.
Mr. Wright stated that he saw an analogy between this issue and the organization
of the City's involvement in historic preservation twenty years ago. Mr. Wright
stated that in creating the authority for open space, the City was creating
champions of open space under the umbrella of City government and that the
funding for open space could result from those efforts. Mr. Wright stated that the City Council wanted to hear this matter during one of their meetings this Fall and cautioned the Planning Commission to not try to accomplish too much. Mr. Wright stated that they might not be able to adopt the perfect ordinance in September but added that it was better to get the process started and revise the ordinance if necessary than to get bogged down in issues that were too broad and get nothing adopted.
Ms. Short said she felt it might be better to deal with this complex issue incrementally and deal with specific issues as they arose. Ms. Short said she did agree that the membership on the Advisory Board needed to be clearer and that checks and balances were critical.
Mr. Becker stated that one of the most frustrating things he had had to cope with during his tenure as a Planning Commission Member, that had not been addressed, had been the lack of financial resources to protect open space. Mr. Becker expressed concern that the Advisory Board would continually have to deal with frustration caused by a lack of funding to protect the open space they would be appointed to protect. Mr. Becker stated that the communities that were the most successful with the preservation of open space were those with a balanced program of regulation and acquisition. He stated that as the City was looking at the completion of this ordinance, he would like to see very specific sources of revenue identified, whether they came from a portion of surplus sales or an impact fee for open space or working with the Legislature to implement a real estate transaction tax.
Mr. Young stated that one way to handle funding might be to have the Advisor Board prepare and recommend an annual funding approach to include the suggestions made by Mr. Becker, as well as the creation of voluntary assessment districts, or even propose a public referendum to act on funding for open space.
Mr. Becker stated that the City could possibly work with the County on a Countywide referendum since the County was also interested in funding the preservation of open space. Mr. Becker stated that the public process was critical to flesh out the duties and responsibilities of the Advisory Board. Mr. Becker stated that policy standards for how decisions would be made was very important and might make people more comfortable with the veto power of the Mayor. Mr. Becker stated that he would feel more comfortable if the veto powers were the responsibility of a commission who had a very specific purpose, rather than a responsibility of the Mayor, who may have all kinds of other political pressures. Mr. Becker said there was need for permanent action.
Ms. Tanner stated that the Mayor could sell existing City-owned open space, even if the City Council held a public hearing and forwarded, to the Mayor, a negative recommendation. Ms. Tanner stated that under the proposed ordinance, proceeds from that sale would go towards the acquisition of open space and there would not be the motivation of a tight budget for the Mayor to sell a piece of open space land.
Mr. Becker suggested the ordinance encourage cooperation with private land trusts since many people were more comfortable with private organizations than with the government. Mr. Becker said staff was a big issue for him and stated that someone needed to be responsible for the staffing of this issue. He added that the definition of open space needed to be clarified as well as the relationship of the Advisory Board with other City boards and commissions. Mr. Becker stated that this had taken so long to reach this point and he did not want to see the Planning Commission hold this matter up any longer than necessary. Mr. Becker suggested that decisions by the Advisory Board relative to planning matters, be presented to the Planning Commission, as a means to ensure an adequate public process, before those decisions were presented to the City Council. Mr. Becker suggested the Review Committee meet with the Planning Staff, to work on the issues that needed resolution, as quickly as possible in order to get this matter -back to the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council as soon as possible. Mr. Fife agreed to represent the Planning Commission on the Review Committee.
PLANNING ISSUES
Discussion of Shoreline Trail Issues
Mr. Doug Wheelwright led the discussion of the Shoreline Trail issues and handed out copies of the issues the staff felt needed to be addressed as a result of the public hearing held on June 20, 1996, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Wheelwright also handed out copies of maps highlighting the geographical areas that needed to be addressed, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. A discussion followed including assignments of Planning Commission members on the subcommittees for the various geographic areas that needed to be extensively studied to determine the best location for the trail in each of those areas. It was agreed that Mr. Becker would serve on the subcommittee for the North Cove area, the 80 acre private property east of the Brockbank property and the Dry Creek area (U of U and City property); that Mr. Smith would serve on the subcommittee to study the Morris Reservoir to City Creek area and the Terrace Hills water tank area; that Mr. McRea would serve on the subcommittee to study the Terrace Hills Bypass area; and that Mr. Fife would serve on the subcommittee to study the 40 acre private property parcel and the MacKay property. A subcommittee to study general trail issues would also include Mr. Becker, Mr. Smith and Mr. Fife. All of the above subcommittees would also include representatives from the Shoreline Trail users and residents from each of the specific geographical areas mentioned.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that one of the objectives of the subcommittees would be to determine if there were alternative trail routes that would not compromise the integrity or design standards of the trail but be less of an impact to the surrounding residential uses. Mr. Wheelwright stated that each group needed to walk the various segments of each of the major geographical areas to ensure that everyone was talking about the same locations in order to prevent misunderstandings further down the road. Report of the Downtown Design Enhancement Committee.
Mr. John Schumann, representing the Downtown Design Enhancement Committee, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and used a briefing board to demonstrate the Committee's recommendation to the City Council for the Downtown light rail alignment. Mr. Schumann stated that they were recommending a double track down the middle of Main Street with stops at every other block. Mr. Schumann stated that they also recommended a rubber-tired, circulation system of motorized vehicles that would traverse Main Street and stop at every block at curbside. Mr. Schumann added that the only problem with the shuttle bus system was that the Utah Transit Authority was not sure how to fund it. He said they felt this was critical and were encouraging UTA to find the funding. This discussion included bus routing issues, light rail design issues and streetscape design issues. The discussion also focused on bus routes, the need for shuttles on Main Street, light rail station designs and shuttle system expenses.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.