SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 315 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, and Prescott Muir. John Diamond and Laurie Noda were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, and Planner Ray McCandless.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, July 11, 2002
Mr. Jonas referred to page 2 of the minutes, first full paragraph, fifth line from the bottom, and noted that the reference to the zoning should read R-1-5000. On page 4, third paragraph from the bottom, the acronym should read CEPTED, and the sentence should end with the words CEPTED process, with the remainder of the sentence being stricken. He asked that the spelling of CEPTED be corrected wherever it appears in the minutes.
Chair Daniels asked Staff to provide a brief description of the CEPTED process for the record. Mr. Goldsmith explained that CEPTED is a community policing investigation that looks at the environment of a project to determine whether it is policeable. The investigation focuses on hazards, landscaping, lighting, fencing, etc., to help police and developers understand that the area will be safe. Chair Daniels noted that this process is free to the developer.
Mr. Jonas referred to page 6, first line, and suggested that the sentence read, “. clear enough to be remanded to the Planning Director.” He noted that the third item in the motion refers to maintenance and continuance of the existing underground gasoline tanks and questioned whether the reference to underground storage tanks should be included since the item being reviewed was only the car lot at the north end of the property. Mr. Muir recalled that part of the motion required landscaping across the entire frontage and reduction of curb cuts. He did not believe they felt bound by the fee simple portion that was dedicated to car sales, because the car sales office was beyond that boundary. Mr. Jonas expressed concern about whether the applicant might try to use this reference in the minutes sometime in the future as a basis for operating the gasoline tanks again. Mr. Muir believed it was immaterial. Chair Daniels stated that his interest in including the certificate in the process was that it would make the entire business friendlier to the community if the applicant had the certificate. Mr. Jonas referred to the last paragraph of page 12 which refers to Mr. Iverson and his salespeople selling the Planning Commission a “bill of sale.” He believed it should read, “a bill of goods.”
Mr. Muir felt that item 1 on page 7, middle of the page, was confusing. He suggested that it read, “ 20 feet from the south border of the 35-foot frontage.” He asked that the reference to 35-feet further on in that item also be changed to read “35-foot frontage.”
Mr. Jonas referred to page 16, first full paragraph, regarding the extension of Utah Street and the right-of-way turn and stated that he believed the wording should be “right-hand turn.” He asked that Michael Polacek be referred to as a “resident of Utah Commons.” Chair Daniels clarified that the reference to Utah Street should state right-of-way turn, because a right-hand turn would lead to the embankment.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to approve the minutes as amended. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold abstained as she did not attend the July 11 meeting. Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-06, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040, Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts: of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a railroad freight terminal facility as a Conditional Use in the “M-1" zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-07, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to rezone a 21.98 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South, 5600 West from a General Commercial “C-G” zoning district to a Light Manufacturing “M-1" zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-11, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by removing 4800 West, between 1300 South and 700 South, as an arterial street and designating 4400 West, between the same two streets, as an arterial street. Also, an approximately 1,300 foot portion of the existing 4800 West Street is also requested to be closed as a public street, and declared surplus to facilitate that street property being combined into the railroad freight terminal site.
PUBLIC HEARING - Case No. 410-528, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting Conditional Use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility located at approximately 800 South 5600 West in a Light Manufacturing “M-1" zoning district.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that this is a re-hearing, and this item was originally considered on May 16, 2002. Due to a noticing problem which has been corrected, a joint notice was sent for this meeting and a special City Council meeting on Monday, July 29. A letter received from WorldCom/MCI has been distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Wheelwright explained the changes made since this item was last seen by the Planning Commission. He noted that UDOT has required that the future intersection location be shifted from approximately 1000 South to 1100 South to create 1,500 feet of separation from the rail crossing on 5600 West in anticipation of a future highway overpass over the main line railroad tracks. It is unknown when the overpass will be installed. The shift of the intersection to 1100 South has been cleared with Property Reserve, Inc., which owns the bulk of the site that is being acquired. This proposal will create street frontage for the site only on 5600 West, a portion of 4800 West, and a very small portion of 700 South. Everywhere else, either existing or future development will be backing onto the rail facilities site. In response to questions about why M-2 zoning was not considered, he explained that M-1 zoning is being considered because that is what was requested. He stated that M-2 zoning would be illogical since there is very little M-2 zoning in the City, and zoning M-2 on this site would be considered as spot zoning. He believed the site could have been developed without rezoning the property, but the petitioners wanted all their property zoned the same instead of having split zoning. Regarding the 700 South railroad crossing and the existing crossing of the north track, he noted that UDOT has jurisdiction over rail crossings. After meeting with UDOT, an agreement has been reached between UDOT staff and City staff to work closely in the near future to upgrade the existing 700 South railroad crossing, but that upgrade is not seen as a necessary component of this project at this time. Mr. Wheelwright stated that Staff has received a letter from Union Pacific committing to work with Planning Staff to further enhance the landscaping at their site along the street frontages. He suggested that the final landscape plan details and fencing be delegated to the Planning Director. He explained that Union Pacific and UTA officials are available to answer questions.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing and requested that those who did not previously receive public notice speak first.
Ed Huffman, representing WorldCom/MCI, referred to a letter sent to the Planning Commission and noted that WorldCom/MCI is opposed to the project because of uncertainties regarding how the project will affect WorldCom/MCI facilities. He explained that WorldCom/MCI concerns have been discussed with Bingham Engineering, which originally designed the WorldCom/MCI site, and Bingham Engineering was asked for an opinion from an engineering and environmental standpoint. He presented a letter in which Bingham Engineering indicated that a certain type of testing should be done before any construction occurs to set a benchmark which should not be exceeded as a result of the proposed project. He asked that, if the project is approved, it be approved with a condition that the applicants be responsible for any damage that is caused. He stated that WorldCom/MCI would probably have to relocate approximately 7,000 linear feet of fiber optic cable at a cost of approximately $1 million if this project is approved, and WorldCom/MCI believed that should be included as a part of the project cost. He commented that WorldCom/MCI equipment is very sensitive, and vibration could have a major impact on their equipment and their business.
Ms. McDonough asked about the location of WorldCom/MCI property. Planner McCandless indicated the location just north of the north track on the east side of 5600 West in the Rulon Industrial Subdivision.
Chair Daniels asked if Mr. Huffman had stated that WorldCom/MCI would have to move or may have to move. Mr. Huffman replied that, from what WorldCom/MCI knows about the project plans, it was estimated that they would have to relocate about 7,000 feet of fiber cable.
Mr. Muir stated that it appeared that the contractual agreement between WorldCom/MCI and Union Pacific would address what Union Pacific is obligated to do if it moves the rail line. Mr. Huffman explained that the City is changing the zoning where the WorldCom/MCI facility exists, and the project is causing WorldCom/MCI to have to relocate the cable. Therefore, moving the cable is a direct cost that should be attributed to the project regardless of the terms of the contract with Union Pacific.
Mr. Jonas commented that there was some inherent risk in WorldCom/MCI locating their equipment next to a rail line. WorldCom/MCI seemed to want the advantage of being located next to a rail line to use the railroad right-of-way for their facilities and cable, but now that the railroad proposes a potentially different use in the area, WorldCom/MCI feels it will not work for them. Mr. Huffman explained that he did not say it would not work but had simply indicated that, if the project causes problems with the existing operation, WorldCom/MCI should not have to bear the burden of resolving those problems. Mr. Jonas stated that this appeared to be a contract matter between WorldCom/MCI and the railroad, and the Planning Commission will not get into contract matters.
Clair Heslop with Carrier Transicold of Utah, a small business located at 700 South and 5209 West, asked about the potential for increased railroad traffic at the crossing, which could affect people trying to get to his business. He commented that construction of an overpass at 5600 West would benefit his business. He explained that he also has a business on the 2100 South frontage road, and his customers travel back and forth between those two businesses. Mr. Muir recalled that Union Pacific gave testimony at the previous hearing that there would be no increased traffic along that rail line, and he understood that there would be no additional rail traffic at the 700 South crossing. Mr. Wheelwright noted that 5600 West is a State highway, and UDOT controls planning, development, and construction for that highway. He did not believe the proposed facility would facilitate construction of an overpass on 5600 West.
Chair Daniels asked if UTA or Union Pacific would like to speak to the issue of whether the studies brought up by WorldCom/MCI had been done and what the results might have been.
Dave Uhrich, Assistant Vice President of Real Estate for Union Pacific, explained that Union Pacific and WorldCom/MCI have a long-standing, amicable business relationship. WorldCom/MCI occupies Union Pacific’s right-of-way for thousands of miles, and they work together extensively on projects. He commented that Union Pacific was surprised by the letter from WorldCom/MCI, because the people at Union Pacific who deal with fiberoptics have been meeting with WorldCom/MCI, and the message he had received earlier this week from them was that WorldCom/MCI did not have an objection to this proposal. WorldCom/MCI appeared to have two issues, concern about vibrations and the need to relocate WorldCom/MCI existing fiberoptic cable within the Union Pacific right-of-way. Relocation of WorldCom/MCI facilities is dealt with through a contract between Union Pacific and WorldCom/MCI, and Mr. Uhrich believed it was inappropriate for WorldCom/MCI to ask the Planning Commission to rule on contract matters. He explained that they deal with such contract issues all the time, and there is a contract provision to address WorldCom/MCI issue. He stated that he could not speak to the vibration issue other than to explain that this is not a unique facility. WorldCom/MCI knew the main line railroad track existed there when they built their facility, that railroads cause vibrations, and that what the railroad does could change over time. Similar facilities are built adjacent to or on the right-of-way all across the Union Pacific system, so this is not a new issue. He explained that Union Pacific will not increase the number of trains. Union Pacific wants to work with WorldCom/MCI to address their concerns, but he believed that was beyond the scope of the request in front of the Planning Commission.
Mark Smedley, Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council, addressed the text amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow railroad freight facilities in the M-1 zone. He stated that the same task could be accomplished by rezoning the property the railroad wishes to use as M-2, and that would not require changing the zoning on a large portion of the M-1 zone in his community council area. He explained that District 2 contains most of the undeveloped M-1 zone in the City, and this proposal has been made without any public process. He stated that when UTA and Union Pacific came to the community council meeting, the community council was not given the details of what actions would be requested. He expected detailed presentations from Planning Staff since the project affects their area. He referred to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune showing that the area other than downtown which produces the greatest amount of sales tax revenue is District 2. He commented that District 2 hosts a lot of industry and wanted to be included in the planning process. They want issues such as this to happen at a slower rate and to be given an opportunity to comment. He asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the proposal to allow freight facilities in M-1 districts. Ms. Funk agreed that the community should be consulted and asked how M-1 zoning versus M-2 zoning would change the effect of this facility on Mr. Smedley’s area. Mr. Smedley replied that, if the zoning is changed to M-1, there will be less opportunity to address development publicly. If the area is zoned M-1, future development would not have to request a zone change, which gives the community less control as development would come directly to the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that the community has been left out of the process, and they want some input.
Ms. McDonough asked Staff to address the issue of M-1 versus M-2 zoning. Mr. Wheelwright explained that, for either a conditional use or rezone, the community council that is affected must be notified before the City will accept the application. That happened before this petition came to the Planning Commission. The current zoning ordinance allows consideration by the Planning Commission of a rail freight facility in the M-2 zone through a conditional use process. The text change would make such a facility a conditional use in the M-1 zone as well. Ms. McDonough verified that an equal amount of public process would be involved in either case. Mr. Wheelwright replied that was correct. The only difference is that, if this property were currently zoned M-2, the applicant would not be going through a rezone but would only be seeking a conditional use. However, either process triggers community council review, and that review did occur in this instance.
Donnie Sweazey, owner of the property across the street on 700 South 5130 West, stated that it was his impression that this would not be spot zoning. He noted that the railroad is looking to rezone a couple hundred acres to 4800 West, and next to that is Atlas Steel, a heavy industrial property. He believed the entire area should be zoned M-2, so it would not be spot zoning. He believed the zoning should be M-2, because there is nothing more heavy industrial than a rail yard and a scrap metal yard. He stated that M-1 zoning would directly affect his property. If the zoning were M-2, his property would be worth more, because very little M-2 property is available in the valley.
Michael Clára submitted minutes of a meeting held in April 1998 with City officials in which Union Pacific indicated that they would not abandon the 900 South line but that they would only use the 900 South line for emergencies. He referred to Mr. Muir’s and Mr. Pace’s comments in the May 16 Planning Commission minutes about the railroad not following through on previous agreements and whether the railroad had agreed in writing to master conceptual documents for consolidating and removing rail lines. Mr. Clára stated that he had checked with the Mayor’s staff, and that question is still outstanding. He did not understand why the Planning Commission had allowed that to happen and why they had not insisted on receiving an answer. Mr. Clára maintained that the documents are binding and asked why the petitioners are asking for an amendment to the Master Transportation Plan if it is not a binding document. He referred to Mr. Pace’s assurances in the May 16 minutes that there had been an investigation of the 900 South rail line by the City. Mr. Clára claimed that Mr. Pace’s statement was a lie and that no investigation had been done by the City. Mr. Clára stated that he had received confirmation of that with the Mayor’s office, and Mr. Pace apparently agreed that he had misinformed the Planning Commission. Mr. Clára stated that he had asked Mr. Pace to forward that information to the Planning Commission. Mr. Clára stated that his community was so shocked by the lie that they went to the State Attorney General’s office, which has launched an investigation into what took place and why the community was lied to. Mr. Clára was concerned about what else had been represented by Union Pacific that might also be false. He asked for assurances that the 900 South line would only be used for emergency purposes.
Ila Rose Fife reminded the Planning Commission of the importance of protecting children. She referred to the impacts of the 900 South railroad line and explained that, as an elected school board member, she was very concerned about children. She reported that a train came by on the 900 South track at 5:00 that morning blowing its whistle. She asked that the Planning Commissioners come and see the impacts on the neighborhood. Even though Union Pacific has said that they only plan to use the 900 South track in emergencies, the City has no control over what Union Pacific does on its property, and there could be many trains on that track. She stated that the children in the area already have a difficult time in their homes because of other industrial impacts without adding use of the 900 South rail line. She claimed that Union Pacific had reactivated the 900 South line to use it as a shortcut and save a few minutes, and their whole objective was to make more money. She asked if public money was being put into this project and who it would benefit. She asked if the Commissioners had considered the traffic impacts that would occur in the surrounding neighborhood and whether they had actually thought about what they would like to see in that area. She stated that only one Planning Commissioner is from her area, and if the other Commissioners’ neighbors came to the meeting and expressed their concerns, she believed the Planning Commission would look at this project much differently. She stated that the community council voted this project down because of concerns that it would be detrimental to their neighborhood.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jonas commented that the Planning Commissioners are sympathetic to the issue at 900 South, but that is not the issue before the Planning Commission. The same concerns have been expressed at this meeting that were expressed in the May 16 meeting, but they do not relate to the intermodal facility. Mr. Muir noted that the Planning Commission was advised at the May 16 meeting that there is no legal mechanism to tie the two issues together. Mr. Jonas stated that the only new issue heard this evening is the WorldCom/MCI issue, and he was convinced that was a contractual issue between WorldCom/MCI and the railroad. Mr. Chambless acknowledged the concerns about the 900 South rail line but agreed with Mr. Jonas that the matter before the Planning Commission deals with a case other than the 900 South line.
Ms. McDonough stated that she also agreed, but some questions were raised which she believed should be addressed. She requested that the questions raised at this meeting be answered. Chair Daniels noted that Mr. Smedley spoke in opposition to the process and had asked for more participation and inclusion of the people on the west side of the City in the planning process. Ms. McDonough requested that when Union Pacific participates in the public process, they make people aware of every issue, not just put their own spin on the issues.
Motion for Petition 400-02-06
In regard to Petition 400-02-06, by UTA and Union Pacific requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040 to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the “M-1" zoning district, Jeff Jonas moved, based on the findings of fact and the testimony, that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to allow the text amendment for an additional conditional use to include a definition of a railroad freight terminal. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 400-02-07
In the matter of Petition 400-02-07, zoning amendment by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting a 21.979-acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South and 5600 West from a “C-G” zoning district to an “M-1" zoning district, Jeff Jonas moved that, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report and the testimony, the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council that the property be rezoned from C-G to M-1 subject to the requirements of all City departments, including approval by the Salt Lake City Airport/FFA and UDOT Prescott Muir seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold noted discrepancies between the staff report and the memorandum in defining the amount of acreage. Mr. McCandless explained that the staff report was prepared before the exact acreage was determined, and the 21.98 acres referenced in the memorandum is correct.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact - Petition 400-02-07
A. Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area, the proposed rezoning is consistent with other existing land uses in the area. The rezoning is consistent with the Airport Master Plan.
B. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
D. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the applicable overlay zoning district.
E. Public Facilities are adequate to service the proposed facility provided approval by the Salt Lake International Airport, Public Utilities Division, Streets and Sanitation Division, FFA, and UDOT is obtained.
Motion for Petition 400-02-11
In the matter of Petition 400-02-11, a request by UTA and the Union Pacific Railroad requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by downgrading 4800 West between 1300 South and 700 South from an arterial street to a local street and designating 4400 West between the same two streets as an arterial street, and to declare as surplus property an approximately 1,300-foot portion of the existing 4800 West Street to be closed as a public street, Mr. Jonas moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report and testimony given that the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows:
A. The future road connecting 4800 West to 4400 West should be added to the Major Street Plan.
B. The street classification at 4400 West between 700 South and California Avenue be changed from a local to a collector or arterial street as determined by the Transportation Division.
C. A new street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West at approximately 1100 South be added. This street will be a local from 4800 West to 5500 West and a collector from 5500 West to 5600 West.
D. The street classification of 4800 West north of California Avenue be changed from an arterial to a local street.
Mr. Jonas further moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to close and declare as surplus property the portion of 4800 West Street between 700 South and 900 South subject to:
A. Meeting all department requirements and addressing the concerns of the Public Utilities Department.
B. Union Pacific Railroad agreeing to allow future crossing of the spur line for the future road connecting 4800 West and 4400 West.
With regard to 4800 West, Mr. Jonas moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to amend the Transportation Master Plan as follows:
A. Creation of a new cul-de-sac to City standards for the new terminus of 4800 West Street.
B. Participation in construction of the road between 5500 West and 4800 West at 1100 South.
C. Provide a “No Outlet” sign on 4800 West for northbound traffic just north of 1100 South.
D. Construction and dedication of the proposed 1100 South Street between 5600 West and 5500 West and realigning the main access driveway to tie into the new street as a driveway, or Union Pacific Railroad entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future.
With regard to 5600 West, Mr. Jonas moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to amend the Transportation Master Plan as follows:
A. Proposed improvements to 5600 West must be reviewed and approved by UDOT.
B. Union Pacific Railroad and Salt Lake City shall jointly investigate improving the 700 South rail crossing at approximately 4900 West.
Tim Chambless seconded the motion.
Chair Daniels commented that he believed the State would be in a more likely position than the City to make improvements in that area. Mr. Wheelwright replied that, in meeting with UDOT officials, it was determined that the State and the City would participate in the 700 South rail crossing. He noted that the connector road between 4800 West and 4400 West is no longer being recommended because the parties have negotiated the construction between 5600 West and 4800 West at 1100 South. He suggested that the motion be modified to delete reference to the connector road between 4400 West and 4800 West and reference the collector road between 5600 West and 4800 West at 1100 South.
Mr. Jonas accepted the modification suggested by Mr. Wheelwright as an amendment to his motion. Mr. Chambless accepted the amendment in his second. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 410-528
In the matter of Petition 410-528, a request by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad for a Conditional Use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility located at approximately 800 South 5600 West in an “M-1" zoning district, Jeff Jonas moved to approve the Conditional Use based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the testimony heard subject to conditions A through K in the staff report plus Condition L, that assurances be made that all possible alternatives to diverting any emergency intermodal traffic onto the 900 South line will be used, and Condition M, that the City and Union Pacific Railroad should initiate a plan to relocate all long-haul trains away from downtown and residential areas and that Finding of Fact C in the staff report be modified to delete the words, “including the recommended improvements for the 700 South railroad grade crossing.” Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact - Case 410-528
A. Approval of the proposed facility should be conditioned upon adoption of the zoning ordinance text amendment.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided UDOT approval is obtained and Transportation and Engineering Departmental concerns are addressed.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
E. Existing utility services are adequate for the proposed facility and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources, provided departmental concerns can be addressed.
F. At this location, no significant impacts from light, noise or visual impacts are anticipated. As this facility will operate 24 hours per day, a lighting plan should be provided to and approved by the Airport.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures in the area.
H. A landscaping plan will need to be provided and approved by the Planning Director.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State and Federal codes and ordinances.
M. The 900 South Railroad issues are not related to this project.
N. Future commuter rail and light rail transit opportunities will come if these freight facilities are allowed to be relocated.
O. Mitigation of the railroad impacts to 700 South Street is necessary.
P. This is the best site for this facility.
Conditions of Approval - Case 410-528
A. Adoption of the proposed zoning text amendment to allow a rail freight terminal in the “M-1" zoning district.
B. Designing the automobile parking and rail freight container storage areas to minimize the potential “heat island” effect.
C. Minimizing the need for on-site storm water detention acceptable to the Airport Authority and Public Utilities Departments.
D. Subdivision approval including construction agreements on roadways and utilities.
E. Obtaining a letter from the Army Corps of Engineering/verification that any wetlands will not be disturbed or will be mitigated.
F. Airport approval of a lighting plan.
G. A landscaping plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
H. Meeting all applicable City, State and Federal requirements.
I. Dedication of property along 5600 West sufficient for a 150' wide right-of-way and dedication of the property frontage on 700 South to 84 feet as required by the Transportation Division. Dedication of street right-of-way for the 5500 West/1000 South Street connections, or UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future.
J. The property owners signing an Avigation Easement.
K. Implementation of the recommendations in the Transportation Impact Study.
L. Assurances be made that all possible alternatives to diverting any emergency intermodal traffic onto the 900 South line be used.
M. The City and Union Pacific Railroad should initiate a plan to relocate all long-haul trains away from downtown and residential areas.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Daniels asked Staff to confirm the date and location of the proposed Planning Commission retreat when that information is available.
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.