June 17, 1999

SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

451 South State Street, Room 126

Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Vice-Chairperson Max Smith, Andrea Barrows, Arla Funk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Gregory DeMille, Gilbert Iker and Diana Kirk were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Margaret Pahl, Jackie Gasparik, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Doug Dansie, Joel Paterson and Emil Pierson.

A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Snelgrove moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, June 3, 1999. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARING – Request by Jonathan Nebeker to amend North Cove Plats A and B, lots #103, #104 and #201 located at 1141 N. Oak Forest Drive in a Foothill "FR-1" zoning district.

Ms. Margaret Pahl 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. Geoffrey Ellis, landscape architect for the petitioner (Jonathan Nebeker), was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.

Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Motion for request by Jonathan Nebeker:

Mr. Smith moved to grant preliminary subdivision approval to the proposed plat amendment subject to compliance with departmental requirements and subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:

1. Additional combined side yard setbacks of 60 feet.

2. No exception for additional height.

3. No change to the existing rear yard buildable area line as shown on the existing plat. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)

Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-28 by Salt Lake City Public Services Department requesting Salt Lake City to consider declaring Tanner Park as surplus property to facilitate a proposed transfer of the ownership and maintenance responsibilities to Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation.

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 then stated that an issue was raised by the Sugar House Community Council. They are concerned that if the ownership of the park changed hands that somehow the desired trail connection from the Parley's Nature Park to Sugar House, as outlined in the Open Space Plan, might be compromised. Mr. Wheelwright responded that he believes that the connection from the Parley's Nature Park to Sugar House will not be effected by the land trade. It was then suggested by the Sugar House Community Council to add a condition that states that if an alignment for a trail is desired, needed or proposed through the improved portion of Tanner Park, that the County would agree to cooperate and facilitate that future trail development.

Ms. Jackie Gasparik stated that in addition to the condition stated by Mr. Wheelwright, the following conditions are to be attached to the park and held in perpetuity:

1. The entire parcel of land (approximately 9.73 acres) be transferred including the following existing improvements: picnic pavilion, lookout pavilion, jogging track, fountain, parking lots, restroom, playground, tennis courts and covered picnic and lawn areas.

2. The entire park parcel shall be maintained as a public park in perpetuity.

3. The name of the park shall remain as Tanner Park in perpetuity.

4. The County is held responsible for all future maintenance and capital improvements for the entire park site.

5. All applicable conditions of the written agreement between the City and Canyon Rim Citizens Association (CRCA) as signed by Mayor Ted Wilson and approved by the Board of City Commissioners be honored by the County.

Mr. Snelgrove stated that Condition No. 10 of the written agreement between the City and CRCA states:

10. If the City sells or otherwise disposes of all or part of this land at any date in the future, proceeds will be returned to CRCA members and heirs proportionate to the contribution of CRCA to the purchase and prorated according to a list of contributors to be submitted to the City at time of dedication of the park.

Mr. Snelgrove then stated that he feels that the Planning Commission should be sure to include something in their motion to indicate that the disposal of the land to the County will have no proceeds to return to the CRCA members.

Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that there will be a land exchange and that there is a market value being paid for this. Therefore, he feels that there should be an addendum to the agreement that states that the CRCA and the Tanner Family agree to the transaction (Salt Lake City to Salt Lake County) and that Condition No. 10 of the original agreement does not apply to this change in ownership. Mr. Mariger then stated that he is also concerned that the County may begin charging higher admission fees to City residents if Tanner Park is transferred from the City to the County.

Mr. Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, stated that Tanner Park has always been an open space park that has never charged fees for anything other than reserved use of the pavilion. He then stated that he does not envision that there will be anytime where any other fees will be charged.

Mr. Mariger then stated that he feels that a condition should be added stating that the City residents would be allowed to use the facility on terms no less favorable than to the County residents.

Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated the Executive Committee gave unanimous approval to the land transfer of 9.72 acres in Tanner Park between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County after reviewing and discussing information from the Salt Lake City Planning Department. Ms. Peters then stated that the Executive Committee was very concerned about the original donors to the park, the CRCA members, and how they might perceive the trading of the property. The concerns seem to be resolved by talking to the park's representative of the Canyon Rim

Community Association. Ms. Peters also submitted a letter, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.

Ms. Rita Lund, a CRCA member stated that she agrees with Mr. Mariger's comments that Condition No. 10 in the agreement remain and that an addendum be added that clarifies the original intent. The main concern of the CRCA members is that the land remain open space for a public park.

Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she is opposed to the land trade from the City to the County. Ms. Cromer then stated that the most important thing that the Planning Commission could do tonight is to be sure that, if the three parcels are transferred to the County, that the conditions are attached to each one of the parcels and that the action taken will serve the long term interests of this open space source.

Mr. Alex Morris, a Board of Trustees Member with the Bonneville RCD Council, stated that he supports the land trade of Tanner Park from the City to the County.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Ms. Barrows stated that she does not agree that property, especially open space, can be declared surplus. She then stated that she has spoken with two of the original CRCA members; they are comfortable with the fact that the City has acted as stewards for the past several years and they like the idea of a (open space use) reversion clause.

Motion for Petition No. 400-99-28:

Mr. Mariger moved to approve Petition No. 400-99-28 and declare 9.73 acres, that is known as Tanner Park and owned by the City, surplus subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report (with a few corrections and additions as noted) and the finalization of a mutually agreed upon interlocal agreement between the City and the County. The conditions are as follows:

2. The entire park parcel of land that is transferred to the County shall be maintained as a public park and as open space in perpetuity.

3. The name of the park shall remain as Tanner Park in perpetuity.

4. The County is held responsible for all future maintenance and capital improvements for the entire property that is transferred park site.

6. If an alignment for a trail is desired, through the property being transferred, that the County agree to facilitate with the City the alignment of the trail through the property.

7. If, for any reason, the conditions of the transference are not satisfied, or ever violated, that there be a reversion clause to the City of the property.

8. That there be an addendum to the agreement between the City and CRCA that clarifies Condition No. 10 of that agreement to reflect that the intention was if the property was ever sold for a use other than as public open space that Condition No. 10 would apply. Condition No. 10 would not apply in the event of a sale or transference for use as a public open space.

9. That City residents be allowed to use the property transferred to the County on terms no less favorable than access, use and fee structure as is made available to residents of the County.

Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-98-24 by Panther Enterprises requesting to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan and to rezone the property at the southeast corner of 1100 East and 2700 South from a Residential Multi-Family "RMF-30" zoning district to a Neighborhood Commercial "CN" 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. Dave Eldredge, President of Panther Enterprises, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.

Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the Executive Committee approved the rezoning of the property.

Mr. Roy Nydegger, a concerned citizen, stated that he is in favor of the proposed zoning change. Mr. Nydegger then stated that he is concerned about the traffic in the area.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Motion for Petition No. 400-98-24:

Mr. Smith moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan text and land use map to allow for additional Neighborhood Commercial classifications for existing street corner developments. Mr. Smith further moved to rezone the property at 1106 East 2700 South Street from a Residential "RMF-30" zoning classification to a Commercial Neighborhood "CN" zoning classification. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-350 by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County requesting a conditional use for a new senior citizen center located at 251 East 700 South in a Residential "RMF-75" 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. Dansie then stated that critics of the proposed location contend that the site should be used for housing. Some advocates for housing have proposed single family homes for this site. Due to land costs, this is not practical. Salt Lake City investigated placing senior housing on the site in conjunction with the senior center. The idea was abandoned because of parking issues and opposition to senior housing from some neighborhood activists. Mr. Dansie then stated that there have been some people who believe that the senior center should be placed on the Metropolitan Hall of Justice (MHJ) block. This block is owned by the City but is still obligated to house the County Sheriff until space is available elsewhere. The block cannot be immediately vacated and redevelopment will involve significant demolition.

Ms. Barrows asked how Salt Lake City is able to afford a senior center as opposed to senior housing. Ms. LuAnn Clark, Deputy Director of Salt Lake City's Housing & Neighborhood Development, responded by stating that the reason that a senior center is affordable is because this is a joint project with Salt Lake County. The City will own the property and the County will own the building and pay for the operations of the facility. The City has several contracts with the County for several other senior centers. Being joint partners with the County works very well because the City can afford to have senior centers due to the fact that the County pays for the majority of the construction.

Mr. Scott McBeth, Associate Director of Salt Lake County Aging Services, was present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. McBeth made two points. First, he stated that there is a need for a senior center at this location. These seniors have been attending the multi-purpose center and have been gradually pushed out of the facility by youth programs. This project is our top priority and it is very clear and distinct because this area, and the seniors that will be served by this project, are the oldest, the frailest, the poorest and the more diversified. The second point is that the County views this senior center as a neighborhood facility that is very accessible and that will serve seniors that are badly in need of the services being offered.

Ms. Barrows asked Mr. McBeth if the County has looked at the MHJ block as a possible location for a senior center. Mr. McBeth stated that the MHJ block has been considered. Ms. Clark then stated that the City's concerns about locating on the MHJ block is that plans are not set in stone on the block and money is available right now for the senior center to be built. If the senior center is not built now, due to the changes that are happening in the County and the changes that will be happening in the City when there is a new Mayor, the commitment may shift. Mr. McBeth then stated that the County feels that the proposed site is an excellent site for this neighborhood facility.

Mr. Allen Roberts, architect for the project, was present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Roberts used presentation boards to explain the architectural features of the proposed senior center.

Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

Mr. Matt Wolverton, Board Member of the Central City Community Council, and Mr. Rob Rowan, Chair of the Central City Community Council, were present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Wolverton submitted a letter, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Wolverton read: "I am speaking in favor of the senior center's request for a conditional use of the property located at 251 East 700 South. I would like to request two items be considered by the Planning Commission with respect to the senior center and the neighborhood where it will soon be operating.

Request #1: Out of respect to the concerns about criminal activity expressed by the neighbors living in close proximity to the proposed, site, I would like to request the senior center design team consider adding a security gate to the driveway entrance/exit of the parking lot.

Request #2: Due to the nature and use of the building and number of seniors who will be frequently walking to the senior center, I ask that a traffic study be done to consider traffic calming measures in and around the senior center area along 700 South and 300 East."

Ms. Betty Lepid, a concerned senior citizen, stated that she is in favor of a senior center, however, she is opposed to the proposed location because of known drug

activity in the area. She is concerned about the safety of those who will be walking to the senior center.

Ms. Lois Brown, a concerned senior citizen, stated that she is in support of a senior center, however, she feels that the center should be located on the MHJ block and that a housing development be considered for the proposed location. Ms. Brown is also concerned that the traffic problem will increase which will not be safe for those who will walk to the senior center. Ms. Brown then stated that she feels that parking will be a problem at the proposed location.

Mr. Parker Nielsen, a contiguous property owner, stated that he is not opposed to a senior center, however, he is concerned that the center will not have appropriate parking for their needs. As a result, he feels that his parking lot will be impacted by vehicles unable to find a stall at the center.

Mr. Gunnar Andersen, a concerned senior citizen, stated he is in favor of the proposed location of the senior center. Mr. Andersen stated that the he feels that the center is needed in this area and that the seniors are entitled to have a center.

Ms. Toni Carter, a concerned property owner in the area, stated she is concerned about parking. She stated that there is currently not enough parking in the area, and adding a senior center will add to the parking problem. Ms. Carter then stated that she feels that the best place for a senior center is on the MHJ block because it will provide better security and access.

Ms. Nancy Lester, an employee at the senior center, stated that she has worked at the center for eight years stated that very few of the seniors drive and there are only three employees. The proposed parking for the new center is more than adequate for the few seniors that drive. Ms. Lester stated that she feels that parking should not be an issue. Ms. Lester also feels that locating the senior center on the MHJ block would be a logistical nightmare because most of the seniors do not have cars and could not walk the two or three blocks to get to the center. Therefore, they would need to be transported everyday to the center.

Ms. Pauline Bassler, a concerned senior citizen, stated that some of the more frail seniors are scared to cross the street. Therefore, a senior center is needed at the proposed location to meet the needs of the seniors in the area and for safety reasons.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Mr. Steed stated that he believes the senior center is needed now at the proposed location and that the City should not wait for the development of the MHJ block. Mr. Steed also believes that the proposed location better meets the needs of the seniors.

Mr. Smith stated that he supports the proposed senior center and he feels that putting the service where the people are makes a lot of sense. Mr. Smith then stated that he has a problem with the fact that a major part of the block is a parking lot. He understands why the parking is being proposed, however, he feels that it is bad planning. Perhaps the parking lot could become a land bank for future housing. Mr. Smith asked if there is a possibility of looking at another parking configuration which would leave buildable land on the street front that could be developed sometime in the future.

Mr. Roberts stated that a number of parking schemes have been considered. The scheme that has been selected is the most efficient and would not allow for developable land on the street front. However, if the Planning Commission places a condition of approval that we look at other parking schemes, we will accommodate that request.

Ms. Barrows apologized to those who have submitted a letter prior to this meeting because she has not been able to read them. Mr. Barrows then asked the County if they will continue to look at putting a senior center on the MHJ block even if the proposed center is approved? Mr. McBeth stated that in two or three years the County will evaluate what needs are not being met which could result in another senior center on the MHJ block. Right now, it is uncertain.

Ms. Clark mentioned that eventually the new senior center will have access to Poplar Park. Right now there is no access because it is not safe for the seniors due to the type of people that frequent the park. Ms. Clark stated that she is hoping that having a senior center near the park will improve the quality of people at the park. Ms. Barrows then stated that she too would like to see pedestrian access to and from Poplar Park when the City feels that it is safe for the seniors.

Mr. Snelgrove noted to those in attendance that the Planning Commission has before them a conditional use case that they have to analyze and then either approve or deny based on the information. Mr. Snelgrove then spoke concerning the many requests to place the senior center on the MHJ block. He stated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to deny the proposed location and then choose another location.

Mr. Mariger stated that he is aware that there is a parking problem in this area and he feels that the parking stalls should not be reduced from what is being proposed. Mr. Mariger is in favor of reconfiguring the parking lot to allow for some development along the street front if it can be done without losing any, or very few, stalls.

Ms. Funk stated that she is in favor of leaving the parking lot as it is. She does not feel that building a parking lot precludes changing it sometime in the future. If more housing is built in the future, it is obvious that the parking lot will need to be reconfigured at that time.

Motion for Case No. 410-350:

Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-350 for a senior center at 251 East 700 South with the following conditions:

1. The Planning Director have final building design, materials and site plan approval authority.

2. The site be arranged to provide adequate space for future housing development, if possible, now and that this be left to the purview of the Planning Director. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)

3. The project satisfy all other City requirements.

Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-329 by H. Roger Boyer, representing Gateway Associates, requesting final design approval for a mixed-use planned development on approximately 26 acres located between North Temple & 200 South and 400 West & 500 West in a Gateway Mixed-use “G-MU” zoning district. The project received conceptual approval from the Planning Commission on November 19, 1998.

Mr. Mariger disclosed that his law firm represents Chimney Ridge Associates which has one of its members as the Boyer Company on a piece of property that is not associated with the Gateway project.

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. Dansie then stated that at this time buildings A1 (adjacent to 200 South), A2 (between 400 West and Rio Grande south of 100 South) and B1 (between 400 West and Rio Grande along the north side of 100 South) are before the Planning Commission for final approval. Issues such as architectural detail/materials, public amenities and public art, transportation, parking structures/surface lots and signage should be considered. The Boyer Company is also asking for approval to allow excavation of the entire site. The Planning Staff is also requesting policy direction on buildings C and D. Buildings C and D are not ready for final approval, but there are several major issues that could be resolved at this time.

Mr. Snelgrove made a few comments before excusing himself from the meeting. He stated that he visited the Boyer Company this afternoon and looked at the samples of the building materials. He was very impressed with the samples that he saw including Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS) and Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC). Mr. Snelgrove then spoke concerning signage and stated that he is not opposed to

signs in a commercial development and he also feels that they are essential to a commercial development. Mr. Snelgrove believes that there needs to be some imagination where signs are concerned to help develop an exciting place for people to visit.

Mr. Doug Thimm, the architect for the project, used presentation boards to explain the architectural features of the Gateway project.

Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

Mr. Roger Borgenicht, Vice-Chair of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), spoke as a concerned citizen. Mr. Borgenicht spoke concerning pedestrian corridors behind the Union Pacific Depot and the Rio Grande Depot. He stated that he feels that pedestrian corridors are a very critical issue because we do not know what kind of regional transit system will be built in the next 20 to 50 years. He sees that not only is there not a clearly defined pedestrian corridor that has been preserved and enhanced but, in fact, from the west side of the Boyer Development the view corridor and the pedestrian corridor have been eliminated. Mr. Borgenicht had some concerns regarding the sky bridges that are being proposed within the project. He then spoke concerning 100 South as an HOV lane and the fact that 100 South has been narrowed. He feels that the priority on 100 South ought to be that the street be wide so that busses, van pools and car pools can get to their Downtown destination with a maximum amount of efficiency. Mr. Borgenicht continued by stating that he feels that the Gateway project has some very significant flaws in terms of what the City and the spirit and letter of the motions of last year required. He recommends that the Planning Commission send the developer back to the drawing board to follow the spirit and letter of the requirements that were put on this proposal over a year ago.

Mr. David Alston, a concerned citizen, asked what is meant by Rio Grande Street being a private road with public access. Mr. Thimm stated that Rio Grande Street is being set up as a private drive, there are easements being put in place to allow both utility and public access. The idea is that the street will be very active and very open to the public. In terms of the type of mixed-use project that this is, there is a need to run numerous utilities and connections. In order to make the street a public street, it would be very difficult to achieve those goals which is why it is a private drive with public access.

Ms. Maun Alston stated that there is a zero tolerance for jaywalking in the Rio Grande neighborhood, she asked what will happen in terms of Rio Grande Street considering there may not be a traffic light? Mr. Wright stated that because Rio Grande Street is a private road jaywalking will not be enforced upon.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

The Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion regarding various issues. Following is a synopsis of their discussion.

Architectural Detail/Materials

Learning about EIFS has been an educational process for the Planning Commission as to what EIFS actually can be and will do. Ms. Funk stated that she is confident that the Boyer Company will not use EIFS if the maintenance is going to be a significant problem for them. Overall, the Planning Commission members were pleased with the EIFS material that has been selected by the Boyer Company.

Public Amenities and Public Art

The Planning Commission members were very pleased with the proposed public amenities and public art.

Bridge over 100 South

The Planning Commission members noted that they do not like the idea of the bridge having two levels.

Parking Structures/Surface Lots

The Planning Commission members spoke briefly concerning the surface lot located at the north end of the project. Ms. Barrows asked if a time frame was put on the lot, if not, can a time frame be put on it now? Ms. Funk stated that she feels that the Boyer Company will develop the lot as soon as it is economically viable because a parking lot is not going to pay for itself.

Transportation

TAB has had three meetings regarding the transportation issues. They were requested by the City Council to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the street frontages of 100 South. Mr. Paterson then gave the Planning Commissioners a brief review of the TAB meetings. TAB was generally in favor of narrowing 100 South and, as part of their discussion, they also decided to expand their review and look at site planning issues for the entire site. TAB looked at the pedestrian corridors throughout the site. While the TAB members did not unanimously reach consensus, they were generally comfortable with the pedestrian access from 500 West to 400 West. Transportation issues were thoroughly discussed and, although TAB did not make any recommendations, the members were generally in favor of the project.

Motion for Case No. 410-329:

Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-329 subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with a few additions as noted:

1. That the entire site be approved for excavation with the understanding that the developer takes the risk of a non-approval as to the other buildings. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)

2. That buildings A1, A2 and B1 be approved as designed, subject to Transportation Division approval. Approval of the buildings is also subject to the EIFS materials per the samples that The Boyer Company has provided. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)

3. That buildings B2, C1, C2, C3 and D be brought before the Planning Commission for final design approvals at a later date.

Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

Continuation of Discussion and Final Decision – Proposal by H. Roger Boyer to create a four-lot minor subdivision located between 400 West and 500 West from North Temple to 200 South in a Gateway Mixed-use “G-MU” 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. Paterson stated that on May 20, 1999 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Gateway Minor Subdivision located between North Temple and 200 South, from 400 West to 500 West. No public comment was offered and the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and tabled consideration until June 17, 1999. The Planning Commission tabled consideration to allow time to resolve some property ownership issues. McDonald Brothers Investments, who appealed the administrative minor subdivision approval, has agreed to sell their property to the Redevelopment Agency. Staff anticipated the appeal of the administrative approval of the Gateway Minor Subdivision to be withdrawn prior to tonight's meeting, however, an agreement has not been reached.

Mr. Steve Swindle, representing McDonald Brothers, stated that his client is still negotiating with the Redevelopment Agency and there is no contract to date. He objects to the inclusion of the property to the Boyer Project and he also objects to the proposed plat as it relates to his client's property. Mr. Swindle then stated that neither he or his client have been approached as to whether or not the configuration is good or bad for McDonalds Brothers Properties. Mr. Swindle continued by stating that he is hopeful that an agreement will be reached.

Mr. Mariger asked Mr. Swindle how a conditional approval of the minor subdivision injures his client or will hurt the negotiations. Mr. Swindle stated that it creates a presumption that the property should be in the project and that the ownership issue will be resolved. Mr. Swindle then stated that he feels that it does impact his client's property rights to include it in a conceptual subdivision plat in which his client still owns legal and equitable title of the property.

Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.

Ms. Valda Tarbet, of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, distributed copies of the May 13, 1999 minutes of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency meeting. At that meeting, the Board of Directors passed the necessary resolutions for the Agency to proceed with acquiring the property through the court system or by virtue of eminent domain should a mutual agreement not be reached with McDonalds Brothers Properties.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.

Motion for the Gateway Minor Subdivision:

Ms. Funk moved to approve the Gateway Minor Subdivision subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:

1. Resolution of ownership issues.

2. Satisfaction of all departmental requirements.

Mr. Steed seconded the motion.

Mr. Mariger stated that he does not feel that the Planning Commission should set a precedent for doing things that are essentially meaningless. If these people resolve their dispute then the manner does not come back to us because it has already been approved administratively. If the dispute is not resolved, then it will go through condemnation.

Mr. Smith stated that he is uncomfortable with approving the subdivision because of Mr. Swindle's feelings that by doing so it seems presumptuous. Mr. Barrows stated that she is also uncomfortable with approving the subdivision.

Ms. Funk and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows and Mr. Mariger voted "Nay". Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.

Mr. Mariger moved to delay the decision on this matter until such time the Planning Director is advised that the property issues are resolved. Mr. Mariger further moved that if the issue returns to the Planning Commission for a decision, that it be without a public hearing. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk and Mr. Mariger voted “Aye”. Mr. Steed voted "Nay". Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Discussion of proposed regulations for Modular Homes.

Mr. Wright stated that an issue has come to the City's attention about some manufactured housing units being installed into a single family subdivision. The quality of the installation was very poor, therefore, Staff is now going to develop an ordinance that addresses details concerning the installation and placement of manufactured housing.

Consider a request by Nancy Saxton for an extension of time regarding Case No. 410-316 requesting a conditional use to use the James Freeze House as a reception center located at 734 East 200 South in a Residential “RMF-45” zoning district.

Ms. Short noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.