SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Diana Kirk, Jim McRea, Ann Roberts, Aria Funk, Max Smith and Fred Fife. Richard J. Howa, Kim Young, Judi Short and Gil Iker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Doug Dansie and Margaret Pahl. Planning Director William T. Wright was excused.
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
Ms. Funk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, June 6, 1996 as presented. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. Becker suggested the minutes include reference to written comments the Planning Commission had received 'from the public, where relevant. Ms. Funk and Mr. McRea accepted the amendment to the motion and the second. Mr. McRea, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Sea Associates requesting approval for condominium conversion of 132 units, Starcrest Apartments located at 500 North Starcrest Drive in a Residential “RMF-35" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Warren Loherty, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mahendra, a resident of the existing project, asked what kinds of improvements would be made during the conversion project, particularly relative to security.
Mr. Loherty explained that the exterior would be painted, the perimeter of the property fenced, new security entrances installed, the property re-landscaped, the property around the play area and the clubhouse area redone, and additional amenities added. Mr. Loherty added that all of the individual units would be rehabilitated, that all the finishes would be redone such as carpeting, kitchen countertops, bathroom fixtures, flooring replaced, bad repairs corrected and new appliances would be installed. Mr. Loherty stated that clothes washers and dryers would not be added but the common facilities would be maintained.
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. Kirk moved to approve the request and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council, based on the staff recommendation. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted “Aye" Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Kimball Condominium Owners Association requesting approval for a condominium amendment to convert common area space into two additional condominium dwelling units in the Kimball Condominiums located at 1 50 North Main Street in a Residential IIRMF-75" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Chad Wilkinson, Vice President of the Board of Directors for the Kimball Condominiums, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were addressing the issues relative to the dumpster as requested by the Planning Staff.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea moved to approve this request and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council subject to resolution of the dumpster issues being approved y the Planning Director to ensure compliance with all zoning regulations. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted “Aye" Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-94-63 by Frank Branch requesting that Salt Lake City declare surplus city owned property at approximately 2335 North just west of Redwood Road in a “M_l" Industrial zoning district.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Frank Branch, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 400-94-63 as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted “Aye" Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-96-216 by Zions Securities Corporation requesting a conditional use for a parking lot located at 163 West North Temple in an “Urban Institutional" 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. Gary Chaston, representing Zions Securities, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations. In response to a question by the Planning Commission relative to the long-term plans for this site, Mr. Chaston responded that they did not have long-term, concrete plans for this site at this time.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith moved to approve Petition No. 410-216 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted II Aye. " Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-224 by Salt Lake City Housing Services requesting a conditional use for a planned development to construct a 36 unit multifamily housing development at approximately 322 East 300 South in a Residential Mixed Use IIRMU" zoning district.
Ms. Kirk explained that she was a member of the Community Advisory Board for the YWCA and added that she did not feel she had a conflict of interest on this matter but wanted to make sure she disclosed that connection. None of the Planning Commission members felt Ms. Kirk had a conflict of interest on this matter.
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.
Ms. LuAnn Fawcett, representing Salt Lake City Housing Services, was present for this portion of the meeting and explained that the project was to provide housing to victims of domestic violence. Ms. Fawcett explained that their request to provide their landscaping on the interior of the site had been made for security reasons. She used a briefing board to demonstrate landscaping, ingress and egress, security measures, fencing, parking and a general overview of the proposed future plans for this block.
Mr. Smith expressed concern that this design would create a void in the streetscape on 300 South with a permanent parking lot close to the street. He suggested the landscaping extend back through the depth of one parking stall to prevent such a void. Ms. Fawcett stated that parking was a major concern of the neighborhood and if any parking, even though they would have more parking than required by the ordinance, and if they lost any stalls, they might lose the support of the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilde stated that he believed the facilities on this
block may at times need more parking than the ordinance required.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Richard Bird, a property owner on 400 South, expressed concern that the building would be set back farther than any other buildings along the block.
Mr. Becker explained that this building would be located on the interior of the block, that it was not a building just set back farther than any other buildings.
Mr. Jay Barlow, a property owner in the area, asked what would happen to the Progressive Music site.
Ms. Fawcett stated that the City and the YWCA were currently negotiating with Mr. Don Penman, the owner of Progressive Music, to purchase that property but explained that they had not concluded those negotiations. Ms. Fawcett stated that the YWCA hoped to be able to use the Progressive Music property for their youth center and day care facilities.
Mr. Don Penman, property owner of the Progressive Music site, stated that he did not have any particular attachment to this particular site and added that he was involved in negotiations with the City and the YWCA on this matter.
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. Funk asked what the long-term plans were for the Progressive Music site and if the project itself could be approved at this time but final approval for the parking lot be held off until the long-term plans were final so that Mr. Smith's recommendation relative to moving the parking lot farther back toward the interior of the block could be implemented.
Ms. Fawcett stated that the YWCA was concerned that they had no place for their day care facilities since they would be demolishing their youth center building in order to meet the parking requirements for this project. Ms. Fawcett explained that the YWCA was currently housing their day care in their main building but stated that to operate better, they needed to be able to expand their day care and youth service facilities by renovating or replacing the Progressive Music building. Ms. Fawcett explained that they had applied for tax credits from the Utah Housing Finance Agency for this project and 1 5 % of their allotted moneys had to be spent by December 15, 1996 or they would lose their tax credits. Ms. Fawcett added that they couldn't afford to lose construction time, either.
Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission preferred not to make decisions relative to development proposals in a piece-meal fashion.
Ms. Kirk said it seemed to her the concern of the Planning Commission was that a children's playground or more parking might be constructed on the 300 South Street frontage rather than a building which would maintain the streetscape.
Ms. Funk stated that her concerns were not related to the proposed project but the street frontage along 300 South.
Ms. Fawcett stated that, pending successful negotiations with Mr. Penman, the YWCA would more than likely remodel the Progressive Music building, rather than demolish it and construct a new building, due to financial constraints. Ms. Fawcett said she did not have a problem with bringing this matter back to the Planning Commission to show them what they were planning for that site.
Mr. Wilde stated that the issues of the Progressive Music site were not really related to the matter before the Planning Commission at this time.
Ms. Fawcett said she would be happy to express the Planning Commission's concerns to the Board of Directors of the YWCA and added that she did not believe they would have a problem with preserving the street frontage. Ms. Kirk stated that safety was the number one concern of the YWCA and she believed they would want their playground on the interior of the block, not along the street frontage.
Ms. Funk asked if it would be possible for the Planning Commission to review the streetscape of the parking lot proposed for this project plus the use of the Progressive Music building at the time the Progressive Music site were to be developed so that changes, if deemed desirable, could be made to the parking lot for this project.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission could request the final approval be made by them rather than the Planning Director, which was typically the case.
Ms. Fawcett asked if Ms. Funk desired more landscaping on 300 South Street.
Ms. Funk responded that more landscaping might be desirable in the future and she would like the option for the Planning Commission to be able to make that determination.
Mr. Smith pointed out that the briefing board Ms. Fawcett had been using and the site plan on the wall were not the same. Mr. Smith said he was okay with the site plan posted on the wall, but not the briefing board held by Ms. Fawcett.
Motion on petition No. 410-224:
Mr. Smith moved to approve Petition No. 410-224 as proposed, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report, and that authority to approve the final site and landscaping plans be delegated to the Planning Director. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
SUBDIVISIONS
Final approval of the Dorchester Pointe Planned Development located at approximately 50 West Dorchester Drive in a Foothill Residential "F8-2" 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. Scott Turville, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission stated that he was in agreement with the staff report and requested the Planning Commission approve this request. Mr. Turville explained their rationale for developing their maximum/minimum setback requirements in order to locate the building pads in the best area for each site. Mr. Turville suggested he and the Planning Staff establish the building pad location on a lot-by-lot basis rather than making a blanket requirement for the entire subdivision since the terrain of each lot differed, prior to recording the subdivision. Mr. Turville added that all of the trail corridors at this location had been preserved. He added that he believed this plan was an improvement over their preliminary plans since the density had been decreased.
Ms. Kirk moved to grant final subdivision plat approval for the Dorchester Pointe Subdivision, Plats “A" and “B" subject to final approval of the crestline fence material and design by the Planning Director, as well as final approval delegated to the Planning Director for front and rear yard setbacks with sensitivity to the crestlines as well as the uphill slopes. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. McRea, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted “Aye" Mr. Howa, Mr. Young, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Becker said his recollection was that during the original subdivision approval and master planning process for this area, the Shoreline Trail had been designed to ring “the Northcove Subdivision" area. Mr. Becker asked if Mr. Turville's recollection was the same.
Mr. Turville responded that it was and added that in his experience, people listened commensurate with the amount of pain they were experiencing. Mr. Turville stated that that pain usually occurred following the purchase of a lot while they were living in the home.
Ms. Kirk asked if a "Notice to Purchasers" had been provided for people who purchased lots in the Northcove Subdivision.
Mr. Turville said no formal notification process had been established.
Mr. Becker asked if Mr. Turville recalled the trail discussions at the original subdivision and master planning hearings on this matter.
Mr. Turville stated that unfortunately, the people who purchased the lots, were not typically in attendance at the preliminary hearings relative to the subdivision in which they were investing.
PLANNING ISSUES
Discussion with Utah Department of Transportation concerning the 1-1 5 Corridor
Mr. Vance Hansen, representing the Utah Department of Transportation, and their team of consultants including Mr. John Leonard, Mr. Jim Horrocks and Mr. Gene Sturtznegger were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Hansen stated that the last time he had appeared before the Planning Commission concern had been raised relative to a desire to see the "whole picture" on how the 1-1 5 reconstruction project would affect the City. Handouts and detailing the reconstruction project were given to each Planning Commission
member, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Hansen and the project consultants outlined the time line for the project and their design/build schedule; the extent of disruption to commuters, cities and communities; the scope of the project; the major interchanges planned for reconstruction; special project areas; their Advanced Traffic Management System; maintenance of traffic; public involvement, and the railroad consolidation project impacts.
Mr. Becker stated that the impact to residents of affected areas, public process and public involvement were very important to the Planning Commission. Mr. Becker asked if they had established a plan on how to work with the affected community councils on this project.
Mr. Hansen responded that they had just recently hired two people to work on that issue and that they were in the process of sending out notices to all affected property owners. Mr. Becker encouraged them to notify a broader population than affected property owners since entire communities would be affected by this reconstruction project, not just abutting property owners. Mr. Hansen said they would be happy to look at that.
ISSUES ONLY INFORMAL HEARING Public comment on the proposed alignment of the Steiner segment of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail located along the east and north benches between Emigration Canyon and Ensign peak
Mr. Joel Paterson explained that this hearing was an issues only hearing and no decisions would be made at this meeting. Mr. Paterson outlined the major issues of the case, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Sam Souvall stated that he was enthusiastically in support of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Councilmember Souvall stated that this project was challenging because of its proximity to so many private properties. He stated that last fall, they had held a series of meetings in the homes of the private property owners whose properties were contiguous to various portions of the Shoreline Trail.
Councilmember Souvall stated that the issues quickly moved from the attitude of “not in my back yard" to the Shoreline Trail as a whole being an asset and its specific issues. He said he believed these property owners sensed instinctively that this trail was not just a nice amenity but essential. Councilmember Souvall said he wanted to make sure that the concerns from the meetings last fall were considered as a part of this process including, trail location, trail head access, parking, clean-up of the sites, policing and limiting motorized vehicles.
Mr. Richard Rusk, representing the Forest Service, handed out a copy of a letter of support, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Rusk said they were in support of this trail as well as the City's Open Space Master Plan. Mr. Rusk stated that organized trails could be a great help to firefighters. He handed out copies of a brochure on how to protect personal property from the impacts of wild fires.
Mr. Kevin Steiner, President of the Steiner Foundation, stated that in June 1994, the Steiner Foundation had made a gift of $35,000 to Salt Lake City for the construction of the trail between Dry Creek, which was near Popperton Park, and Ensign Peak. Mr. Steiner stated that this gift had been matched by the City and the State and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee had committed to provide significant volunteer labor for the project. He said they had made this gift because they believed a trail system would provide a significant recreational opportunity for residents. Mr. Steiner said he was familiar with trail systems all over the country and once they were in place, the trails were much used and much beloved. Mr. Steiner said he believed this trail had the potential to be better than any trail he had ever seen. He expressed concern that the trail be practical for its users and that the City not lose the advantages of its siting. Mr. Steiner said he believed some of the alternatives for the location of the trail would compromise the trail with respect to grades and making the trail more difficult to use, and would compromise the views from the trail. Mr. Steiner provided a briefing board with the three major contested areas of the proposed location for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail: 1) the Northcove area, 2) City Creek to Morris Reservoir, and 3) Terrace Hills Drive. Mr. Steiner said he did not believe the additional construction costs and compromising of the trail would be worth relocating the trail. He urged the Planning Commission to retain the original siting of the trail. Mr. Steiner said he was sympathetic to the concerns of the property owners in the area but added that he did not think their concerns outweighed the interests of the users of the trail.
Mr. Tom Rogan, Chairperson of the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail had the potential to be an incredible amenity to the State, though there were concerns that needed to be addressed. Mr. Rogan said they had established a subcommittee to study this issue, Chaired by Mr. John Schumann, which consisted mostly of residents of the area immediately adjacent to the proposed trail locations. Mr. Rogan urged the community to be patient and not trivialize the concerns of those who reside close to the trail. He stated that the farther away someone lived from the trail, the better idea the trail became. Mr. Rogan said he believed there were three major issues that needed to be closely studied: 1) alignment, 2) trailhead management, and 3) management of the trail itself. He said he believed these were issues that could be handled but added that proper funding to manage the trail was vital to the trail's success.
Mr. Rick Reese, representing the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, stated that they had the money and volunteers in place to complete the trail and urged the Planning Commission to approve the completion of the trail. Mr. Reese stated that studies of other trails throughout the country showed that residents close to trail locations always seemed to have serious concerns prior to the completion of the trail yet following its completion, everyone seemed to be in favor of the trail. Mr. Reese stated that the fears of undesirable consequences do not materialize as expected. He stated that the concerns of those who reside near the proposed locations always had the same concerns, that the trails would attract crime and unruly parties and that fire hazards would increase. Mr. Reese stated that the opposite was true; that the right kind of trail use by the right kind of people had a tendency to drive out trouble-causers who would thrive on seclusion and anonymity. Mr. Reese said he believed another major concern was that on-street parking would increase. Mr. Reese stated that amenities in any part of the City would cause an increase in parking but added that he did not believe the problem would be an unmanageable problem. He said he believed the multiple points of access would spread out the parking. Mr. Reese suggested parking be managed by not allowing parking during night time hours, posting “No Parking" signs at turn-around areas, and that off-street parking should be allowed where feasible. Mr. Reese stated that they were puzzled by the negative reaction of one of the developers of property behind Terrace Hills Drive since the proposed trail location was 500-600 feet behind and 50-200 vertical feel higher than his development. Mr. Reese stated that this particular development was not even visible from at least 90% of the proposed trail location. Mr. Reese said they had also been informed a property owner near Morris Reservoir was also opposed to the proposed trail location along the ditch in the area and yet his property was even farther away from the trail location than the development on Terrace Hills Drive. Mr. Reese said he did not understand how someone could object to a trail at least 500-600 feet away from their property, especially since many of the property owners in the foothill areas had views into nearly every back yard in this community. Mr. Reese stated that as urban dwellers, we inescapably shared space in the same community. Mr. Reese stated that some of the most successful trails in the country were located within a few yards of adjacent homes with no ill effects or negative impacts. He said he believed it was important to recognize that people who chose to live next to large public parks and public open space enjoyed the benefits of those areas which were supported by public taxes and also had the responsibility to make compromises that would enable the public taxpayers to reap the benefits of the open space land. Mr. Reese said he did not believe the impacts from an occasional person who might look down into the yards of the nearby residents outweighed the benefit of the trail system to the public as a whole.
Mr. Terry Green, representing the Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, handed out a copy of a statement supporting the continuance of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail from Emigration to Ensign Peak, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Green stated that they had conducted a state-wide survey to determine which types of outdoor recreation and the needed facilities to support that recreation the citizens of the State wanted to see developed. He stated that walking, jogging and mountain biking were the most popular outdoor sports and the requests for public space to facilitate these sports were strong. Mr. Green stated that their division had a financial interest in this matter and currently had a $70,000 grant for the development of this section of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, as well as moneys for other sections of this trail throughout the State as well. He stated that according to studies done in the state of Colorado, trails near residential properties enhanced their value and those adjacent to public trails did not have cause for greater concern relative to safety issues.
Mr. Ted Wilson, a resident of the area, stated that he lived very close to a trail system and that the problems in his neighborhood were created by beer parties, not trail users. He stated that in the beginning, he had been concerned that the trails would create problems for the abutting property owners but had discovered that was not the case. Mr. Wilson stated that the trails near his property were an enhancement, not a problem. He stated that the kind of people on who utilized the trails were not the kind who created problems. He said he believed the trail would come to be beloved by the residents who lived adjacent to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and he did not believe their fears would be realized. Mr. Wilson stated that he supported the proposed location for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. He suggested the City and the trail committee work closely with the abutting property owners to allay their fears and consider their concerns.
Mr. Jim Byrne, Chairperson of the Foothill/Sunnyside Community Council, stated that he strongly supported the proposed alignment of the trail but added that it could probably be adjusted slightly in a few areas. He suggested, with cooperation from the Public Utility Board, that the trail could be moved off of the bench and into City Creek Canyon. Mr. Byrne said that path would be far enough away from the road to be away from the bicycle traffic on the road. He said they felt the construction portion of the trail above Terrace Hills Drive was fine but the portion to the west that had not yet been constructed could be moved a few feet up the hill to resolve some of the problems in that area. He stated that the intent near Mr. Mackey's property had always been to place the trail behind the knoll. He stated that the ditch had always been an issue relative to trail location and was a marvelous portion of the trail. Mr. Byrne said they would be willing to work with the abutting property owners to address their concerns and see where some of these adjustments could be made.
Mr. John Schumann, Chairperson of the Upper Avenues Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, stated the residents on Northmont Way were very concerned about the potential fire hazard the trail might create. Mr. Schumann stated that a 'fire marshall had been up to the proposed site of the trail behind the homes on Northmont Way and had informed them that in spite of an eight-foot wide trail, if a fire started there, those abutting property owners would lose their homes. Mr. Schumann stated that in the area above Terrace Hills Drive, the proposed location for the trail was in a ditch provided for water overflow and explained that it had flooded the homes in that area twice. He suggested the trail be moved to the north of this ditch so the integrity of the ditch could remain in place. Mr. Schumann stated that they had counted up to 45 cars on their street at a time and requested there be some solution to this parking problem since this street was not wide enough to handle traffic and that many parked cars. Mr. Schumann stated that the Committee was not opposed to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail but they were concerned about the proposed alignment. He stated that the trail they had walked several days ago, with the Planning Staff, would be acceptable to them. He requested the Planning Commission seriously consider this matter.
Ms. Karen Bailey, a concerned citizen, stated that she lived along the Jordan River Parkway Trail, and that when she had first moved into the area she had shared many of the concerns the abutting property owners were expressing relative to this trail but added that after living near the trail, she no longer had those concerns. Ms. Bailey stated that she enjoyed living close to the trail in her area and believed it would benefit the community.
Ms. Vicki Colton, a resident of the area, stated that she supported the proposed trail alignment but also supported mitigating the impacts to abutting property owners as well. Ms. Colton stated that she felt the City had lost a lot in terms of loss of quality of life and this trail would make the City an attractive place to live.
Mr. Steve Pace, a resident of the area, stated that he was a heavy trail user who lived in the Avenues area and expressed concern for the loss of the foothills to development. Mr. Pace stated that during the past twenty years the City had been ineffective at preventing transients from camping out in the foothills, motorcycles and four-wheel drive vehicles from accessing the foothills, and that no serious protection efforts had been taken to preserve the wildlife in the foothills.
Ms. Beth Bowman, a concerned citizen, stated that the proposed alignment followed a natural geologic feature which would allow use by people of all stages of physical fitness. Ms. Bowman stated that the concerns expressed had more to do with urban living in general than trail use and she could see only benefits from the proposed trail alignment. She stated that completion of this portion of the trail was vital.
Mr. John Bowman, a resident of the area, stated that the proposed trail alignment was hundreds of feet away from the nearest home, on par with the length of a football field. Mr. Bowman stated that public streets and neighboring houses were much closer to the homes in this area than the trails and would cause much more disruption of privacy than activities on the trails. He added that the proposed alignment of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail was not in the backyards of the residents of the area unless they considered these public lands to be their personal property. Mr. Bowman stated that the City should not give the few affected home owners a monopoly in determining use of and access to the public lands next to their homes.
Ms. Heidi Hadley, a concerned citizen, stated that she supported the Bonneville Shoreline Trail as an active member of the Salt Lake City Track Club. Ms. Hadley stated that the public needed public areas in which to recreate. She stated that inadequate areas to recreate created a great many societal ills, including economic losses if people would not move to any area because of a lack of recreational areas.
Mr. John Veranth, a concerned citizen, stated that the heavy attendance at this meeting demonstrated the active involvement of the public in the trails issues. Mr. Veranth said he believed proximity to the trails was an asset for homeowners, not a deterrent.
Mr. Rick Steiner, a concerned citizen, stated that he was not connected to the Steiner Foundation, that his comments were personal. Mr. Rick Steiner stated that the bottom line of this debate was that public access to public lands through public streets should not be denied. He stated that compromises might need to be made but irreconcilable differences must be decided with public, not private, interests in mind. He added that in return for taxpayer financed fire, police, street maintenance and other City services, these residents must receive the taxpayers as well. Mr. Rick Steiner stated that every neighborhood had to deal with parking problems but that was a compromise to be made in return for services and amenities.
Mr. Randy Long, a concerned citizen, stated that he believed this trail would help preserve the foothill wilderness and preserving the wilderness was important.
Mr. Michael Budig, a concerned citizen, stated that he supported the comments made by those speaking in support of this trail and its proposed alignment. Mr. Budig stated that these lands were public lands and the public interest should come in front of private interest if there was a conflict. He said construction of the trail should be expedited as quickly as possible.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that consideration of the public opinion was essential to the process of determining public interest. Ms. Cromer stated she believed the trail would be an amenity to the City. She stated that every change in grade would eliminate users and requested the Planning Commission consider those grade changes when determining the trail locations. Ms. Cromer suggested the lot originally designated as the access route near the Morris Reservoir, be sold as a building lot and the trail be located at the site of the utilities and the stub street. She said relocating that access would foreclose any potential subdivision development along the meadow area and put an end to the great lusting by developers for that portion of flat land.
Ms. Carol Withrow, a resident on Northmont Way, urged the Planning Commission to accept one of the alternative alignments rather than the proposed alignment behind Northmont Way. Ms. Withrow stated that she was an environmentalist and had long been an advocate of this trail but added that she would like to see the trail realigned. She stated that such realignment would create a more pleasant hike of unspoiled hills instead of back yards.
Mr. Juan Arce Laretta, a concerned citizen, stated that each year more and more people became involved in trail issues. Mr. Laretta stated that this trail could be a role model for other communities.
Mr. William Gibbs, a resident of the area, expressed great concern relative to fire hazards for the residents who lived along the proposed trail alignments. Mr. Gibbs stated that grass fires were very dangerous and spread very rapidly. He stated that the number one concern about this trail should not be how many picture points it provided, but preservation of the lives and property along the trail alignment.
Mr. David Susong, a concerned citizen, stated that evidence in other communities proved that property values increased along trail alignments by about 20%. Mr. Susong stated that he was in support of the trail alignment as proposed. He suggested the property owners in the area take responsibility for their own safety relative to fire hazards and pick up one of the brochures left by Mr. Richard Rusk earlier in the meeting. He stated that fire hazards existed to these residents with or without the trail system.
Ms. Daryl Barrett, a concerned citizen, stated that they had purchased a home across the street from a busy park. Ms. Barrett stated that she loved living near such an amenity of open space and activity. She stated that being part of the public was important.
Ms. Linda Oswald, a concerned citizen, stated that she lived by a busy park and considered it an extension of her property. She stated that even though there were more cars on the street than would be there if the park were not there, they did not bother her. She explained that the amenity of the park was worth what it cost them.
Mr. Fred Oswald, a concerned citizen, stated that he was in favor of the immediate completion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail as well as multiple access points to the trail. Mr. Oswald stated that property owners who lived next to open space and reaped the benefits of that open space must also live with some of the inconveniences created by that open space. He stated that the completion of the Steiner portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail would alleviate many of the concerns relative to "fire, crime and vandalism for the residents of this area. He added that it was not acceptable to require trail users to park great distances from the trailheads.
Mr. Larry Holmstrom, a concerned citizen, stated that he had been involved in the planning processes for this trail. Mr. Holmstrom stated that the original master plan for the trail was not the current alignment, it was right in the back yards of most of the people who lived at the top of the foothills. Mr. Holmstrom said that was a totally unacceptable alignment and not what was being proposed. He said he did believe trails should provide privacy for both the abutting property owners and the users of the trails. He said he believed the route proposed by Mr. Jim Byrne that went down City Creek should be promoted. Mr. Holmstrom stated that some riparian repair needed to be made in the City Creek Canyon route to areas eroded from flooding, but added that there were County funds which could be made available to make these repairs. Mr. Holmstrom reminded everyone that the name of this portion of the trail was the Steiner Centennial portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and added that this was the Centennial year and the trail should be completed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Kirk Thomas, a concerned citizen, stated that he supported access to public lands and this trail was an asset to the City. He urged the Planning Commission support this trail as quickly as possible in its original alignment.
Mr. Rob McLeod, a concerned citizen, stated that he was a supporter of the trail. Mr. McLeod stated that outdoor recreational areas were critical to the physical health and well being of the residents of this valley. He stated that easy access to the trail was also critical and added that the trail should be constructed as quickly as possible. Mr. McLeod stated that this problem was only as critical as everyone chose to make it, that the technical help was available to solve the difficult issues relative to the construction of the trail. He said he believed balance between all of the concerns involved was possible.
Mr. William Nichols, a concerned citizen, stated that he had been involved in this matter for some time and added that the standards used to design this trail were of the highest quality. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed alignment of this trail as quickly as possible.
Mr. Carlton DeTar, a resident of the area, stated that he lived within a block to two of different trail heads and added that he strongly supported this trail. Mr. DeTar said he preferred the proposed alignment over any of the alternatives.
Mr. Lincoln Hobbs, a concerned citizen, stated that he lived adjacent to Popperton Park which had caused him great concern at -first, though it no longer caused that concern. Mr. Hobbs stated that he had constructed a fence with a gate at the rear of his property to access the trail behind his property and he was much more concerned now with locking the front door of his house than the gate near the trail. He stated that the trail was only 30 feet away from his property and he had never experienced any problems with that proximity or any of the trail users. Mr. Hobbs stated that as trail usage increased, problems decreased. He suggested the trail be built as quickly as possible.
Mr. Phil Carroll, a concerned citizen, said he supported the trail but suggested impacts on abutting residents be minimized. Mr. Carroll stated that situations where trail users could look right down into an abutting property owners' yard should be avoided since there was plenty of room to accommodate the trail. He suggested that in the separation of City Creek and the trail, a bridge be considered that would separate those two activities. Mr. Carroll said he believed locating the trail as far back up into the canyon as possible would be a real asset to accessing the canyon from two different locations. Mr. Carroll stated that he had checked into the costs involved with the bridge construction, that it was reasonable, and as soon as he had more information, he would pass it on to the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ron Smith, a resident of the area, stated that he did not believe anyone was against the construction of the trail, but rather, some residents merely had concerns relative to the safety and security of their property. Mr. Smith stated that people had been hiking these trails for years. He stated that the residents of the area were not allowed to cut back the oak in the area yet the Forest Service was cutting road sized trails through the oak. He expressed concern that catalytic converters of some of the motorized vehicles that were traversing the area would cause grass fires, endangering the lives of the residents in the area.
Mr. Bruce Alder, representing the Board of Trustees of the Arcadia/Benchmark Neighborhood Council. Mr. Alder stated that when they were constructing the trails through their neighborhood, the same questions and concerns had been raised but explained that today, there was no opposition to the trails in their neighborhood. Mr. Alder stated that he was also representing the Parleys crossing Project Steering Committee as their Co-Chair and stated that this project was important because of the access it would provide to open space.
Mr. Domenick Treschitta, representing the Northcove Homeowners Association, stated that Mr. Kevin Steiner had stated that the trail passed 700 feet or more behind the Northcove property which was not accurate. Mr. Treschitta stated that the trail was immediately adjacent to Northcove property. He stated that they were in favor of the trail but stated that Northcove had different problems than many of the other residential properties in proximity to the trail. Mr. Treschitta explained that their subdivision was a gated community but from the trail, that was not evident and many trail users wandered down through their subdivision until they reached the locked gate. He said their gatekeepers had received threats from hikers; that they had had problems with hikers camping on the picnic lawns and going into private yards and refusing to leave. He explained that upon calling the police, they had been informed that unless violence occurred, they would not show up for at least three hours since they had more important issues to deal with. Mr. Treschitta stated that they were in favor of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail but to claim there were not going to be any problems caused by the trail would not be realistic. He stated that the Northcove residents were willing to contribute funds to help relocate the trail to the back of the rise, directly behind the proposed location, which would minimize the impacts to the Northcove residents.
Mr. Greg Thorpe, also representing the Northcove Homeowners Association, stated that they were concerned with the back side of City Creek Peak and Hogs Back Peak. Mr. Thorpe stated that while they might be 600 feet away from the homes in the area, they were also at a 50% slope above the homes in the area. He suggested safety issues needed to be taken into account on slopes that steep. Mr. Thorpe stated that trying to cut the trail on those 50% slopes would also be very difficult, particularly in trying to make the trail wide enough for bike and pedestrian safety. Mr. Thorpe explained that if they proceeded about another half mile up the canyon, there was a great view of Grand View Peak and Black Mountain and users could then traverse up to the top of City Creek Peak and view the city of Farmington. He suggested that alternative trail location provided less trail that would have to be cut since the roads were already cut to the radio towers, it would be less costly to construct, would provide less problems with land owners and abutting home owners, and it was a safer location and more scenic.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission had spent many hours on the Ensign Downs Development Master Plan which had included the approval of the Northcove Subdivision, the trail alignments and allowing the Northcove Subdivision to be a gated community. Mr. Becker explained that the trade-off for allowing that community to be a private, gated community without trail access up through the middle of the subdivision as it used to exist, had been to reroute the trail to the rear of the subdivision. Mr. Becker asked if they had considered reopening their subdivision to pedestrian and bicycle traffic as a trade-off. Mr. Thorpe said they had polled the homeowners on that position and none of them had wanted to reopen the subdivision. Mr. Thorpe said people had bought into that development because of the rights that had been granted to that subdivision by the City to restrict that area to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Thorpe added that when the hikers came down through the Northcove Subdivision, they were violating those rights the City had granted to the Northcove Subdivision. Mr. Thorpe said they were not proposing the trail be stopped, but rather, to relocate the trail to the back of the rise instead of in front of the rise as currently proposed, and stated again that they were willing to pay the costs for that relocation. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission had very carefully examined the trail locations as the time of the master plan approval for this area and had felt it was very important to maintain trail access around the Hogs Back so that the public could continue to benefit from the views the trail provided as it wrapped around the Hogs Back and on up around Ensign Peak. Mr. Becker said it had been very important to the Planning Commission to maintain that full set of trail corridors. Mr. Becker stated that the developer of the Northcove Subdivision had met earlier during this meeting with the Planning Commission on another matter and had stated that purchasers had been made aware of the trail location as they purchased lots in this subdivision. Mr. Becker stated, that as a user of the trail, as you came down from the water tanks, it was not clear that you could traverse across the Hogs Back and you then ended up on the streets of the Northcove Subdivision. Mr. Becker added that if the trail system was completed and signed properly the problem with people erroneously entering the Northcove area would more than likely stop. Mr. Thorpe expressed concern relative to safety issues for the users and the home owners below. Mr. Thorpe asked what would happen as a result of sliding rocks or rocks thrown by trail users. Mr. Becker reiterated that the trail location around the Northcove Subdivision had been a very important consideration during the master planning process for this area and added that he believed there would be a great deal of resistance from the City in abandoning that portion of the trail. Mr. Becker suggested a more likely scenario would be to try to work out mitigation through proper maintenance and construction of the trail, possibly through revegetation or moving the trail system back down onto the street system. Mr. Becker stated that eliminating the access around the Hogs Back was probably not something the City would view favorably. Mr. Thorpe said he did not think their proposal eliminated access around the Hogs Back, but rather, it would relocate it around the top of the Hogs Back.
Mr. Treschitta said they believed the trail could be relocated and still provide everything the Planning Commission had deemed important during the master planning process and also protect the interests of the residents of the Northcove Subdivision. Mr. Treschitta said their proposal offered more viewpoints than the proposed trail location and reminded the Planning Commission that they would be willing to provide the funding for that relocation.
Mr. Thorpe stated that their proposal resulted in less trail that would have to be constructed.
Mr. Larry Williamson, a resident of the area, stated that his concerns related to the maintenance of the trail following its construction. He stated that the ditch near the water tank should not be used for the trail in the event the water tank flooded; that it would be easier to develop the trail up behind the water tank and would provide a better view. Mr. Williamson said he believed distance between homes and the trail would be a great asset and a protection from 'fire hazards. He said he believed it would be relatively easy to change the alignment of the trail. He said his major concerns were maintenance and security after the trails were constructed. Mr. Williamson asked who would be providing police protection, trail maintenance, sanitation facilities, fire protection and signage. He said he did not see any commitment relative to these issues which would have a great impact on the nearby residents and recommended the trails be located as far away from homes as possible.
Mr. Craig Jacobs, a resident of the area, stated that the right to privacy and the right to own property were more important issues than views. Mr. Jacobs stated that the proposed alignment encouraged people to violate his rights to own property and to remain private. He stated that a sign at the rear of the Northcove Subdivision informed people that they “may" have to go back out the way they came in which did not adequately handle the situation. He suggested they either close the trail down at this point or continue it beyond this point. Mr. Jacobs said he understood the reason the trail did not continue had to do with easements and the need to purchase private property and added that the trail should be closed down until these issues were resolved because his American rights were being violated. He stated that he was not opposed to the trail but said that when a trail dead-ended at his property, that matter needed to be examined very carefully and resolved. He expressed surprise that this matter could be taken to this point without first obtaining the necessary rights to the needed property and working with the abutting property owners.
Mr. Bill Binger, a resident of the area, urged the Planning Commission to carefully consider the comments made earlier by Mr. Kevin Steiner when all of the uproar of the other comments ended. Mr. Binger said he believed this trail would have a huge positive impact on the community as a whole.
Mr. Ed Mawod, a concerned citizen, stated that h had lived in the upper Avenues for 26 years and walked the trails in this area nearly every day. He stated that when people said the trail should be approved as proposed, they did not have any idea what they were talking about. Mr. Mawod stated that the area by the water tank above Terrace Hills Drive going north into Morris Park was impossible to traverse during the winter months due to drifts of snow up to four feet high. Mr. Mawod stated that it was possible, however, to traverse the ridges during the winter months. Mr. Mawod said the proposed alignment sounded wonderful in theory but did not work in reality. Mr. Mawod expressed concern that the City continually opened up the upper Avenues area for recreational purposes and yet they kept restricting the public grounds like Memory Grove and City Creek Canyon. Mr. Mawod said he was in favor of the trail but added that it should be constructed where it provided the greatest amount of safety for trail users.
Mr. Robert Hermanns, a resident of the Northcove area, stated that he agreed with the Comments made by Mr. Treschitta, Mr. Thorpe and Mr. Gilbert and suggested the trail alignment be altered to protect the rights of the residents of this development which had been granted to them by the City. Mr. Hermanns stated that signage on the trail was essential to keep trail users out of the Northcove development. He expressed concern for disturbance of wildlife habitats and noise pollution due to the contours of the cove and the echoes made by noise. Mr. John Lindblum, a concerned citizen, stated that he wanted to see as much trail access preserved as possible.
Ms. Debbie Clark, a concerned citizen, stated that she was a real estate agent and she echoed everything that had been said about the Northcove Subdivision. Ms. Clark stated that she was not against the trail but added that people who purchased expensive lots did not want the public peering into their back windows. Ms. Clark expressed concern about negative impacts the trail would have on nearby residential developments relative to fire hazards and property values. She said it was easy for someone who did not have to live adjacent to a trail to see it as a positive element and urged the Planning Commission to approve the trail alignment farther up the hill.
Mr. Becker asked Ms. Clark if she notified potential purchasers of trail locations when she showed properties to them that were in proximity to a trail.
Ms. Clark responded that usually when she showed people such properties there were people using the trails and it was obvious where the trails were located. She added that she had never come across trails users in the back yards of the properties she was showing and said she was concerned about that occurring in this case. Ms. Clark said she was not opposed to the trail but it needed to be designed to address everyone's concerns.
Mr. Becker expressed concern that none of the property owners in the Northcove development seemed to be aware of the trail behind their subdivision even though it had appeared on every map the Planning Commission had dealt with during the lengthy master planning process for that subdivision. He stated that the real estate industry could help alert potential buyers of such elements.
Ms. Kay Cash, a resident of the Northcove Subdivision, stated that until last summer, she had not been aware of the trail system behind their subdivision. Ms. Cash stated that if they had been aware of the proposed trail alignment, they would have approached the City before work had been started on the construction process. Ms. Cash expressed concern at the statements made by Mr. Becker at how much work the Planning Commission and the City had put into the trail alignment process and asked if that meant they would not be willing to look at this issue again.
Mr. Becker said his statements did not mean they would not look at the Northcove issues again; that they obviously were looking at it during this hearing process. Mr. Becker added, however, that he wanted to make sure everyone understood how much effort had already gone into the trail alignment process with the approval of the Northcove Subdivision and the entire Ensign Downs Master Plan.
Ms. Cash queried each of the Northcove residents, including the Hermanns, the Treschittas, the Jacobs and the Thorpes, whether they had been notified of the trail alignment. Each party responded in the negative. Ms. Cash requested the Planning Commission be up 'front with them and let them know if negotiation on the trail location was possible so they did not waste their time and energy working out what they hoped would be a better solution on the trail alignment issue.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission would be working on the trail alignment over the next two months and it had not been decided. Mr. Becker stated that even though the Planning Commission had spent a great deal of time establishing the trail corridors, it did not mean they would not reconsider possible alternatives. Mr. Becker stated that the City had given up a lot to try to preserve those trail corridors.
Ms. Kirk stated that the Planning Commission had asked the developer of the Northcove Subdivision earlier in this meeting to stay for this portion of the meeting but his schedule had not allowed that. Ms. Kirk stated that his recollections relative to the trail "ringing" the Northcove Subdivision rather than going up through the subdivision had agreed with the recollections of the Planning Commission members.
Ms. Cash asked if the City would have mandated that that information be placed in their CC&R's.
Mr. Becker stated that that issue had been talked about but pointed out that since the trail was located on public land, it could not be placed on the subdivision plats.
Ms. Cash stated that the fact that the trail ended at their subdivision and people then filtered through their subdivision was something that definitely needed to be addressed.
Ms. Joanna Taylor, a concerned citizen, stated that she applauded the efforts expended by those involved in the planning process for this trail, in the names of her grandchildren and the future users of the trail systems.
Ms. Barbara Gibbs, a resident of the area, stated that her basement had been flooded prior to the construction of the ditch. She expressed concern that if the ditch were compromised, that type of flooding could occur again. Ms. Gibbs requested the integrity of the ditch be maintained. Ms. Gibbs stated that parking in the area was a problem and there had been many times they had not been able to get into their own driveway on Saturday mornings because of people parking in front of it.
Mr. I. J. Wagner, a resident of the area, stated that if the City did not have the funds to police the trail, they should not build it. Mr. Wagner stated that anyone caught smoking on the trail should be heavily fined. He stated that there weren't enough jails in which to house criminals; that the City did not have enough police officers or firefighters to control people and yet they wanted to build something they could not control.
Ms. Carolyn Hermansen, a resident of the area, stated that they wanted to know how to get involved in this matter and stated that she did not understand why the homeowners in the area had not been included in the process since they would be impacted by the decisions made on this matter. Ms. Hermansen said she wanted to make sure the Planning Commission understood that inviting the developer and inviting the homeowners were different issues and it was the homeowners who were affected by these things, not the developer. Mr. Becker pointed out that during the master planning process, there had been no homeowners to deal since the subdivision had not been created.
Mr. Ned Creed, a concerned citizen, stated that people needed to encourage their children to play outside and not watch so much television, but added that those children would need some place to recreate. He stated that this trail was very important.
Mr. John Veranth stated that he had attended the original hearings on the master planning for this area several years ago and could verify how intensely the trail issues had been studied. Mr. Veranth stated that there was great difference between an urban trail, accessible to all kinds of people, and the upper trail proposed by the Northcove residents going up over the top of the mountain. He stated that the alignment proposed by the Northcove residents was a trail for strong, young hikers, not the average citizen. Mr. Veranth stated that the identification of the trail route predated the Northcove Subdivision and the purchase of the lots in the Northcove Subdivision. Mr. Veranth stated that during the development stage of a subdivision, the developers of foothill projects often claimed the City interfered with their rights to develop as many lots as possible, yet once those lots were sold, the property owners often claimed that because of slopes and sliding rocks, their property might not be safe. Mr. Veranth said that demonstrated the complexity of the kinds of issues the Planning Commission had to deal with during the approval process. He addressed the claims of right to privacy many people had made and stated that they had known when they purchased their lots they were adjacent to public property and though their right to privacy did extend to the boundary of their own land it did not include exclusive use of the adjacent public land. Mr. Veranth stated that the trail alignment had involved a compromise between the developer and the public; that the developer had been given approval for the gated community and the public had been given the trail location at the rear of the Northcove Subdivision rather than right through the middle of its streets.Mr. Larry Holmstrom stated that the higher trail location proposed by the Northcove residents had a huge safety problem because of a 50 foot cliff that people could fall off. Mr. Holmstrom stated that the climb out of City Creek Canyon was also very steep. He stated that the proposed alignment was already a compromise. He suggested until the rights-of-way could be obtained to continue the trail beyond the Northcove Subdivision, that portion of the trail should be shut down. He said that would protect the Northcove residents and he believed once the trail was completed, they would not experience the problems they were now experiencing.
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. Becker reminded everyone that this was an issues only hearing and no decision would be made at this time. He explained that this matter would come back to the Planning Commission for their decision at one of the meetings in August, 1996. There were cards filled out by 17 people in support of the proposed trail alignment who had wanted to address the Planning Commission but had not been able to stay the full length of the meeting. There were 60 cards filled out by people who were in support of the trail alignment but did not wish to speak; one card filled out by someone who wanted to address the Planning Commission but did not check either the “support" or "opposition" box on the card; ten cards were filled out by people who did not want to speak but who listed their concerns on the speaker cards but did not check either the “support" or the "opposition" box on the card; three cards filled out in opposition to the trail by people who did not wish to speak; and nine cards filled out by people who said they did not wish to speak and did not check either the “support" or ”opposition" box on the card. Speaker cards were also filled out by all those who spoke at the hearing. All cards will be filed with the case file on this matter. Many written comments were also provided to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Mr. Becker stated that between now and that August meeting, there were many issues that needed to be carefully studied and resolved including, geographic issues, the best alignment for the trail, the public input and a possible subcommittee to study the issues involved in this matter.
Mr. Wilde stated that the three "hottest" geographic areas were probably the Terrace Hills area, the Morris Reservoir/18th Avenue access point and the Northcove area.
Mr. Becker said there was also the area that dropped down into City Creek Canyon.
Mr. Wilde stated that a meeting could be arranged with each of the neighborhood groups of the four geographic areas mentioned above to work on the issues involved. Mr. Wilde stated that the trail location had been negotiated through the subdivision process. Mr. Wilde stated that the trail dead-ending at the Northcove Subdivision was definitely a problem and the trail needed to be completed. Mr. Wilde requested the Planning Commission give the Planning Staff some direction on how they wanted this matter to proceed. Mr. Wilde suggested the Planning Staff involve the Police Department and the Watershed and other agencies that could contribute to the problem solving for this issue.
Mr. Becker suggested a neighborhood representative be chosen from the various geographical areas to work with the City and the trail organizers during the next two months. Mr. Becker pointed out that due to the time constraints involved, this matter would have to be moved along quickly.
Mr. Wilde stated that the broader issues of the trail construction could be handled by the Planning Staff and subcommittees could be established to deal with each of the geographical areas and their individual issues. Mr. Wilde stated that the staff could prepare a schedule of items needed to be studied and present it to the Planning Commission at their next meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11 :00 p.m.