SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Diana Kirk, Kimball Young, Judi Short, Aria Funk, Gilbert Iker, Fred Fife and Max Smith. Ralph Becker, Richard Howa, Jim McRea and Ann Roberts were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Ray McCandless, Doug Dansie, Cheri Coffey, Alex Beseris, Lisa Milter and Gary Christensen.
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 Ms. Kirk who acted as Chair during Mr. Becker's absence. 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, March 7, 1996 as presented. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Funk, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith voted “Aye” Mr. Becker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Ms. Roberts were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Historical Landmark Case No. 005-96 by Patrick Mundt, requesting the nomination of the building at 511 South 900 East to be included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Lisa Miller 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. Patrick Mundt, the applicant, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff report and staff recommendation. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Ms. Kirk 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.
Mr. Iker moved to approve Historical Landmark Case No. 005-96 as presented by the staff. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Funk, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith voted “Aye” Mr. Becker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Ms. Roberts were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - petition No. 410-204 by SLC Cellular Telephone Company (AT&T Wireless Services) requesting a conditional use for a 60 foot high cellular telecommunications tower at 61 East 700 South in a Downtown Support "0-2" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. Funk asked if the Planning Commission could request the size of the monopole be constructed to the smallest possible specifications.
Mr. Wilde explained that the Planning Commission could require that it be as small as possible while still allowing it the size necessary to be able to function properly and meet engineering requirements.
Mr. Kim Garrick, representing AT&T Wireless Services, stated that the reason they had chosen this particular site was due to the existing utility lines in the area. He stated that they had chosen this site prior to the rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance when it had been zoned to allow this type of use. Mr. Garrick said they were in agreement with the staff report and would agree to constructing as small a monopole as possible that would still be able to function properly. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Fife asked how close the next 60 foot high monopole was located to this site.
Mr. Garrick said it was located at about 1300 South and 500 West and added that this site was needed for capacity. Mr. Fife asked if they anticipated needing additional 60 foot high monopoles in this area in the future. Mr. Garrick responded that they did not anticipate that need within the next three years.
Ms. Kirk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jerry Bergosh, Chair of the East Bench Community Council and a member of the subcommittee on this matter, stated that he believed this monopole would be a good indicator of what monopoles would look like. Mr. Bergosh stated that the subcommittee had been concerned about what they would look like and how they would affect the community around them. He stated that he was in support of this request but with the reservation that close attention needed to be paid to future requests for monopoles and their impacts to the surrounding communities:
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Kirk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Short said she shared the concerns raised by Mr. Bergosh. Ms. Short moved to approve Petition No. 410-204, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the added caution that these kinds of issues be closely monitored. Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Funk, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife and Mr. Smith voted U Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, and Ms. Roberts were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote.The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -- petition No. 410-208 by SLC Cellular Telephone Company (AT&T Wireless Services) requesting a conditional use for a 60 foot high cellular telecommunications tower at 1225 South Redwood Road in Commercial Corridor UCC" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. Kim Garrick, representing AT&T Wireless Services, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff report and the conditions in it. Mr. Garrick used a briefing board to demonstrate the areas of the City where they lacked adequate coverage and explained how this monopole would help remedy that problem.
Mr. Smith asked how many other wireless companies there were in the area and asked if they shared a pole, how many feet had to be added to the pole to make that accommodation. Mr. Garrick explained that up until now there had been two carriers but with the new franchise auctions there was a total of four now and the possibility that there could be more in the future. He stated that co-location might need to be looked at and added that though it was difficult, they were open to that.
Mr. Garrick stated that approximately 20 feet of separation was needed when two companies co-located on a monopole and the height of the pole would increase that height by 20 feet.
Mr. Smith stated that with four carriers, the Planning Commission could be looking at four times the number of requests before them if each company desired to construct their own monopoles to access the areas where they lacked adequate coverage.
Mr. Fife asked if they had examined the possibility of locating just west of Redwood Road. Mr. Garrick explained that they had studied several other options but added that none of the other locations met their needs as well as this site.
Ms. Kirk 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.
Ms. Funk asked if there were any restrictions relative to how close these monopoles could be located together. Mr. Wilde stated that the ordinance contained 1anguage about not allowing too many of the monopoles in a given area but there was not a quantifiable requirement.
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 410-208, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Funk, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife and Mr. Smith voted “Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, and Ms. Roberts were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilde stated that the staff shared the concerns of the Planning Commission about the distance between monopoles and that they were working on that matter with the industry in order to understand the industry's needs.
Ms. Kirk suggested the City be more aggressive about requiring co-locating on monopoles since she did not believe that would be something the industry would pursue. Mr. Wilde said the staff would examine that issue. Ms. Kirk stated that the subcommittee might need to reconvene after a few of these kinds of requests were approved and the impacts could be better determined.
PUBLIC HEARING
Petition No. 410-209 by Western PCS (I Corporation requesting a conditional use for a 1 00 foot high cellular telecommunications tower at 5500 West Amelia Earhart Drive in a Light Manufacturing "M-l " zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. Young asked if there were any potential aircraft impediments due to the location and height of the monopole. Mr. McCandless stated that the airport did not have any concerns relative to the height and location of this monopole but added that the staff would still like to see Western PCS II obtain approval from the airport.
Mr. McCandless said that request had been covered with Condition #3 in the staff report.
Mr. Fred Brown, representing Western PCS II, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission and briefly explained their request. Mr. Brown stated that this monopole was a very narrow pole and they did not believe it would create much of an intrusion.
Mr. Fife asked what the cost comparison was between two 60 foot poles and one 100 foot pole. Mr~ Brown responded that it would nearly double the costs.
Ms. Funk stated that she liked the slim-line design of this pole and asked why AT&T didn't use this same design. Mr. Kim Garrick, representing AT&T Wireless Services, explained that their technology differed from Western PCS's technology.
Ms. Kirk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jerry Bergosh, Chair of the East Bench Community Council and a member of the subcommittee on this matter, stated that he was concerned that the word “tower" had been used and asked for clarification on whether a tower or a monopole was being requested. Mr. Wilde stated that the request was for a monopole and that the staff would be more careful in the future to make sure the correct language was used. Mr. Bergosh asked why they needed a 100 foot monopole. Mr. Brown responded that a 60 foot pole would not provide the coverage they needed.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Kirk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 410-209, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith voted “Aye”.Mr. Becker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Mr. Iker and Ms. Roberts were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - petition No. 410-210 by Randy Barton, dba the Wooden Dog at Trolley Square, requesting a conditional use for a tavern with a Class “C" Beer license larger than 2500 square feet in floor area to be located at 476 Trolley Square in a Commercial “CS" 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. Randy Barton, the petitioner, stated that they were now up to three theaters because they had been approached by a major theater. Mr. Barton explained that they would have cabaret seating in one theater and the other two would remain as they now exist.
Ms. Kirk 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.
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 410-210, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith voted “Aye” Mr. Becker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Mr. Iker and Ms. Roberts were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
PUBLIC HEARING - Receive public comment and consider adopting the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Master Plan and Redevelopment plan. These plans encompass the area bounded by North Temple. the intersection at Beck Street and Victory Road and between 200 and 400 West Streets.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and used a slide presentation to demonstrate the issues contained in the staff report. Copies of the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Master Plan, the West Capitol Hill Redevelopment Plan, the Response to Public Comment, and the Report on Redevelopment Plan are filed with the minutes. Mr. Joyce handed out copies of comments and letters received from Carol Rice, the Advisory Committee and Richard E. Carman expressing their concerns relative to this matter. Copies of those documents are filed with the minutes. Comments received from the Advisory Committee had already been incorporated into the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan draft.
Ms. Valda Tarbet, representing the Redevelopment Agency, explained the portion of this area that would be covered in the redevelopment process and presented the staff report on the redevelopment portions of the master plan, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Kirk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Peter Von Sivers, one of the Vice Chairs of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council and a member of the Advisory Committee for the master plan, stated that he lived within the project area for the master plan and redevelopment plan. Mr. Von Sivers stated that there were still a number of zoning issues that needed to be addressed as well as other issues such as street lighting, street repairs, establishment of gutters, and distribution of traffic through the area. Mr. Von Sivers stated that they believed the planning process was working well and could come to a good conclusion.
Mr. Richard Carman, a property owner in the master plan area, stated that he was only interested in the master plan portion of this meeting, not the redevelopment issues. Mr. Carman said he had concerns about the proposed development of 300 West and proposed restriction of traffic on 300 West. He stated that he believed that the proposed bulb-outs would interfere with the flow of traffic and remove traffic lanes. He stated that he believed beautification of 300 West would enhance its value as long as it did not interfere with the flow of traffic. Mr. Carman said he had no problem with the concept of mixed use but expressed concern that an area that had been commercial and industrial throughout history would now be considered for mixed use zoning.
Mr. Carman stated that he was tired of being treated like a Ilpoor cousin" by the residential uses in the area and stated that he believed honest, commercial uses added to the community. Mr. Carman expressed concern that this area did not have the population necessary to support neighborhood businesses such as flower shops and barber shops or those businesses would already be locating in that area. He said he believed there was, however, tremendous potential for commercial use in the area. He stated that he had no problem with mixed use zoning but felt it might need to be broadened a bit to really work in this area.
Dr. Don Olsen, a property owner in the area, stated that for the past 24 years his business had been housed in the former St. Marks Hospital conducting medical research. Dr. Olsen stated that he was opposed to the proposed bulb-outs and believed they would be too restrictive on the flow of traffic in the area.
Mr. Bruce Billings, Vice President of Gas N' Go, stated that he agreed with everything Mr. Richard Carman had previously stated. Mr. Billings stated that he had been informed by Ms. Cheri Coffey, of the Planning Staff, that the staff was not really sure how the traffic flow changes would affect his business in this area, that no traffic studies had been done on this issue. Mr. Billings stated Ms. Coffey had informed him that the Planning Staff had forwarded information on this master plan to the Utah Department of Transportation but had not heard back from them. He stated that he was concerned about this lack of information. Mr. Billings stated that he fully supported the beautification on 300 West Street. Mr. Billings expressed concern that if a median were installed on 300 West in front of his property and if right hand only turns were allowed onto his business property, it would significantly hurt their business. He stated that 300 West was a major artery onto the freeway and he believed the bulb-outs would restrict the flow of traffic and were not a good idea. Mr. Billings urged the Planning Commission to reject this proposal until the Utah Department of Transportation had provided input on the traffic issues.
Mr. Wilde stated that the proposed bulb-outs would bring 300 West into more of a neighborhood scale, shifting a larger percentage of the commuter and heavy truck traffic onto 400 West Street. Mr. Wilde said the staff wanted to connect the community between 300 and 400 West Streets to relate better and function more closely with the rest of the neighborhood to the east. He explained that the proposal in the master plan was conceptual and the staff acknowledged that the improvements in the master plan were subject to feasibility and traffic impact evaluations. Mr. Wilde stated that representatives from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division were part of the Advisory Committee and representatives from the Utah Department of Transportation had been invited to and attended some of the meetings on this matter. He reiterated that the plan was very conceptual and a lot of the details needed to be worked out. Mr. Wilde stated that these proposals would be filtered through the community council process before any final decisions were made.
Mr. Smith asked if it were true that the bulb-outs would eliminate lanes of traffic.
Mr. Wilde responded that they would extend into the existing parking lanes which were often used as turning lanes. Mr. Wilde stated that it could not be said that the bulb-outs would not interfere with traffic because they would have an impact but added that each location needed to be reviewed on an individual basis.
Mr. Don Williams, a resident of the area, stated that he agreed with the comments already made on this matter. Mr. Williams expressed concern about the proposed bulb-outs and the traffic restrictions they would impose. He stated that he was also concerned about the narrowing of his commercial business and the negative impacts it would have on his plans to develop his property. He suggested this matter be tabled until further traffic studies had been conducted
Mr. Ernest Hughes, a business owner in the area, stated that he was the property owner of record for his business on 300 West Street and had not received notice of this meeting from the Planning Office. He said he had been involved with the City and the County for over 20 years but felt as if he were being treated as a stepchild. Mr. Hughes stated that when he had attempted to contact other property owners in the area he discovered many of them were absentee property owners. He suggested the property owners who were an active part of the community should be included in the development of the master plan for this area. Mr. Hughes said this matter needed to be tabled and added that the small business owners in the area had not had any say in the proposal before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hughes stated that even though Ms. Tarbet had claimed that the process of eminent domain did not "take" property away from property owners, that was precisely what had happened to him. Mr. Hughes claimed that the Redevelopment Agency had “taken" his church, the Shiloh Baptist Church, for a low income housing project and hadn't built anything on the property. He also claimed he had not received fair market value for his property; that they had given him an amount in between the high and low appraisal values of the property. Mr. Hughes stated that the government should never ignore the people who were the backbone of this country, the small business owners. He stated that if the traffic were reduced on 300 West Street, it would hurt his business and the other businesses along 300 West Street. Mr. Hughes claimed that statements in the plan were speculative, that they were not based on fact. He stated that 400 West was more conducive to residential use than 300 West since it was not a State highway like 300 West. Mr. Hughes added that 400 West came to a dead end at 900 South and asked where the traffic would go from that point on. He added that all the City was trying to accomplish was to route the traffic to the Delta Center and stated that many people did not care about the Delta Center and that the Delta Center was only one business in this community. Mr. Hughes said he did not want to have to worry that the City was going to try to "'take" his property for what they called fair market value. He said he wanted to enhance his neighborhood and his business. He suggested incentives be offered to businesses and that property owners who allowed their properties to become rundown be penalized. Mr. Hughes said he felt parts of the plan were great but he would like to see the Redevelopment Agency totally removed from the master plan considerations.
Ms. Erlinda Davis, a resident of the area, stated that she supported the efforts of the Planning Staff and that their neighborhood really appreciated all of the improvements the City had made to their neighborhood. Ms. Davis stated that this area was becoming rejuvenated with the infusion of younger families that were moving into this area.
Mr. Fred Mooseman, a resident of the area, expressed concern that outdoor storage would not be allowed under this new plan and that they had had outdoor storage since about 1974. Mr. Mooseman said he believed this plan needed to be tabled and that some of the definitions needed to be changed. He agreed with Mr. Hughes' concerns that the main concern was to route traffic to the Delta Center. He expressed concern that the property owners would be required to maintain the grass that would be planted in the bulb-outs, and therefore, those property owners should have some say in whether or not those bulb-outs were a good idea.
Ms. Anna Campbell Bliss, a property owner in the area, stated that the neighborhood had improved a great deal recently and younger families were moving into the area. She said she appreciated the concerns of the business owners in the area but added that when the ideas for this area were more developed, it would be a benefit to this community.
Ms. Hermoine Jex, a concerned citizen, handed out copies of her concerns, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Those concerns include some proposed changes to the zoning map, the implementation of a Deseret Overlay zone, and rehabilitation of the areas within the boundaries of this matter that were in need of rehabilitation.
Mr. Joe McClelland, a resident of the area, stated that he agreed with the business owners in the area who had previously spoken. Mr. McClelland stated that he owned property in the area zoned for mixed use that was now landlocked. Mr. McClelland stated that he did not believe the community council shared the interests of everyone in the community, only those living on the eastern portion of the community. He said he felt this matter should be tabled until more information was available and expressed concern that the studies for the master plan were biased.
Mr. Thomas McPorter, a resident of the area, stated that he agreed that much of this area was blighted and he supported the adoption of the redevelopment plan for this area. Mr. McPorter stated that this entire area was primarily a residential area and he hoped that factor would not change. He suggested controls be placed on the expansion of commercial use in this area. Mr. McPorter stated that it was nearly impossible at this time for a pedestrian to cross 300 West Street and he believed the plan to divert some of the traffic to 400 West Street was an excellent plan. He stated that the fact that 400 West came to a dead end at 900 South was not important since the intent was to provide an alternative route to the downtown area and that any other area of the valley could be reached from the downtown area.
Ms. Susan Horne, a property owner in the area, stated that she believed this plan would negatively affect commercial property values in the area since part of the value of commercial properties was related to traffic flow in the area. She stated that commercial property had a higher value than residential property and asked if the City intended to compensate her if her property values decreased under the implementation of this plan. Ms. Horne said she felt this plan was very idealistic, that it was not a pragmatic idea to put a residential neighborhood right next to an oil refinery. Ms. Horne said she disagreed that this area was primarily residential, but rather that it was primarily industrial. Mr. Randy Dixon, a concerned citizen, stated that he lived just east of the master plan area and said he was grateful that this area had been designated as a redevelopment area. Mr. Dixon said he believed this would strengthen the fabric of the neighborhood. He said he believed the concerns about traffic had been overblown and he did not believe any of the traffic lanes would be removed if the plan were implemented, but that the plan would assist pedestrians to compete with the traffic.
Mr. Dixon stated that as the neighborhood improved, property values would increase. He said he believed some of the comments made had been very selfish. He added that he supported this plan and felt it had been very carefully thought out.
Mr. Jim Katsenaves, a concerned citizen, expressed concern that this plan might have a negative effect on property he owned near this area if the traffic flow on 300 West were reduced.
Mr. Bill Stoner, a resident of the area, stated that there was no doubt this area contained blighted properties. Mr. Stoner said he felt most of the blighted property in the area was the commercial property. He said he did not want to see four and five story buildings containing residential and commercial uses.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Kirk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Valda Tarbet stated that anyone needing additional information relative to the blight survey could obtain that information from the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Tarbet added that the Shiloh Baptist Church referred to by Mr. Ernest Hughes had been purchased in March 1975. She stated that the first appraisal had been for $53,000, the second for $64,450 and the Redevelopment Agency had paid $67,700 for the property as well as relocation benefits on that property. Ms. Tarbet stated that the sale had been a negotiated sale and that she had the documentation which had been signed by Mr. Hughes in the event anyone desired to examine those documents.
Mr. Brent Wilde stated that no matter how hard the City tried to ensure every interested party was notified of public hearings, it was not possible to contact every property owner or everyone who might have an interest in a particular matter. Mr. Wilde stated that between 3500 and 4000 notices has been mailed out for the neighborhood-oriented issues meeting on this master plan; that 1100 notices had been mailed out for a community-wide meeting and for this meeting another 1100 notices had been mailed out. Mr. Wilde explained that the staff had worked with an advisory committee consisting of 28 people, representing the entire Capitol Hill community with several of the members representing the West Capitol Hill area. Mr. Wilde stated that the staff had relied heavily upon the advisory committee to make their decisions. He added that there were still some decisions that needed to be made, that the staff had forwarded that information to the advisory committee but no final discussion had occurred yet to resolve those issues. He added that this matter had been placed on the next Planning Commission agenda, not for the purpose of continuing the public hearing, but to allow the Planning Commission additional time for consideration of this matter and to allow the staff to finalize the unresolved issues. Mr. Wilde suggested the advisory committee meet again prior to the next Planning Commission meeting on these issues as well as the issues raised at this meeting.
Mr. Wilde stated that following that meeting, a final recommendation from the advisory committee could be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilde suggested anyone with additional concerns meet with an advisory committee member to express those concerns to that member.
Ms. Kirk asked if her understanding was correct that even if the Planning Commission adopted this plan, more input would be accepted, particularly relative to traffic and transportation issues, before the plan would be implemented. Mr. Wilde said her understanding of the matter was correct and reiterated that this was a conceptual plan and the staff was seeking policy direction that would support improvements to 300 West Street. He added that the details would be worked on following the approval of this conceptual plan.
Mr. Wilde stated that if the Planning Commission adopted the plan tonight, they would be taking action to support or endorse the plan as it currently existed, subject to working out all of the details.
Mr. William T. Wright, the Planning Director, stated that some of the difficulties and concerns over traffic were actually a matter of semantics. Mr. Wright stated that the reference in the plan to decrease traffic along 300 West was actually referring to preventing a future increase in traffic by opening up 400 West to handle the traffic growth. Mr. Wright stated that there was probably nothing that could be done to decrease traffic on 300 West and the staff needed to clarify some of the terminology used in the plan so that it more accurately reflected to the goals of the plan. He added that 400 West would not be improved strictly to move traffic to the Delta Center, but rather, to provide better access to the entire downtown area. Mr. Wright stated that the goal was to provide a stronger neighborhood business center along 300 West, not put the businesses located there out of business. Mr. Wright suggested the staff clarify some of the language in the plan and provide documentation to support the proposed policies in the plan prior to the Planning Commission adopting it.
Ms. Funk expressed concern about the number of comments heard that were in disagreement with the plan. Ms. Funk stated that the major concerns seemed to be coming from the people who lived and operated businesses in the target area, not those from the eastern portion of the Capitol Hill community. She said she felt there needed to be a higher number of representatives from this specific area involved in the final negotiations of this plan. She stated that she agreed with Mr. Wright's suggestion to wait until the next Planning Commission meeting to adopt this plan. Ms. Funk said she agreed with some of the comments that some of the commercial properties were the most poorly maintained properties in the area and stated that the commercial uses should be required to maintain their properties properly. Ms. Funk moved to defer the adoption of this plan until the next Planning Commission meeting and that some of the people involved in this specific area be included in the final negotiations relative to this plan. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. Young, Ms. Short and Mr. Smith voted 1/ Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea, Mr. Iker and Ms. Roberts were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young asked if the advisory committee was comprised of an equal or appropriate representation of the area contained within the master plan boundaries.
Mr. Wilde responded that the majority of the representatives were residentially neighborhood people.
Ms. Funk said she believed concerns needed to be addressed without involving any forcing issues and the community needed to help provide solutions to the problems, not just say that they did not want this plan adopted. Mr. Wilde stated that another advisory committee meeting needed to be held the following week and extended an invitation to those with an interest to attend that meeting.
Mr. Wilde suggested anyone interested in attending that meeting make sure one of the staff members had their name and address so they could be contacted. Mr. Wright suggested that anyone interested in attending that meeting who had not been contacted by the first part of the next week contact the Planning Office for the details on the time and location of that meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.