SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kent Nelson, and Laurie Noda. Tim Chambless and Jeff Jonas were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, and Planners Janice Lew, Greg Mikolash, and Doug Dansie.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 31, 2002
Prescott Muir referred to Page 3, Line 12, and requested that the word “tome” be corrected to “time.” He referred to Page 18, Line 16, and requested that the words “this week” be changed to read “this project.” He noted that Line 20 on the same page makes reference to Peggy McDonough asking about the graphics and requested that the sentence be corrected to reflect that she had questions abut the floor plans of the homes. He referred to Page 22, Line 3, and requested that the sentence end with “slides.” deleting the words “are slippery.” On that same page, he referred to Lines 21-24 and commented that the sentence did not make sense. He referred to Page 28, Item 4, which states, “Lots 9 through (blank) be allowed to have one side-yard with a zero line,” and recalled that the Planning Commission identified specific lots. He suggested that the tape be listened to and that the specific lots be referenced.
Motion
Prescott Muir moved to approve the minutes of January 31, 2002, with the corrections stated above. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda unanimously voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Minutes of February 28, 2002
Kay (berger) Arnold suggested that the minutes reflect the Commissioners who are not present in addition to those who are. Stephen Goldsmith offered to be sure that is a pro forma.
Prescott Muir referred to Page 7, second paragraph from the bottom, and requested that the sentence be corrected to reflect that he currently sits on the Alta Town Planning Commission.
He referred to the discussion on Page 13 regarding a balanced representation of appointments to the Planning Commission and stated that it was his understanding is that he represents a certain neighborhood, not the interests of the AIA. He felt there should be some clarification of how the Commissioners are appointed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Goldsmith replied that there is no formal representation by any Planning Commissioner. The intent is to make sure representation is balanced city wide for Districts 1 through 7. For example, Mr. Muir resides in District 4, but he was asked to sit on this Commission because the majority of his adult life has been spent downtown. Mr. Muir clarified that his comments were for discussion purposes only, and he did not wish to make any adjustments to this paragraph.
Motion
Kay (berger) Arnold moved to approve the minutes of February 28, 2002, as corrected. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda unanimously voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Minutes of March 7, 2002
Andrea Barrows referred to her Motion on Page 3 and felt that the words “if technically possible” did not reflect her intent. She wanted to emphasize the idea of the technical aspect of the antennas being attached to the lattice tower, not the technical possibility in terms of painting them gray. Ms. McDonough suggested striking the words “if technically possible.” Ms. Barrows was comfortable with that change. Ms. Barrows referred to Page 6 and requested that the minutes clarify that the gun range is indoors. She also indicated a typographical error on the last sentence of Page 6 and asked that “Hd” be changed to “He.”
Kent Nelson recalled that there was extensive discussion on the police substation in terms of parking, particularly on the north side, and stated that he did not see it reflected in the minutes. The minutes mention the parking but do not indicate that more grass would be added on the north end. He stated that he realized this was a zone change and they could not require more landscaping, but he believed the minutes should reflect their discussion for future reference. Chair Daniels stated that he believed the minutes did reflect that discussion but probably not as extensively as Mr. Nelson would like. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the motion directed the Planning Director to work with the Police Department on those issues and reported that he did meet with the Police Department, and they will reduce the parking and change the access on the public parking versus police parking. The side yard was increased from 11 feet to more than 28 feet. Mr. Nelson stated that he was happy to see that this had been accomplished.
Mr. Goldsmith referred to Page 11, second paragraph, and asked that “Mr. Prescott” be corrected to read “Mr. Muir.”
Motion
Kent Nelson moved to approve the minutes of March 7, 2002, with the corrections stated above. Andrea Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Norton, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold abstained from the vote as she did not attend the March 7 meeting. Mr. Chambless and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition #410-563 by Rock Schutjer representing Western Telcom, Inc., requesting Conditional Use approval to replace the existing 60 foot high wireless telecommunications monopole with an 80 foot high monopole and install associated electrical equipment at approximately 1085 West North Temple Street, in an Industrial “MI”Zoning District
Planner Janice Lew reviewed the petition to replace a 60-foot-high wireless telecommunications monopole with an 80-foot-pole at an existing monopole site located in the parking area north of the existing building at approximately 1085 West North Temple Street. The petitioner would like to raise an existing crow’s nest from 60 feet to the top of the new 80-foot pole to allow a new support arm at the 60-foot level to provide additional antenna capacity for the site. No flush-mounted antennas are shown on the plans for the current proposal. Ms. Lew noted that the Staff requested that the petitioner maintain the current 60-foot height for the crow’s nest and flush mount any antennas above that level to minimize potential impacts of the taller pole. The petitioner objected to that design, so the Administrative Hearing Officer, Doug Wheelwright, elected to forward this application to the Planning Commission for consideration. Based upon the analysis in the staff report, the Staff does not oppose the proposed conditional use request to increase the height. However, they are concerned about the negative impacts to the surrounding area when such facilities are bulked due to co-location and heightened to achieve maximum coverage. The Staff has not made a specific recommendation, but if the Planning Commission decides to approve this request, they should be prepared to enter findings that the potential increased negative visual impacts of raising the existing monopole height is less than the visual impact of an additional pole installation in the area. Under the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission may impose conditions and limitations which may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse impacts on the property and improvements in the vicinity. Ms. Lew noted that she has a list of standard conditions that are typically applied to these types of installations. If the Planning Commission chooses to deny the application, the Staff recommends that the Commissioners adopt findings supported by substantial evidence.
Ms. Barrows asked when the pole was originally approved. It was noted that it was approved in 1996. Ms. Barrows clarified that the approval was prior to the telecommunications ordinance in 1997-1998. She asked if the Staff made the suggestion to flush mount and never have a crow’s nest on the pole. Ms. Lew explained that the Staff recommendation is that the crow’s nest remain at the 60 foot level as permitted by Code and flush mount anything above 60 feet.
Yuka Jenkins, representing Telcom, Inc., stated that she understood the restrictions and Staff recommendation but wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of the difference between cellular carriers and PCS carriers. Cellular carriers include AT&T, Verizon, and Nextel. They operate at higher frequencies and need two transmitter antennas and two receiver antennas per sector. She did not want the Planning Commission to have the perception that everyone can do flush mount antennas. She explained that cellular companies can do a flush mount if their coverage objective is a very small area. The coverage for this site is a two-mile radius, and they need to down tilt and control the transmitter so as not to cause interference. She noted that Verizon would like to do a flush mount, but it cannot be done at this location. The traffic is very high, and it is impossible to achieve the objective coverage with flush mount antennas.
Ms. Barrows verified with Ms. Jenkins that Telcom, Inc., is a cellular carrier, and they cannot use flush mount antennas because of angulation and high traffic. Ms. Jenkins replied that cellular carriers would only use flush mount antennas in locations such as Parleys Way, Ogden Canyon, or downtown in the center of tall buildings where the coverage is only a quarter to a half mile. Most sites cover a one- to two-mile radius, and in those cases, cellular companies need four antenna per sector--two transmitters and two receivers. Ms. Barrows asked Ms. Jenkins if Telcom had someone who wanted to co-locate at the 60-foot level. Ms. Jenkins replied that they are actively marketing but have no one at this time. She clarified that they currently have two carriers, Verizon on the top and Cricket on the bottom. Cricket will remain at the 40-foot level, but Verizon needs to be at 80 feet to improve the capacity and quality of their calls.
Mr. Muir asked how much coverage increase would be obtain by moving from 60 feet to 80 feet. Ms. Jenkins replied that the increase is in terms of quality. The coverage is about a mile and a half. Mr. Muir stated that, if they grid out the City, they would have a pole every four miles, regardless of whether it is 60 feet or 80 feet. He clarified that the purpose for going to 80 feet is to enhance quality. Ms. Jenkins noted that the area has been developed, and the trees are taller than six years ago. Trees are an impediment, and the water in the leaves blocks the signal. Mr. Muir commented that for visual impact the poles should be maintained at 60 feet, but Ms. Jenkins is saying that the antennas do not function at that level because of the trees. Ms. Jenkins replied that the quality has slowly been diminishing because of the tree heights and development in the area. Verizon’s goal is to improve the quality of their calls. Mr. Muir asked if the quality of transmission could be enhanced with antennas closer than every four miles but still at the 60-foot level. Ms. Jenkins stated that she believed it could be. If Verizon cannot get the 80-foot height, they will likely request additional towers.
Mr. Nelson asked if the proximity of the trees to the site impacts the quality. Ms. Jenkins replied that trees in general impact the quality.
Ms. Barrows asked if the 80-foot pole would be landscaped in any manner. Ms. Jenkins replied that they have no plans to do so, but if the Planning Commission added that as a condition, they would be happy to comply. The State owns the property, and she would work with the State on that arrangement. Ms. Barrows expressed concern about requiring landscaping for this petition without knowing whether the property owner will provide it. Ms. Jenkins noted that there is no water system, and any type of landscaping will require an irrigation system along the back of the parking lot. She believed this could be a problem but offered to talk to the State about it.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir stated that he found it difficult to judge whether a 60-foot pole would be better than an 80-foot pole. Without anything in the ordinance limiting or providing guidelines on the proximity between poles, he could see no reason to go higher than the 60-foot tree canopy. He realized that there may be greater frequency of poles, but they would not be able to control the frequency of 80-foot poles. He believed the Planning Commission’s decision on this petition would set a precedent, and he did not know how they would limit them in the future.
Ms. Barrows noted that this pole was approved prior to the ordinance and is indicative of the fact that they did not have an ordinance to consider the sensitivity. The site is not great, and the vegetation they would rely on for mitigation would be on property owned by someone else. She referred to the finding that increased landscaping is an appropriate mitigation and noted that there is no evidence that there could be increased landscaping. She stated that she would be comfortable leaving the poles at the 60-foot height and allowing the petitioner to return with another site. She did not favor this request.
Mr. Nelson asked if anyone knew the thoughts of the Community Council. Chair Daniels stated that the Community Council approved this request after much discussion, but it did not appear to be an overwhelming endorsement. Mr. Nelson stated that he was unsure how to handle this, but as they returned from the field trip, he looked back and noticed the number of power lines and a radar pole. With everything else in the area, he did not think increasing the height of the pole would make much difference. He believed this area was suitable for a crow’s nest because it is an industrial area with a number of poles around it.
Mr. Muir clarified with Mr. Nelson that his argument was that in the M1 zone without residential adjacency they could tolerate a greater height. Mr. Muir stated that he was trying to establish a position for saying no to a future request of 80 feet. Mr. Nelson added that he would rather see the pole increased to 80 feet in this specific area mixed in with power lines, smokestacks, and other structures at that height than to have another crow’s nest half a mile away.
Arla Funk agreed that from the east this increase would have minimal impact, but she did not believe that was true from the west. She wondered if they might have an opportunity to improve two things. They could agree to the 80-foot pole and ask the petitioner to work with the State on landscaping the street side of the entire parking lot. They could put in trees that would not interfere with their signal. The trees could be 60 feet and the carrier would still have an 20-foot clearance. This would make the appearance of the parking lot considerably more desirable from the street and would be less expensive than putting up a pole in another place. She stated that she favored the 80-foot pole with 15 feet of landscaping in the front (along the south side of North Temple street) with trees.
Ms. Barrows asked the Staff if the Planning Commission could condition the leaseholder when the burden of compliance would fall on the property owner off-site. Mr. Wheelwright replied that could be done. If the State, as property owner, refused to provide the landscaping, the conditional use would fail. He believed it would be in the State’s best interest to have someone improve the landscaping on North Temple as well.
Motion for Petition 410-563
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 410-563 for the increase in height to an 80-foot pole based on the finding that it is desirable for the petitioner to have the additional coverage provided by the 80-foot pole and that the negative visual impact could be mitigated by landscaping the North Temple side of the parking lot and that the petitioner shall work with the State to plant trees with the approval of the Planning Director so the visual impact is reduced. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion.
Mr. Nelson felt the motion met the intent of the findings. Referring to Finding regarding appropriate buffering, he felt that the trees required in the motion add support to that finding. He referred to Finding K, which addresses compatibility, and felt that this particular site’s relationship to power lines, smokestacks, and the general condition of the neighborhood was compatible. Ms. Funk felt those comments strengthened the findings and accepted them as part of her motion. Ms. McDonough asked if this clarifies that approval of this request is based on the unique conditions of its industrial nature. Mr. Nelson stated that he was certain it did. Ms. Barrows clarified that the motion is for approval of a crow’s nest at the 80-foot height with a co-location at 60 feet and 40 feet. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda vote “Aye.” Ms. Barrows and Mr. Muir voted “Nay.” Mr. Chambless and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-578, by Mike Miller for The Brooklyn Condominiums, requesting a Conditional Use for a 32-unit Multi-family Residential Planned Development and Condominium approval in an “MU” Mixed Use Zone, located at the South West corner of 700 North and 300 West Streets, on 1.36 acres of property.
Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the request for The Brooklyn Planned Development located on the southwest corner of 7th North and 3rd West. He presented new elevations not included in the staff report and a color rendering of the project. He explained that the proposal is for three separate 3-story structures, 36 units total, with 12 units in each structure. The proposed material is brick veneer. This is an RDA site comprised of eight existing parcels which will be combined with this planned development. The existing four structures on the site will be torn down. RDA has put them on the market twice, but they did not sell. Mr. Mikolash noted that the staff report contains pictures of the existing buildings that will be demolished and the proposed buildings for the planned development. He noted that the pile of dirt seen on the field trip was the remains of the 15-unit motel. He stated that the calculations for open space are adequate. The ordinance requires 20% open space, and this project will provide 28% open space, which does not include a landscaped parking strip 25 feet from back of curb to the sidewalk. There will be a seven-foot landscaping buffer for parking all the way around the south side. The existing conifers planted by the motel will remain. Seventy-two parking stalls are proposed, with 25 of them being covered.
Regarding street improvements, Mr. Mikolash stated that the first one will be along 3rd West and 7th North. There will not be an approach on Pugsley as he had determined that Pugsley Street is private, so improvements are not required. The Transportation Department has asked for improvements on Pugsley, but the Engineering Department does not want them, and he will work out that issue between the departments. He stated that he would prefer to see some improvements along the sidewalk on that side. A perimeter fence will be installed, and the Police Department has requested a wrought iron fence on the Pugsley side because of the mix in uses. Each unit will have an 8' x 10' balcony with wrought-iron railings. Problems related to the air conditioning units which were proposed on a temporary pad were resolved, and the 12 a/c units will be located on permanent concrete pads at the sides of each building.
Ms. Funk asked if the side yard requirement was only 10 feet. Mr. Mikolash replied that the yard requirement is 10 feet side and corner side, 10 feet front, and 30 feet rear. The petitioner has asked to waive the 30-foot rear yard requirement for the South structure through the PUD process.
Ms. Barrows asked about the parking requirement. Mr. Mikolash replied that the requirement is two stalls per unit, and this proposal meets that requirement.
Mr. Muir asked about permitted density under the existing zoning. Mr. Mikolash replied that the density of this project comes to 23.5 units per acre, and the Mixed Use Zoning District allows up to 54 units per acre. Mr. Muir clarified that, in exchange for creativity and some amenities, they are giving the community a boost of 12.5 units. It was his understanding that the only reason the petitioner was proposing a PUD was to get a waiver on the rear yard setback. Mr. Mikolash stated that they were not allowed a density bonus for the project, and the Petitioner requested a PUD because of an inadequate rear yard setback and the fact that they have three principal structures on a single lot. Mr. Muir asked how this differs from the D3 Zone, where a developer is required to provide residential if they build commercial. Mr. Wilde explained that the primary focus for this zone was to make sure they got residential but did not include a forced commercial mix. Mr. Muir felt that they were looking for some compatibility, but nothing in the ordinance forces both land uses. Mr. Wilde stated that it would accommodate mixed use.
Ms. Arnold asked about unit size. It was noted that all units will be 1,200 square feet with three bedrooms and two baths. Ms. Arnold asked if any type of common area is proposed. She believed three bedrooms would bring a number of children. Mr. Mikolash stated that he was unsure about common area.
Ms. Funk asked about height limitations in the Mixed Use Zone. Mr. Goldsmith reported that 45 feet is allowed, and the height for this project is 35 feet.
Ms. Barrows asked if the Planning Commission had the ability to change parking and landscape requirements. Mr. Mikolash stated that he had not had any experience with changing parking requirements and could not answer her question.
Mike Miller, representing The Brooklyn Condominiums, was available to answer questions.
Mr. Nelson reiterated the concern about amenities for children and other residents. Mr. Miller stated that there will be a playground between Building 2 and Building 3, but nothing beyond that is planned. Mr. Nelson confirmed with Mr. Miller that all units will be three bedroom and two bath. Mr. Nelson noted that the balconies are uncovered and asked if this presents a zoning issue. Mr. Wilde replied that the zoning does not require covered balconies. Mr. Nelson asked if the stairwells are open. It was noted that they are. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Miller if roof mounted air conditioners were considered. Mr. Miller replied that vibration occurs in the top units with roof-mounted air conditioners, and placing them on concrete pads alongside the building is a more desirable solution. They have discussed screening them with a two-foot fence and shrubbery with RDA and the Staff. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Miller why three-bedroom units are proposed rather than two bedroom, two bath. Mr. Miller stated that in Utah, three bedrooms outsell two bedrooms three to one, and these are for-sale units.
Ms. Arnold asked why three bedrooms, two baths was omitted from the petition. Mr. Mikolash explained that he did not think it was part of the Planning Commission review. Ms. Arnold stated that she believed it was important for the Planning Commission to know these things when reviewing a plan. She believed if they were going to help a neighborhood with housing, three bedroom, two baths is a great way to go, and she would have a problem with one-bedroom units.
Ms. Barrows confirmed with Staff that the Planning Commission is only approving a planned development and not the size, wall colors, etc. She noted that the staff report mentions UDOT in relation to access and asked if the petitioner had discussed with UDOT the improvements and ability to access 300 West. Mr. Miller replied that it has been, and they are satisfied with everything proposed. An access existed with the old motel, and the use of that access is being relocated. UDOT has asked for a few changes in curb radius, and they have complied. He noted that they are working on a development agreement with RDA that will specify each unit as three bedroom, two bath.
Mr. Miller commented on the fencing and stated that they would like to have a visual barrier fence on the south side to shield from the industrial and tavern uses. With the playground fronting along Pugsley, they are concerned with the children playing in the tot lot. They are comfortable with a wrought iron fence, but because it allows people to see what is going on in the playground, they would ask that the visual barrier fence continue to the end of Pugsley and then transition to a rail fence. The RDA advisory council has asked that they incorporate some of the brick into the fence. Instead of just a rail fence, every other post would have brick matching the building. Mr. Miller referred to the fence along 7th North and stated that the RDA is trying to make this a more friendly neighborhood. They do not want to shut themselves off from the neighbors, but they do want to set a boundary, which is the purpose of the open feel rail fence along 7th North. The fence along Pugsley would be six feet high, and the fence along 7th North would be four feet high.
Ms. Arnold expressed concern that a solid fence would become a graffiti wall whereas an iron fence all the way around would stay looking good. She had a problem with a barricading fence due to separation and maintenance issues. She felt a concrete block barrier would make sense on the tavern side.
Ms. McDonough asked Mr. Miller if he or the RDA had discussed treating Building 3 differently because of the way it fronts on Pugsley versus 7th North. They are two very different streets with very different scales. With reference to the attempt to not place an entry on Pugsley, she felt that the building, by the nature of its design, does have an entry on Pugsley. Mr. Miller replied that issue had not been discussed.
Mr. Nelson asked if they had thought of placing the tot lot closer to the center of the project so more people could see it from their units. Mr. Miller replied that they could move it closer to the parking stalls. Mr. Nelson suggested possibly reconfiguring or relocating the parking structure so the tot lot could be seen from at least half of the project units. Mr. Miller explained that they tried many layouts and this was the best one. Mr. Mikolash stated that the original plan was to phase this project and split it with different property lines. It is now planned as a single PUD because they could not meet parking and zoning standards with the proposed new property boundaries. He stated that previous negotiations on the mobility of the building was done with the RDA, and the Staff did not have an opportunity to see those drawings.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Miller who might buy these units. Mr. Miller believed it would be mostly older people, newlyweds, and single parents. Historically, there are only one or two children in such complexes, and he did not anticipate a large number of children. Ms. Funk asked about open space. Mr. Goldsmith replied that nothing is required. Ms. Funk stated that she was troubled by the lack of open space, and the plan appeared to be very crowded and congested.
Ms. Barrows referred to comments in the staff report about architectural building materials in the Capitol Hill master plan and the desire to preserve the architectural and neighborhood character. She noticed on the field trip that most porches in the area have roofs, and she asked what was planned for this project in terms of material and balconies. Mr. Miller replied that the buildings will be full brick with a pre-cast concrete coin on the corners. The windows will have precast sills with coins on top. The roof will be black shingle. He noted that they are trying to achieve a colonial look with the white and brick. Ms. Barrows asked if they had designed a project with roofs over the balconies. Mr. Miller replied that the main problem is moisture. With roofs on each balcony, maintenance and drainage become major issues, and the rain-through decks are the best solution.
Mr. Muir questioned the reason for three cookie-cutter buildings rather than one building. Mr. Miller replied that the intent is to build and sell one building at a time. Another reason is that the RDA is looking for market-rate units, and because these would be affordable to build, that savings can be passed on. He expected the average price of a unit to be $115,000.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
John Billings, a representative from the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and project manager for this project offered to answer the Commissioners’ questions regarding RDA involvement.
Mr. Nelson stated that he understood the RDA mandated the configuration of the building. Mr. Billings replied that this was not a firm decision made by the redevelopment agency. The original orientation of the building referenced was perpendicular rather than parallel with Pugsley Street which oriented the tot lot more in the center of the structure. For a number of reasons, the agency felt that maintaining the pattern of development along Pugsley Street would be beneficial so they would not be turning their back on the street and could provide additional eyes and activity on the street to enhance its potential. Mr. Nelson asked why the amenities were limited to a tot lot. Mr. Billings stated that the RDA does not specify amenities, and that was left to the developers’ choice. In his opinion, it appeared that the site was limited in available space.
Ms. McDonough asked Mr. Billings to comment on earlier remarks about cookie-cutter buildings and the repetitive design of Building 3. She asked if a wrought-iron fence would prevent turning their back on the street. Mr. Billings stated that the RDA was not directly involved with the selection of fences. The advisory committee made a recommendation in relation to the frontage along 700 North and 300 West, but not on the Pugsley side.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Billings to shed some light on their struggles to redevelop this area. Mr. Muir stated that he was disenchanted with the fact that they could not get a better product than cookie-cutter formulas seen in the suburbs. He recognized the RDA’s struggles and agreed that they desperately need housing, but he wanted to understand the criteria involved. Mr. Billings reported that the redevelopment project area known as Capitol Hill has been open for over five years. The agency has invested more than $6 million in acquiring property in this area for development. The majority has gone to the site known as the commercial node, which is on 300 West between 500 and 600 North. Further down Pugsley Street between 500 and 600 North, they acquired six single-family homes on the east side of the street which were sold at a great loss to Neighborhood Housing Service which they renovated and sold. On the opposite side of Pugsley Street, they are working through a development with Neighborhood Housing Services and Housing and Neighborhood Development to build nine owner-occupied, single-family homes. That site was formerly the Kendell Hotel and the large home on the corner has been marketed twice. The preference is to find someone who will rehabilitate that structure for commercial use since it fronts on 300 West. Mr. Billings stated that he hoped this development would be a catalyst for future developments.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Arnold referred to the 14 units built at 8th East and 4th South. It was a sliver of land, but the project was well done. She was troubled by this project because these are apartment complexes and, in her opinion, a ghetto because it does not feel safe. She asked why row housing would not work to create a neighborhood. Mr. Goldsmith noted that the Planning Commission cannot mandate that, and it is the developer’s choice based on the market.
Mr. Nelson stated that he wanted the housing and wanted it in that location, but he was concerned that this was not the best arrangement. It seems that a suburbia twelve-plex was being placed in the periphery of downtown to meet their needs. The amenity package and functionality of a young family with a child seemed inadequate. Chair Daniels asked Mr. Nelson what he believed this property would look like 7 to 10 years, such as the type of people living there and what they would be paying for rent. Mr. Nelson replied that, if this were a rental project, it would depend on management and profitability. With for-sale units, it involves a homeowners association that will control what happens and how people will live. If there is a strong homeowners association, the area could strengthen and grow, but with a weak association and if the areas around it deteriorate, people will move out.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that it is within the Planning Commission’s purview to direct the petitioner into a design they feel meets the development pattern they would like. The RDA markets the property, but it does not control design. Ms. Arnold felt this creates a vicious circle, because the RDA acquires property and tries to rehabilitate an area in a way that creates a problem that will raise its ugly head in a few years.
Ms. Barrows stated that she sensed that the Commissioners were not satisfied with the project as presented. She did not see amenities that would attract families, open space, or the quality they want, but she did want to see housing in this location. She suggested that the Planning Commission provide the petitioner with direction and continue this petition to allow him the opportunity to come back or walk away. She felt the real issue was whether this is an appropriate land use. As it stands, in terms of public streets and small homes, she was not comfortable with what she had seen this evening.
Mr. Nelson stated that he did not share Ms. Barrow’s opinion.
Mr. Muir commented on the Prowswood projects on the east side and felt they were similar to this. This is a neighborhood that is hopefully on the upswing, but the downside potential is great. He was pleased that this would be market-rate housing. He noted that the proposed materials are durable and do not require much maintenance.
Ms. McDonough stated that a main issue for her is that the project is very internal and fearing of the neighborhood. In order to inspire ownership and pride in where a person lives, street-facing entries are important. Eyes on the street means more than looking out the windows; it means having a presence on Pugsley Street rather than fearing it with a gate. She favored more frequent entries around the street edges. She agreed with a previous comment about walking too far to each parking space and suggested reducing the parking and identifying each stall with individual units.
Mr. Goldsmith commented that Ms. McDonough had described the prerogative the Planning Commission exercises with the PUD. He reviewed the PUD portion of the zoning ordinance to remind the Planning Commission of their prerogative. He felt this would also help define findings if they choose to deny.
Chair Daniels questioned whether the site provides enough space to accomplish what they see as a desirable, aesthetic, stylish, well-landscaped environment. Mr. Goldsmith replied that there is definitely enough space.
Motion for Petition 410-578
Andrea Barrows moved to table petition 410-578 and ask that the petitioner look at the relationship between the buildings and the existing street structures, open space requirements, and amenities for the community at large but particularly for the residents. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion.
Prescott Muir suggested that the petitioner look at decreasing the amount of asphalt and look at joining the buildings to create a more open area. He stated that he was not bothered by a continuous street wall of housing, and joining the buildings would provide more space to configure the tot lot. He stated that he would be willing to eliminate the 10-foot setback on the north.
Mr. Nelson expressed a preference for some two-bedroom, two-bath units. After further discussion, Ms. Barrows stated that she was not comfortable including that request in her motion because she did not know the market. She preferred that her motion provide direction pertinent to land use.
Ms. Funk stated that she understood the petitioner was asking to eliminate the 30-foot setback and place three buildings instead of one on the property. She stated that she would deny both requests because, based on the ordinance, it does not create a more desirable environment. One reason for a PUD is to provide amenities, and she did not see amenities with this plan. The plan also lacks desirable vegetation. She did not object to sending it back to the petitioner for more work. Mr. Muir agreed with Ms. Funk and stated that he supported the motion. He hoped the petitioner would see this as an opportunity, because the Commissioners do want this to succeed. Ms. Funk felt this matter should move ahead, and she hoped the petitioner would hear their concerns and continue with them.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda unanimously voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Andrea Barrows was excused from the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-66, by Larry H. Miller Management Company, requesting a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to extend the maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected, when associated with outdoor sales in all non-residential districts, from a period of ten (10) days to one hundred eighty (180) days.
Planner Doug Dansie stated that when he received this petition, he had the same knee-jerk reaction as many of the callers he had heard from. The question was why Larry Miller needs to have a car sale all summer. Mr. Dansie explained that when he called the management group to clarify why they were submitting this petition, they indicated that the Delta 500 Auto Sale was not the driving force for this petition. The petition was driven by the outdoor kitchen that was on the Delta Center Plaza all summer. There is food service in the Delta Center, and this past summer a tent was placed on the Plaza to serve lunch to construction workers and others. This became an enforcement issue because a tent is only allowed to be up for 10 days. Mr. Dansie stated that his initial response was whether they would want tents everywhere for a long period of time, but the more he researched the matter, he realized there are tents up for different periods of time. The Olympics was 17 days, and the Outdoor Retailers have tents for 19 days. He reported that Brick’s Tavern has an interest in this petition because they have built a custom tent structure for dining in the winter which would be removed in the summer for an outdoor patio. He cited examples of other tent uses for extended periods of time. He suggested that a 10-day maximum was not working and there could be more flexibility. Mr. Dansie explained that Staff’s recommendation is to increase the 10 days to 21 days as an over-the-counter approval but allow up to 180 days per calendar year. He noted that the 180 days is tied to the fire code, which defines temporary as anything under 180 days. Neither 10 nor 21 days are tied to any code. There was a question as to whether approval of long-term tents should be handled administratively or by the Planning Commission, and Staff recommended that it be an administrative function with the Zoning Administrator receiving input from other Departments. Mr. Dansie noted that the most significant issue is a parking issue raised by the Transportation Department. They believed that a tent technically expands a business and that the business should meet the parking requirement that goes with the expansion. Mr. Dansie distributed copies of an e-mail he had received during the field trip from concerned citizens.
Ms. Arnold asked for an explanation of the tent used at the Delta Center. Mr. Dansie explained that the Delta Center has a kitchen which serves people during Jazz games. A tent was placed on the northwest corner of the Plaza between 4th West and South Temple which was left up most of the summer. Because there is a kitchen in the building, they served lunch every day to construction workers. He stated that he was unsure how the tent was approved, but approval was the issue that was enforced upon and prompted this petition.
Mr. Muir stated that he did not think there was a differentiation between tent structures and permanent structures, because it is possible to have permanent tent structures. He cited the Denver airport and San Diego Convention Center as examples of tent structures and noted that they meet all building codes, safety, and health issues. However, temporary structures bypass the normal regulations. Mr. Dansie explained that there is special consideration for tents in the ordinance. Mr. Muir questioned what would keep someone from shutting down after 180 days and reopening in five or six days. Mr. Dansie replied that the language states 180 days per calendar year. Mr. Muir did not think this situation was dissimilar from other restaurant providers who have covered patios, and he believed they could tie approval to use. The tent could be used for one purpose, and any other use would require conditional use approval by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Arnold expressed concern about Board of Health and other related issues because the tent at the Delta Center was never formally approved. Mr. Dansie stated that he did not know the details of how the tent was approved, but he did not think it was much different from other off-site food sales operations. Off-site food sales, such as vending carts, are required by the Health Department to have a commissary to work from. The Delta Center has an indoor kitchen where they can store food and wash items. Ms. Arnold expressed concern about the competition the Delta Center food tent presents for restaurants in the area. She referred to Barry Walsh’s comments contained in the staff report and noted that they were very negative toward this petition. He had stated that tents are usually put up in parking lots, which creates other issues. Mr. Dansie explained that Mr. Walsh’s comments were the reason for his including review by the Transportation Department in his recommendation.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Dansie about ordinances in other cities and how they handle such situations and asked if the tent size is limited. Mr. Dansie replied that the current ordinance does not limit tent size. In terms of fire code, nothing is regulated under 200 square feet. He stated that he did not know how other cities handle these situations.
Mr. Wilde responded to concerns about food and food safety. He noted that the ordinance is structured such that there is a review if it goes beyond 21 days. They could insert a clause in the ordinance stating that business licensing approval must be documented before the start of the 21 days. He suggested including language in the first paragraph that a petitioner must document a business license, and that would take care of the health issues.
Mr. Daniels discussed a scenario where an individual might set up a tent for one purpose and return to request another tent in such a way that they could have an ongoing establishment. Mr. Dansie explained that the tents are managed by address, so someone could set up a tent on State Street and another one on Main Street. If the tent moves from parcel to parcel, it would be hard to track. Mr. Daniels stated that he could not think of a good reason for a temporary structure to be used for as long as six months.
Ms. Funk asked if there is currently a procedure for erecting a tent. Mr. Dansie stated that he believed they go through the permits counter.
Robert Tingey, representing Larry H. Miller Management Company, commented on the specific issues related to the tent at the Delta Center. He explained that the tent was on the northwest corner of the plaza and did not affect the parking lot at all. In terms of food handling, he was certain that they had Board of Health approval for what was done last summer. With regard to the likelihood of moving forward, he noted that they would not be doing lunch like last year because there are other restaurants in the area. Last summer was a one-time opportunity because of the Gateway construction. He did not want to be precluded from doing it again, but that was not the current thought behind the request. The current notion is more a series of events. The Starzz play basketball in the summer, and the tent would be used as a hospitality venue for pre-game events. People coming to the tent would be coming to the game anyway, so there would be no increase in traffic or parking. He clarified that they would not be using the tent for 180 days continually but rather for a series of events that may span 180 days. He discussed the expense of putting up and taking down tents.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Tingey if he would be opposed if the Planning Commission prescribing what uses would be permitted, such as special events, hosting events, and pre-game functions. Mr. Tingey replied that he was not opposed as long as it would not preclude them from branching out a little. Mr. Muir expressed concern for the restaurants around the Delta Center which depend on Jazz games for their survival and noted that they are committed to the community and provide nightlife downtown when the Jazz are off. They are an amenity to the City, and he would hate to see something that would put them out of business. If they could enhance the visitor experience for the Starzz and get more people downtown through the tent events, it could be a win-win situation. Mr. Tingey pointed out that the Delta Center already has a food court inside the Delta Center, so the competition with other restaurants may already exist.
Chair Daniels asked why they could not have the hospitality center for these events inside an existing structure. Mr. Tingey replied that there is no room inside to host these events, and people like to be outdoors during the summer.
Ms. Arnold underscored Mr. Muir’s comments about the restaurants. She noted that the closing of one establishment was due to the timing of Jazz games and food. With all the other places in Gateway, she believed they would be doing a disservice to the restaurants and merchants to allow an extended food service on the patio at the Delta Center. The Delta Center already has a number of food courts, and they should be mindful of the people who have taken a risk in Gateway and support them as much as possible. She stated that she could not envision six months of tent.
Ms. Noda noted that Mr. Tingey had stated that the tent would be up for six months and that the events would occur during the summer. She asked if the six months would include fall or spring since summer is only three months. Mr. Tingey stated that he was not certain. The Starzz season starts in June, and they hoped to have it up by then. He believed the Jazz would make it to the playoffs, so they might want it as early as mid-April. Ms. Noda addressed liability issues and structural integrity of the tents. She mentioned the tornado that occurred several years ago and the outdoor event that was held in a tent. Fortunately, although there were injuries, there was only one death, but the City should think about occasions when Salt Lake could easily have high wind gusts and major storms. She stated that she understood the use of tents for special events, but her concern was with the length of time. Mr. Tingey stated that the tent is high quality and structurally sound. He believed the liability issue would be present with any length of time, because in Salt Lake you never know what kind of weather you will get.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Dan Andrus, Salt Lake City Fire Marshall, offered a brief prospectus of regulating tents in Salt Lake and how they came to the table with this issue. The Fire Department has regulated tents for many years on an informal basis because the number of tent-based events is small each year. Mr. Andrus stated that on August 11, 1999, a tornado hit Salt Lake, and even though those tents were approved and structurally stable, they were not able to withstand an F2 tornado. After that, they established a formal permitting system on July 1, 2001. The Delta Center tent was erected before that with their knowledge and approval, but it did not fall under the permit system. After establishing the permit system, they discovered the portion of the zoning code which restricts tents to 10 days. Mr. Andrus stated that any tent erected in Salt Lake City must meet Exposure C for wind, which is 70 mph. Any tent erected during the winter must meet a 15 lb. per square foot snow load. There are additional construction requirements. and he was confident that any structure erected and permitted by the Fire Department would meet those requirements. He pointed out that they made it through the tent event of the century with the Olympics with a very good record in terms of stability and safety. Regarding length of time, he believed 10 days was too short for many of the events which come to Salt Lake. 180 days may be too long, but they should look at something longer than the 10 to 14 days currently allowed.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Andrus what authority allows the Fire Department to regulate tents and whether the Planning Commission would be duplicating that authority with their action. Mr. Andrus replied that the authority comes from State Code Chapter 53 which allows the State Fire Prevention Board to adopt a statewide fire code. All cities are required to adhere to that as a minimum standard and may adopt more restrictive standards. The current fire code is the International Fire Code, which addresses such issues as structural stability, cooking, and tents. Mr. Andrus explained the permitting process.
Chair Daniels asked how many people hold permits for temporary tent structures. Mr. Andrus replied that usually they issue 25 to 30 permits per year, and he anticipated that number could grow to 40 or 50. He noted that this was an unusual year due to the Olympics.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir felt that a 10-day limit may be too restrictive and was willing to consider 30 or possibly 45 days. He believed anything beyond that time frame would be a permanent structure and should meet the normal requirements of a permanent structure.
Mr. Wilde referred to the five standards for a text amendment outlined in the staff report and reminded the Commissioners that, if they make a motion which deviates from the Staff’s recommendation, it needs to wrap around those standards.
Ms. Arnold stated that she was uncomfortable doing something for a single entity.
Ms. Funk commented that Larry Miller has put in this petition, but any decision made by the Planning Commission will affect the entire community. She stated that she liked the language in the staff report which refers to festivals, bazaars, outdoor sales events, carnivals, circuses, and other special events. She stated that she was not aware that the tents were as controlled as they are, and the Planning Commission has the prerogative to strengthen what the Fire Department is already doing. She felt that they should specify that use of the tent is non-competitive and that it does not compete with restaurants. She was concerned about tent size, because the length of time it stays up may also have some bearing on the size of the tent. She recommended sending this back to Staff for consideration of the ideas presented this evening.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that he would like to consult with the City Attorney before taking any non-compete action.
Mr. Nelson suggested setting a maximum time period with the option of extending that time based upon standards for the use to continue.
Motion for Petition No. 400-01-66
Laurie Noda moved to adopt Petition #400-01-66 based upon the findings of fact recommended by Staff to forward a positive recommendation for an ordinance change with a modification to change the 10-day period for tents to 45 days rather than 21 days as recommended by Staff, and to allow the petitioning party requesting the tent to petition the Zoning Administrator for determination of use beyond the 45-day period.
Chair Daniels asked Ms. Noda if she would include input from various official bodies such as transportation, public utilities, business license, etc. Ms. Noda replied that she would.
Mr. Muir asked for clarification that the motion follows the Staff recommendation with the exception of allowing 45 days instead of 21 days. Ms. Noda explained that an additional change is to allow the Zoning Administrator to approve anything beyond 45 days.
Mr. Nelson asked if they should define guidelines for a time extension. Mr. Goldsmith stated that it would be helpful to have Planning Commission input on what would warrant a 180-day extension. Mr. Muir reiterated his argument that 180 days constitutes a permanent structure. Mr. Wilde stated that, as the ordinance is currently written, there is a presumption that it would be approved unless one of the approval bodies has concerns based on their realm of authority. Ms. Funk felt they should consider tents being erected on parking lots, because that would preclude leaving a tent for a longer period of time. Mr. Nelson suggested that they leave that decision to the City Traffic Administrator. Ms. Funk agreed but felt it should be included as a criterion. Mr. Nelson suggested that weather-related and other safety issues be part of the guidelines, noting that safety of the people is something the Zoning Administrator needs to consider in order to extend the time period.
Ms. McDonough asked if they really wanted any tent for six months. She felt the motion was more liberal than the suggested language. She liked the idea of 45 days but nothing beyond that. If extensions are allowed, they should be a conditional use in rare circumstances rather than default to a systematic approval by City agencies. Mr. Goldsmith stated that a 45-day cap makes sense, but he would like to see a conditional use option for extensions. Mr. Muir agreed and felt that, for the benefit of the applicant, it was important to draw a distinction.
Ms. Noda stated that the issue comes down to permanency of the structure, and the focal point of her motion was to put a cap of 45 days and allow the Zoning Administrator some flexibility if a unique situation arises. She agreed that allowing 180 days would constitute a permanent structure and would have an impact on surrounding restaurants and businesses.
Chair Daniels clarified that the motion proposes a 45-day cap with a conditional use to extend beyond 45 days. He asked if they should have a final cap of 180 days. Ms. Noda stated that she did not want anything beyond 180 days. Ms. Funk noted that the Fire Department currently handles tent approvals and asked if it would make more sense for the Fire Department to continue to administer everything rather than have the Staff and Planning Commission involved. The Fire Department doing one part and the Zoning Administrator doing another part would only complicate the matter. Mr. Nelson stated that he was willing to direct Mr. Goldsmith to allow as much work as possible to be done by the Fire Department but still maintain some responsibility. Mr. Wilde stated that there is a land use implication, and the zoning ordinance does clarify that tents are allowed in non-residential zones only. If everything is diverted to the Fire Department, this body would lose all control
Mr. Goldsmith requested that Mr. Andrus be allowed to give his opinion on the matter. Mr. Andrus stated that he would prefer to continue with the current process. The petitioner would bring his plans to the front counter, and they would first be handled by Zoning to identify issues unique to their scope of supervision. The Fire Department’s concerns deal with fire and life safety aspects. The tents they have seen pose a number of land use issues, and he preferred that Zoning continue to handle them because they are outside his scope. In terms of permitting, the permit is transferred to his Department, and a permit is issued within a few days of the original application.
The Commissioners discussed the 180-day cap and whether the conditional use should come from the Planning Commission rather than Staff. Ms. Funk felt that allowing the Staff to make a decision would expedite the process. Mr. Daniels clarified that anything in excess of 45 days would need a conditional use, and he did not think there would be many of them. It was Mr. Muir’s opinion that the reasons for allowing a time beyond 45 days must be very restrictive. A petitioner would need a very persuasive argument before an extension would be considered.
Laurie Noda restated her motion. She moved to approve petition 400-01-66 and the recommendations of Staff that the petition be sent to the City Council according to ordinance changes which would change the 10-day period that tents are allowed to 45 days instead of the 21 days recommended by Staff. Any extensions beyond the 45-day period would come before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. There would be input from the Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department, Business Licensing, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Historic Landmark Commission. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the restated motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Ms. Noda, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Muir voted “Aye.” Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition #400-99-61, by Salt Lake City Transportation Division, requesting that 500 North Street be closed to vehicular traffic at the 500 West railroad crossing.
Doug Dansie explained the issues related to this petition, noting that noise is a major factor, and housing development in the area is having a difficult time obtaining financing because of the noise from trains blowing their horns. The City would like to do something about the noise, and one possibility is to create a “quiet zone” which tells trains not to blow their horns through that section. In order to have a quiet zone, they need to close the crossings or gate them. The Redevelopment Agency has set money aside to improve the gates at 3rd and 4th North which currently allow people to get around them and will not allow a quiet zone because the intersection must be blocked in all directions. Quad gates will be required so there is no way for people to get through, and they cost approximately $300,000 each. The RDA is also considering gating South Temple and 6th West, 1st South and 7th West, and 2nd South and 7th West, which would create a quiet zone from 13th or 14th North to 8th South. 5th North could be gated, but it heads into a rail yard, and Union Pacific is concerned that, because it fans out into multiple tracks, a sensor would have to be placed on each track That approach would drive up the cost of the gate, and since trains would be moving around, they would constantly be putting the arms down. The Transportation Department and Union Pacific estimate the cost of that gate to be in the million dollar range. The RDA now has a million dollars to pay for the other five gates. Mr. Dansie explained that the options are to live with the noise, spend a million dollars for gates, or close the road. He noted that the road closure would be to vehicular access only. It would not be an abandonment, and the City would retain ownership. The major issue is with the Fire Department and safety access. He believed they had come to a resolution where the closure would be a system of crash gates or other forms of blockage where the Fire Department could get through in an absolute emergency. If the road closure is approved, the City Council would insure that the closure would happen in tandem with the quiet zone.
Ms. Arnold clarified with Mr. Dansie that the financing problems he mentioned are for federal funds only and that people can get loans on homes and businesses from other sources, but the problem is with FHA and other federally financed housing programs.
Chair Daniels asked if it would be possible to silence the horns without closing the street. Mr. Dansie explained that two years ago they looked at directional horns attached to the signal rather than the train, but they are only experimental, and there is no other satisfactory way to silence the horns.
Mr. Nelson asked if the railroad has a requirement to blow their horn every time a train goes through an unclosed intersection. Mr. Dansie replied that they are required by federal law to blow their horns. One reason the City Council wants to tie this closure to the adoption of a quiet zone is that there is some flux going on with federal regulations. The feds require the horns, and they also regulate that, if you do not want the horns, you need to have a quiet zone.
Mr. Goldsmith named the agencies that exclude funding without a quiet zone. Chair Daniels commented that federal funds are also involved with the City’s First Time Home Buyers Program and Neighborhood Housing Services.
Kurt Larson, representing the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, stated that they have heard numerous complaints about the train horns. Financing is one reason for the complaints, and the other is nuisance from the horns blowing. They see this as an opportunity to do something for the community in a positive light. The RDA is helping greatly to improve some of the crossings.
Mr. Nelson referred to the crash gate and asked if the police and Fire Department could crash through it. Mr. Larson replied that anyone could crash through in the event of an emergency. Ms. McDonough asked what the crash barrier would look like. Mr. Larson explained that it is a wood fence with a diamond shape so a vehicle traveling down the road would know it is not a through street. Mr. Muir asked if asphalt would be left through the tracks. Mr. Larson replied that he is in the process of a design with Engineering to install curb and gutter to make it look like you cannot go through. Mr. Muir was concerned that asphalt would invite people to use it as a pedestrian way. Mr. Larson stated that he could not see why a pedestrian could not use it.
Chair Daniels asked Mr. Larson to explain the safety issues related to current conditions and to closing the intersection. Mr. Larson replied that there is always a potential for accidents at a railroad crossing. In order to make this a quiet zone, a higher degree of safety is required from the Federal Railroad Administration, which means a gated situation so cars cannot go around the gates. Because of the geometrics of this location, they cannot install an island that would allow vehicles to make their turn. In order to put in a quiet zone, safety must be enhanced. Mr. Larson stated that he did not have numbers to back up the kinds of accidents that might occur if they do not do this. Chair Daniels stated that the public record shows that those numbers were requested by the Planning Commission when this first came to them two years ago. It was his opinion that putting up a barrier and quieting the horns might be safer, but he has nothing to base that on. Mr. Larson felt he could base it on the engineering opinion that, without vehicle access, the potential for accidents is reduced to zero. Mr. Dansie commented that a quiet zone does not override a normal emergency safety situation, so if someone is on the track, trains can still blow their horns.
Mr. Muir asked if there was any reason why they could not enhance the intersection as a pedestrian/bicycle/skateboard route provided it is adequately warned and marked. He stated that he was nervous about the loss of linkage between the east and west side. Mr. Larson stated that when they enhance it from a pedestrian standpoint, they like to gate the path the pedestrians use. When quad gates are usually placed behind the sidewalk, so when the gate comes down it blocks the sidewalk, and that is typical in all gated situations. Mr. Muir believes that leaving asphalt across the tracks would invite pedestrian use. Mr. Goldsmith agreed that creating connectivity is vital and offered to work with the Transportation Division to insure that they maximize that connection.
Ms. Arnold noted that when this was heard by the Planning Commission several years ago, she suggested a temporary barricade for 60 days to see what the impacts would be. If they had done that on Main Street, she did not believe Main Street would be where it is today. With Main Street closed off, closing off another area would only create isolation. She stated that she could see no harm in a temporary situation to study the impacts to the community. If the temporary situation works, they could move forward. She believed streets belong to everyone in the City, and everyone uses them. Mr. Larson stated that he did not oppose a 60-day test, but it would have to be done in advance of establishing the quiet zone situation. Ms. Arnold noted that the City spends more time studying a neighborhood before installing a stop sign than before closing a street.
Ms. Funk asked if Mr. Larson had a traffic count for the railroad crossing. He replied that he did not. He knew that less than 400 cars a day use it, but he did not have a recent count.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Dennis Geisel, a resident of the east bench area, stated that, although this is not his neighborhood, he is hearing sentiment from the Commission that access through this neighborhood is important. It seemed that the west side of the City had already been isolated, and he believed this is one more nail in the coffin. He appreciated the financial advantage of the loan monies available, and the quiet zone made sense. He asked Mr. Goldsmith to comment on his commitment to bicycle access. Mr. Goldsmith reiterated his intent was to work on the connectivity, and he would like to enhance it as much as the Federal Railroad Agency will allow since they control it.
Julean Whitby, representing the Fair Park Community Council, stated that she has been active with that organization for at least eight years, and for the last two years they have anxiously awaited the quiet zone. There are people who participate in the Guadalupe area west of the railroad tracks to the freeway who are most anxious for this to happen. Most of the entrance into their area is along 3rd North if not North Temple and 6th North. She goes that way daily either walking, biking, or driving her car, and when traffic stops for a train, she sees cars piled up on 3rd North. A little traffic comes through 4th North, but cars waiting at 5th North for railroad traffic to clear are minimal. She noted that no one in the community council meetings has voted against the closure.
John Robinson stated that he is President of Neighborhood Housing Services and a resident in the neighborhood. He commented on safety issues and noted that there are no gates on 5th North, which makes it the least safe intersection. The only accident he has ever witnessed was on 5th North several years ago. Luckily, all the train traffic goes by very slowly, which is good from a safety perspective but bad from a noise perspective. With regard to funding, he explained that they are limited in what they can do with federal money because of the noise problem. Commenting on discussions about isolating the neighborhood, he believed the neighborhood would be improved, because more money would be going into the neighborhood in the form of housing. He believed there was a greater benefit to having homes than having access through 5th North. He stated that the NHS Board supports the road closure, and the area residents he had spoken with also supported it. He suggested providing some pedestrian access across 3rd North when a train is stopped, as trains can be stopped for a long time, which blocks all the streets. Vehicles have access through 6th North and North Temple, but it is a big issue for pedestrians.
Jamie Fleet, representing Signature Books located 564 West 4th North, stated that she has co-workers and friends who live in the neighborhood, and Signature Books owns over 30 properties in a five-block radius. Many of their tenants have expressed concern with the closure. She stated that she goes for a walk every day, so access from the east side to the west side is important. People have raised the issue of noise, but she did not see how closing 5th North would exclude the noise. When walking, she has noticed that the train starts whistling by North Temple. She believed closing 5th North would redirect traffic onto 3th North and 4th North, which already get enough traffic, and she did not see how closing one street would prevent accidents. She stated that she has been in the area for nine years and has never seen an accident in that location. She believed that forcing traffic to 3rd or 4th North would increase the possibility of accidents. She stated that she would prefer a pedestrian cross walk if the petition is approved. She asked how closing 5th North would reduce noise if the trains start whistling way down the road. She explained that she lives at 15th West and 2nd South, and the trains blow their whistles constantly for blocks. She suggested asking the railroad for a shorter whistle time.
Chair Daniels explained that, if the Planning Commission decides to close the road, they will ask for a quiet zone to be created. He referred to Mr. Larson’s comment that only 400 vehicles per day use that crossing, which is a very low number. Ms. McDonough added that the quiet zone would be from 1500 North to 800 South.
Ms. Fleet stated that she did not understand how closing one street would solve all the problems. Mr. Goldsmith explained that the street is being closed by a quad gate mechanism that will quiet the whole area. Ms. Fleet asked if the quad gates would also be installed on 3rd and 4th North. Mr. Goldsmith replied that they would. Ms. Fleet felt that would make it more prohibitive for people to get by while trains are stopped, and thought the petition was too restrictive.
Ms. Arnold asked why a pedestrian overpass at 3rd North had never been considered. Chair Daniels offered to have Ms. Arnold’s question addressed after the public hearing.
Hank Kaufmann indicated his commercial property on the map and stated that the noise is unbelievable in that area. It goes on for long periods of time and stops all conversation inside and outside the building. He believed a quiet zone would be wonderful. He noted that people are fixing up their houses to enhance the neighborhood, and this would be a great incentive for people to further improve their property.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Nelson noted that this items was discussed well beyond the time advertised and thanked the public for their patience in waiting to give their comments.
In response to Ms. Arnold’s question about a pedestrian overpass on 3rd North, Mr. Goldsmith offered to research the matter and provide the information at a later time, noting that they had not receive requests for that information. Mr. Muir asked if it would be appropriate to include it in their motion as a concern. Mr. Goldsmith felt this related to their comments about promoting connectivity and agreed that it would be appropriate in their motion to suggest that the RDA explore funding for a pedestrian overpass.
Mr. Nelson expressed concern about retaining the pedestrian access on 5th North and asked if a flashing light would be sufficient for pedestrians. Mr. Goldsmith replied that it is controlled by the RFA, and he would have to see what they are willing to do.
Ms. McDonough believed it was apparent that there is a gesture toward connecting either side to bring the fabric of the City closer together in a qualitative way, so the road closure seemed logical. However, she wanted something that would require review of the gate design. If the intent is to make properties more developable, she wanted the barriers to enhance the streetscape and not look makeshift or temporary. Mr. Goldsmith suggested adding a condition that the gates come back to the Planning Commission for design review.
Ms. Arnold reiterated her request for a temporary barrier to study the impacts. If there are no major impacts, she would feel comfortable moving ahead. She noted that Mr. Larson had indicated he could see the merit of a temporary test. Mr. Nelson was unsure what they would know at the end of a 30-day test period that they do not know now.
Chair Daniels stated that he would favor the road closure and quiet zone because it would strengthen the economy and quality of life in the neighborhood. He wished that the trial period had been addressed when Ms. Arnold requested it a couple of years ago. He also wished a safety study had been done. What he was seeing this evening was a vast majority of people who favor the road closure and quiet zone, and he would like to move ahead with a strong recommendation.
Motion for Petition #400-99-61
Kent Nelson moved to approve Petition #400-99-61 by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division requesting that 500 North Street be closed to vehicular traffic at the 500 West railroad crossing as previously outlined in the staff report. This approval involves closing the street to normal automobile/pedestrian traffic but not vacating the underlying property ownership and allowing crash gates and curbing to be designed in conjunction with the Fire Department for use during emergencies with the following conditions:
l. That the Planning Director do everything within his power to work with RDA for connectivity through 500 North.
2. Design review of the closure gates by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Nelson if he would entertain his motion not precluding future retrofit for gates and re-opening the street. Mr. Nelson agreed to include that amendment to his motion.
Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold voted “Nay.” Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote.
Other Business
Mr. Goldsmith distributed copies of the draft amendments for policies and procedures to be discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Goldsmith requested that the Planning Commission allow a petition to allow single-family homes in all districts as legal conforming. For example, if someone had a home in the M-one District and it burned down, they could rebuild it. It did not mean they could build a new one, but they could rebuild the existing home. Chair Daniels asked if it would be appropriate to specify to what extent it is burned. Mr. Nelson stated that the insurance company would make that determination. He noted that this request addresses single-family homes only, but he expected that in the future they would have non-conforming issues with multi-family. Mr. Goldsmith explained that a glitch in the ordinance currently allows this to be done with duplexes and triplexes but not single-family homes.
Motion
Kent Nelson moved to submit a petition to change the zoning to allow single-family homes in all districts as legal conforming. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson and Ms. Noda unanimously voted “Aye.” Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.