SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Aria Funk, Jim McRea, Diana Kirk, Gilbert lker, Fred Fife, Craig Mariger and Mike Steed.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Doug Dansie and Emil Pierson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Barrows moved to approve the minutes of Monday, March 16, 1998. Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Short moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, March 19, 1998 subject to the minor changes being made, as discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The n1otion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-98-3 by the Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation reguesting approval to rezone the property located at 1235 South Glendale Drive from a Residential "R-1-5000" to a Residential "RMF-45" zoning district and to amend the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan from a low density residential to high density residential designation.
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. McCandless stated that the petitioner is requesting to rezone the property located at 1235 South Glendale Drive from a Residential "R-1-5000" to a Residential "RMF-45" zoning district. The West Salt Lake Community Master Plan, which was adopted March 21, 1995, shows this property as "Low Density Residential". Rezoning the property requires that the master plan be updated to a "High Density Residential" designation. Mr. McCandless then stated that as a general policy, the West Salt Lake Comrr1unity Master Plan does not support additional zoning to accommodate higher density multiple-family dwellings in the community. Although the proposed amendment necessitates updating the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan, the impacts to the neighborhood from the proposed use will be minimal. The proposed facility is a needed service and provides a good transition between the shopping center and the residential neighborhood.
Mr. Marion Willey, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jay lngleby, Glendale Community Council Chair, spoke in favor of the rezoning request and the proposed assisted living facility. He then stated that the facility is a needed service and will be a good addition to the neighborhood.
Ms. Rosemary Kappes, Executive Director for the Housing Authority, stated that this property was bought about 13 years ago by the Housing Authority with the intent to build elderly housing. In 1995 the property was downzoned which changed the types of uses allowed. Ms. Kappes then stated that she is in favor of the rezoning request so that the assisted living facility can now be built.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-3:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition No. 400-98-3 to rezone the property located at 1235 South Glendale Drive from a Residential "R-1-5000" to a Residential "RMF-45" zoning district and to amend the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan from a low density residential to high density residential designation subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. The rezoning and master plan update shall take effect at the time the building permit is issued.
1. The final development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
2. All departmental requirements are met.
Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING-The Planning Commission will consider making recommendations to the City Council on the following three transportation issues affecting the Gateway Development Master Plan: 1) The location of an lntermodal Transportation Hub: 2) The alignment of the East/West (University of Utah to Airport) Light Rail Line: and 3) The location of a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOVl on and off ramps from 1-15 North.
Mr. Tim Harpst, Transportation Division Director, briefed the Planning Commission members concerning the various transportation studies that have been considered over the last several months in relation to the Gateway Development Master Plan. Mr. Harpst stated that the studies include a feasibility study for commuter rail for the Wasatch Front area, a viaduct shortening for the Interstate viaducts coming into Downtown, consolidating the railroad lines in the Gateway area, a feasibility study for light rail running from the Airport to the University of Utah, a location for an intermodal transportation center in the Gateway area and work on the Gateway Development Master Plan. All of the above mentioned studies, have had public input and direction in terms of seeking alternative ideas and working out issues. The City is extraordinarily fortunate to be able to see that these transportation studies are concluding simultaneously because many of them involve the Gateway area and making a decision on one mode may close options for decisions on other modes. Mr. Harpst continued by stating that the City has the ability to evaluate all of the studies and all of the recommendations that have been coming out of the technical analysis and come forward with one unified recommendation on how to deal with all of the transportation studies and the introduction of new modes.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report for the first transportation issue, the location of an intermodal Transportation Hub, outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie stated that the Gateway Master Plan Steering Committee had the opportunity to review and analyze many different possible intermodal sites and after careful consideration the number of locations was narrowed to four: 1) Union Pacific Depot; 2) Denver and Rio Grande Station; 3) 200 South and 600 West; and 4) South Temple at 500 West.
The Union Pacific Depot is located on the west side of 400 West at South Temple. It was constructed between 1908 and 1909. The Depot is in need of extensive remodeling for seismic upgrade. Upgrade is estimated between $15 and $20 million. It was donated to the State of Utah, largely because Union Pacific did not want the ongoing upkeep. The State owns approximately five feet around the building. The Boyer Company is interested in using the depot as a focal point for a mixed-use con1mercial development. The building has a definite front and back side and can be added onto without destroying the original architecture.
The Denver and Rio Grande Station is located at 300 South and Rio Grande Streets. The station was built between 1909 and 1910 for $750,000 and the property is approximately 11 acres in size. In 1977 the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Company sold the depot to the State of Utah, which renovated it as the home of the Utah State Historical Society. The architecture is "finished" on all sides. The rear is as elaborately detailed as the front.
The 200 South and 600 West site was the historic location of the Salt Lake City's Rio Grande Depot from 1890-1910. The property is currently occupied by freight houses and yard tracks. The freight houses are currently being used by Clipper Express, Utah Freight Association, Beehive Brick and soda ash is transloaded from truck to rail car in the area west of the freight houses.
The South Temple and 500 West site is situated on the Grant Tower curve and west of the Union Pacific property. Most of the land is presently vacant. Alternatives to "flatten" the curve at Grant's Tower may provide room for a commuter rail track. The attraction of this site is its ability to interface with the East/West light rail on North Temple and its adjacency to the Union Pacific Depot.
Mr. Dansie then stated that due to the technical realities of funding, freight line limitations, initial ridership projections and timing, the only site immediately available to meet all needs is the site at 600 West 200 South. However, critics of the site have legitimate concerns. The "sense of place", transfer accessibility and neighborhood redevelopment are critical to the success of a 600 West 200 South location.
Mr. Dansie then presented the staff report for the second transportation issue, the alignment of the East/West (University of Utah to Airport) Light Rail Line, outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie stated that the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is in the process of preparing the final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed East/West transit system. At least six different light rail alignments were reviewed and analyzed during the preliminary study. The evaluation process for the alignments involved many public meetings and open houses. All alignments were rated on the following criteria: cost effectiveness, mobility improvements, operating efficiencies, environmental benefits, impacts and support of existing land-use policies and future patterns. Three alignments from the Airport to Downtown were reviewed and analyzed by the Steering Committee. The Committee recommended that North Temple be utilized for the following reasons: it services the largest amount of commercial and employment densities, it offers the most direct route, it has the fastest travel time and it has the least impact on residential neighborhoods. The Committee also reviewed three alternatives from Downtown to the University of Utah. The alternative chosen follows an old trolley route that went east on 400 South then merged with 500 South then proceeds through the Rice Stadium parking lot to South Campus Drive (or 1300 East), to Wasatch Boulevard then to the University of Utah Health Sciences Center via Medical Drive.
Mr. Dansie then stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to review the following two alignment alternatives:
Alternative 1: East on North Temple from the Airport to 400 West; south on 400 West to 300 South; east on 300 South then proceed south (multiple alignment alternatives) to 400 South; then east to the University of Utah. Staff rated this alternative fair based on the following: two consecutive goo turns must be made on all alternatives in the Downtown portion where it transfers from 300 to 400 South (UTA does not support consecutive goo turns because of the potential problems it could create when using four light rail cars); and the parking garage and surface lots conflict.
Alternative 2: East on North Temple from the Airport to 400 West; south on 400 West to 400 South; east on 400 South to the University of Utah. Staff rated this alternative good based on the information that there will be no consecutive goo turns, good access to the new Courts Complex and the City/County Building, within one block to commercial developments (including hotels), it interfaces with the north/south bus routes, it serves residential densities (existing and future) and there are only three parking garages that access onto 400 South, one of those also has access from 500 South. Study performed by Sverdrup Deleuw indicated that Light Rail Transit (LRT) on 400 South will not diminish auto capacity more than it already will be from other impacts.
Mr. Dansie then stated that there have been some concerns about the increased traffic on 400 South and whether or not 400 South could accommodate LRT. An extensive traffic analysis was performed and determined that with LRT in the center of 400 South the parking lanes will be removed and made into travel lanes, allowing for three lanes of traffic in each direction. Staff has considered using the outer lanes as traffic lanes during peak hours and parking lanes during off-peak hours. Mr. Dansie responded to calls he has received from business owners on 400 South regarding the construction schedule. He stated that the entire street will not be closed at one time. UTA will work with the property owners to complete the project on a block by block basis.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report for the third transportation issue, the location of a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) on and off ramp from 1-15 North, outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider options for the location of a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) on and off ramps that will serve the public going to and coming from Davis County and points north. HOV lanes are lanes on the freeway dedicated to cars that have multiple occupants and express busses. The lanes are meant to encourage car pooling and by giving HOV users priority which can make their commute much easier and faster. Mr. Paterson continued by stating that as a part of the MIS/EIS (Major Investment Study/Environmental Impact Analysis) process, potential locations for the 1-15 North HOV ramp were identified between 600 North and 900 South. All of these sites were evaluated based on criteria that are listed on the evaluation matrix attached to the staff report. When the potential sites were evaluated against the criteria, the following four sites were deemed viable: 1) North Temple; 2) 50 South; 3) 100 South; and 4) 200 South. The others were unacceptable for various reasons including neighborhood impacts, ability of streets to handle additional east/west traffic, compatibility with master plans and compatibility with 1-15 South reconstruction.
The North Temple site would be simple and relatively inexpensive to construct. The HOV ramps could be constructed between the north and south bound lanes. This would provide a simple intersection with North Temple and no new viaducts would be required. This location would be compatible with 1-15 South reconstruction. However, there is concern that ramps at this location would impact the adjacent neighborhoods by introducing commuter traffic from Davis County and further north. In the past, this option has been opposed by surrounding community councils and, in 1994, the City Council adopted a policy to keep North Temple free of on and off ramps from 1-15. Currently, commuters from south Davis County find it more convenient to use Beck Street and Victory Road when traveling to Downtown Salt Lake City. Without an option on 1-15 that will provide direct, convenient access to the CBD, commuters will continue to use alternate routes that have a negative impact on neighborhoods.
The 50 South site is located adjacent to the Grants Tower curves on the UP Railroad main line between South Temple and 100 South. There is not a dedicated public street at this location so right-of-way would need to be acquired. Because of the configuration of the rail tracks, the fly-over ramp which would need to be constructed over the northbound lanes of 1-15, would touch down to the east of 600 West. Because the Union Pacific South Yard is located to the east of 500 West, all HOV traffic would have to irr1mediately turn north or south on 500 West or a right of way would need to acquired for a new road that would continue east to the Delta Center.
The 100 South option requires the construction of a ramp that would fly over the north bound lanes of 1-15 and touch down just west of 600 West. The design would allow for a fully operational intersection at 100 South and 600 West. 100 South Street ends in a 'T' intersection adjacent to the Salt Palace at 200 West. While this denies commuters a direct link to the CBD, the distance between the touch down (600 West) and the terminus of the street at 200 West allows adequate time for commuters to disperse to other collector streets leading to their destination. This site provides HOV cars and busses good access to the potential intermodal hub at 600 West and 200 South.
Similar to the North Temple option, the 200 South site would be simple and inexpensive to construct because the ramps would descend between the north and south bound lanes of 1-15. However, the amount of traffic that would be added to 200 South would require a viaduct or an underpass to be constructed to provide a grade separation between 200 South and the Union Pacific main line (located between 600 and 700 West). To provide adequate clearance over the main line tracks, the viaduct would touch down east of 600 West. An HOV ramp at 200 South could allow commuter traffic to disperse both east and west.
200 South provides one of the important links between the neighborhoods east and west of 1-15. Of the east/west connections between the Gateway area and the neighborhoods to the west, 800 and 900 South Streets are at the southern end; 400 South Street will have an 1-15 interchange and a viaduct; North Temple is at the north end of Gateway and carries a heavy amount of traffic. Only 200 South provides a direct link to the heart of the Gateway area. The City Council policy adopted in 1994 prohibits an 1-15 ramp because of the potential impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods.
Ms. Barrows noted that there was an unresolved statement that mentions that federal funding must be obtained for the 600 West 200 South if the commuter rail was at a separate location. Ms. Barrows then asked if the federal funding issue had been resolved. Mr. Harpst stated that it has not yet been resolved. He then stated that the process would be to put an application forward to the Federal Government with the City's proposal in which the Federal Government will then respond. At this point, the verbal information that the City is getting is that the concept of an intermodal center is to put all modes of transportation in one area so that it will become more successful and promote transit oriented development around it.
Ms. Barrows asked about the estimated cost, $40 million, for an intermodal hub and what would be included for $40 million. Mr. Harpst stated that it is estimated that $40 million should cover the cost of purchasing a site, bringing in the various different transportation modes and providing the facilities they will need. The $40 million would also include 1 0+ acres of land, park and ride lot facilities, several structures to allow people to be under a covered, weather protected area while waiting for transfers, service areas for the vehicles used for the transportation modes and areas for the local bus system, as well as interstate bus systems, to have parking areas and on and off loading zones.
Mr. Harpst was then asked to present the recommendations that have been made by the Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board in relation to Gateway area transportation issues. (A copy of the Transportation Advisory Board's recommendations is filed with the minutes.) Mr. Harpst first stated that the Transportation Advisory Board is a relatively new organization to Salt Lake City. It was recently created by the Salt Lake City Council. The purpose of this board is to serve as an advisory board to the City's Transportation Director, to the Mayor, to the City Council and to other organizations such as the Planning Commission on transportation issues affecting Salt Lake City. Mr. Jess Agraz, Chair of the Transportation Advisory Board, was unable to attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting and has provided a letter (a copy of which is 'filed with the minutes). The letter states that the Planning Commission join the Transportation Advisory Board endorsing and adopting a Gateway Master Plan with some built-in flexibility that preserves future underground right of way for mass transit corridors through this area. The Transportation Advisory Board feels this approach is the best way to achieve short-term objectives while maintaining options for meeting future transportation developments as they materialize. The recommendations are as follows:
1. East/West light rail should run on North Temple from the Airport to 400 West, along 400 West to 400 South, then along 400 South to the University of Utah, then on campus, as approved by the University, to the University Medical Center. The Transportation Advisory Board makes no recommendation at this time regarding extensions of rail at either the east or west ends of the proposed alignment, but recognizes shuttle service connecting to a light rail station would be of benefit in both areas.
2. A one lane in each direction HOV lane to/from 1-15 North should touch down in the Gateway area on 100 South west of 600 West subject to:
a. UDOT installing a traffic signal at 600 South and 500 West to allow north/south travel; and
b. having a design that would not preclude a commuter rail track on 100 South.
3. The Transportation Advisory Board voted to a tie between the Union Pacific Depot and 600 West 200 South for an intermodal hub. Transportation Advisory Board believes their tie vote reflects the number and complexity of the issues they considered on this matter. Concern was expressed as to the limited time available to discuss the many factors involved in providing a recommendation for an intermodal site.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith stated that the Planning Commission is not here tonight to discuss or debate whether there should or should not be light rail. The Planning Commission is here to discuss a possible alignment if there is light rail.
Mr. Chris Quann, Chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that the East Central Community Council has not formally voted on any of the transportation issues, however, in April the community council will discuss the ramifications of having light rail go through the East Central neighborhood with respect to densification of the light rail corridor. Mr. Quann then stated that it concerns him that decisions are being made in the absence of a recommendation by the East Central Community Council. Mr. Quann recommended that the new Amtrak operation be located at the Airport where there can be an intermodal connection between planes and trains.
Mr. Michael Picardi, a property owner in the Gateway District, spoke in favor of having the intermodal hub at 600 West 200 South because he feels that the Union Pacific Depot will not be able to withstand the stress of an intermodal hub and will be expensive to maintain.
Mr. Robin McCulloch, a business owner on 400 South, stated that he feels that the construction of an East/West LRT on 400 South will result in a loss of business and then it will take approximately two years to recuperate from such a loss.
Mr. Cary Stenquest, a concerned citizen, stated that he is opposed to having the East/West LRT on 400 South because it will create too much traffic and accidents will increase. Mr. Stenquest then stated that it will also financially hurt the business along 400 South. He feels that the East/West LRT should be on 300 South.
Mr. Russ Neilson, a business owner on 400 South, stated that he is opposed to the East/West LRT or HOV on 400 South. He feels that even if the construction is completed on a block by block basis, it will change the entire traffic flow of the Downtown area and will destroy businesses on 400 South. He also feels that light rail will have a negative impact to the employees and businesses.
Mr. Alan Enke, a representative for First Security Bank, spoke in favor of the East/West LRT, however, he feels that it should not stop at the Airport and that it should continue on to the International Center. He also stated that he favors the Union Pacific Depot for the intermodal hub because he feels that it is more pedestrian friendly.
Mr. Robert Bliss, a concerned citizen, stated that before any of the transportation issues are considered, he feels that the Gateway Master Plan should be completed. Mr. Bliss also feels that the Gateway Plan will be completed only after major, premature actions have been taken. (Mr. Bliss submitted a letter, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Jeff Fisher, President of the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, stated that he feels that the Union Pacific Depot will be the best location for an intermodal hub and he urged the Planning Commission to not choose a site tonight and allow more time for the Union Pacific Depot option to be studied.
Mr. Ivan Weber, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the Union Pacific Depot for the intermodal hub. He then stated that he feels that if Salt Lake City is not prepared to simply choose the Union Pacific Depot now then they are not prepared to make a decision and the site should be studied further.
Mr. Michael Packard, a concerned citizen, spoke in opposition to light rail.
Mr. Drew Chamberlain, a concerned citizen, spoke in opposition to light rail. (Mr. Chamberlain submitted a document opposing light rail, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Milton Braselton, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of using 300 South for the East/West LRT because he feels that 400 South is already too congested with traffic.
Ms. Edie Trimmer, a resident from the Poplar Grove neighborhood served on the Transportation Advisory Board, stated that she feels that links between the Poplar Grove area and Downtown need to be maintained. Ms. Trimmer spoke in opposition to having an HOV ramp on 200 South and spoke in favor of having an intermodal hub at 600 West 200 South.
Mr. Michael Weiss, a business owner on 400 South, spoke in opposition to an East/West LRT on 400 South because it will destroy businesses. Mr. Weiss would like to see the East/West LRT on 300 South.
Ms. Hermoine Jex, a concerned citizen, spoke in opposition to an HOV ramp at 100 South; spoke in favor of the Union Pacific Depot for an intermodal hub; and spoke in opposition to having an East/West LRT-especially on 400 South. (Ms. Jex submitted a letter, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Kevin-Bruce Mahaffen, a concerned citizen, spoke in opposition to the East/West LRT because he feels that it will not be cost effective. Mr. Mahaffen also stated that he feels that the alternate modes of transportation should be bicycle pathways and obtaining a pedestrian right of way ordinance.
Ms. Raven Rivera, a representative for the Guadalupe Rose Park area, spoke in favor of having an HOV lane. She then spoke in opposition to having an over or under pass on 300 North at 600 West, however, she would like to have a pedestrian and bikeway over pass at that location.
Mr. Kenneth Beesley, a member of the Transportation Advisory Board, spoke in opposition to locating an intermodal hub at 600 West 200 South because he feels that it would not provide a convenient transition to both the North/South and the East/West LRT systems. Mr. Beesley then stated that Amtrak's limited passenger service and its freight service should not lead the City to a less than desirable decision for the location for an intermodal hub to serve the local Wasatch Front passenger transportation needs. He then spoke in favor of using the Union Pacific Depot as an intermodal hub because it is ideally located to make convenient transfers to both the North/South and the East/West LRT systems.
Mr. Rawlins Young, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that the East/West alignment needs more thought to reduce the land use required and to allow alternatives that are not being discussed.
Mr. Gordon Storrs, Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council, stated that the Poplar Grove community has been separated from Downtown for several years. He feels that the development of the Gateway project will help the Poplar Grove community integrate into Downtown. Mr. Storrs spoke in favor of having an HOV lane on 100 South and spoke in opposition to having an HOV lane on 200 South. (Mr. Storrs submitted a letter, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Craig Hibberd, a concerned citizen, stated that he is in favor of having an intermodal hub at the Union Pacific Depot because it has more opportunities to better serve the people.
Mr. Kirk Huffaker, Community Services Director for the Utah Heritage Foundation, stated that on behalf of the nearly 1 ,000 members of the Utah Heritage Foundation, he encouraged the Planning Commission to consider rehabilitation and reuse of the Denver & Rio Grande Freight Houses, the current buildings at 200 South and 600 West, as the intermodal hub. He then stated that the option of reusing the Freight Houses for the intermodal hub does not exempt the City from expanding into the Union Paci·fic Depot for commuter rail, in the future, should it become viable. (Mr. Huffaker submitted a letter, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Ms. Dorothy Owen, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of using the Union Pacific Depot site for an intermodal hub.
Mr. George Shafer, Chair of the Jordan Meadows Con1munity Council, stated that he feels that UTA should complete the North/South LRT, let it run for three to five years and then, if it proves to be viable, construct an East/West LRT.
Mr. McKay Edwards, a. member of the Transportation Advisory Board, stated that he is not speaking as a member of the Board. Mr. Edwards then spoke in favor of using 300 South for the East/West LRT because he feels that light rail will fail on 400 South due to the large amount of traffic. Mr. Edwards also supports the Union Pacific Depot site for an intermodal hub.
Mr. Soren Simonsen, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of using the Union Pacific Depot site for an intermodal hub because it has a close proximity to the main business district and also, it is a location that was based on rail, pedestrian interaction. Mr. Simonsen also feels that the East/West LRT should be on 300 South because 400 South is already impacted by a large amount of traffic.
Ms. Mary Woodhead, a concerned citizen, stated that there needs to be a connection between the west side of Salt Lake City and the east side of Salt Lake City, that have been traditionally divided. Two issues that will bring the east side and the west side together are the locations of an HOV lane and an intermodal hub. Ms. Woodhead then stated that it is critical that the HOV lane not be based on 200 South because she feels that it needs to be kept free of high speed traffic to allow for walking and bicycling paths. She favors the 600 West 200 South location for an intermodal hub because she feels that it provides the important benefit of bringing people to the west part of the City.
Mr. Sam Taylor, a concerned citizen, spoke in opposition to light rail because he feels that it is economically unjustified. Mr. Taylor then stated that he believes that people will not ride the light rail because the UTA bus ridership is decreasing.
Mr. Brian Smoot, a concerned citizen stated that he is strong opposed to using 400 South for the East/West LRT because he feels that light rail will slow down the traffic and that the businesses will be hurt.
Mr. Roger Borgenicht, Director of ASSIST, stated that the City should give transit every possible advantage for success. This can be done by designing the transportation modes for the highest and best transit use. He believes that the City should develop transit so that it is convenient, and he feels that using the Union Pacific Depot site for the intermodal hub will be the best option to achieve a convenient hub.
Mr. Eric Liebelt, a concerned citizen stated that he is opposed to East/West LRT for economic reasons.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith stated that the three transportation issues (location of an intermodal Transportation Hub, alignment of the East/West Light Rail Line and location of a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) on and off ramp from 1-15 North) will be discussed and voted on individually.
DISCUSSION for the location of an intermodal Transportation Hub
Mr. McRea stated that he feels that the 600 West 200 South site makes the most sense for the location of an intermodal hub because Downtown is moving in that direction.
Ms. Kirk stated that she feels that the 600 West 200 South site is only 6 blocks from Main Street. Downtown is growing fast and is becoming more and more a part of the west side.
Mr. Mariger stated that his understanding is that the Union Pacific Depot site is not the number one choice because of various technical problems. He then stated that there is also the issue that Amtrak will only locate at the 600 West 200 South site because they have found the Union Pacific Depot site not feasible. If Amtrak is stationed at a site other than the intermodal hub, the City may not be able to receive federal funding. Mr. Mariger then stated that he has heard tonight that the usership on Amtrak has become insignificant. Therefore, why is the City making major decisions as to where the light rail and commuter systems should be located on the basis of where Amtrak is willing to locate? Mr. Mariger then asked what the estimated time is for a person to go from the 600 West 200 South site to the Downtown business district?
Mr. Ralph Jackson, of Deleuw, Cather & Co., was present for this portion of the meeting. He stated that the key to the timing between coming in on the commuter rail and getting downtown is the immediate transfer to another mode of transportation that does not require a second transfer. The concept is that the circulator will be at the hub waiting when people come in and then they would ride the circulator into downtown. The difference between the 600 West 200 South site and the Union Pacific Depot site is that a person is intercepted further out. Most of the people coming to the core of Downtown, even at the Union Pacific Depot, would still make a transfer to get to Main Street. There are also a large number of UTA buses moving east and west on 200 South when there is not an opportunity to transfer to light rail.
Mr. Mariger asked, assuming all issues were equal, would there be more ridership if the hub was at the Union Pacific Depot site or more ridership if the hub was at the 600 West 200 South site. Mr. Jackson responded, if all issues were equal, there would be more ridership at the Union Pacific Depot because it is closer to Downtown.
Mr. Mariger then asked what constraints are dictating the recommendation to have the intermodal hub at the 600 West 200 South site. Mr. Jackson stated that his perspective is the penetration with a rail operation through the Gateway area to get to that location and all of the different transportation modes work well at the 600 West 200 South location (the Amtrak function cannot happen at the Union Pacific Depot). The 600 West 200 South site accommodates Greyhound, UTA Bus transfers and parking. To his knowledge, there has not really been a study on how to bring the different types of transportation modes to the Union Pacific Depot site. Therefore, if the Union Pacific Depot site is used, a study will need to be done to n1ake sure that all transportation modes can be accorr1modated.
Mr. Mariger then asked if Amtrak is a significant factor to the Planning Commission's decision making if the ridership is insignificant. Mr. Jackson responded in the negative.
Ms. Barrows stated that she sees the Rio Grande Depot and Union Pacific Depot as fantastic structures and she strongly supports the idea of putting an easement for an underground corridor in a master plan to be included in the Planning Commission recommendation. Ms. Barrows then stated that she would love to see some sort of commuter rail to eventually come into those depots, underground and still have viable land use available.
Mr. Steed stated that he feels that the intermodal hub is the anchor to the Gateway program and by placing the hub at the Union Pacific Depot site it sends a message that the Downtown area is not going to expand beyond 400 West. If the hub is located at the 600 West 200 South site, development will start to grow beyond that and will start to attract the type of development that is mentioned in the master plan.
Mr. Fife stated that if the 600 West 200 South site is used, it will be a new facility that will encourage and spur development towards the west side of the Gateway area in an expedient manner.
Ms. Funk stated that she has mixed feelings because she would like to see the Union Pacific Depot used as the intermodal hub, however, the critical issue is that the Union Pacific Depot is preserved, which it appears that it will be. Ms. Funk then referred to the mixed feelings she had when the Hotel Utah was closed and changed to a different usage. Today, she feels exactly the opposite and that it was a good decision because many more people see the building now then they would have if it remained a hotel. If the 600 West 200 South site is used, it takes away the option of walking into Downtown like the Union Pacific Depot site can offer. Maybe the Planning Commission could make a recommendation that the Union Pacific Depot site be studied further before being forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Funk also stated that she likes the idea of preserving the Freight Houses as part of the 600 West development because they have historic significance.
Mr. McRea stated that he feels that choosing the 600 West 200 South site will build a corridor more quickly then at the Union Pacific Depot site.
Ms. Short stated that perhaps, as the corridor is built at the 600 West 200 South site, if getting to the Amtrak Depot is accessible, more people would use it. Ms. Short also feels that there will be an incredible ridership using light rail.
Mr. lker stated that he has been uncomfortable with the process for some time because the City has been pushed hard to do many things too quickly. The decisions that are made will affect Salt Lake City for the next 100 years. We need to consider the promise of Gateway looking at the long term. Mr. lker stated that he would favor the Union Pacific Depot if the unresolved technical issues could be resolved. The Transportation Advisory Board has recommended that whatever decisions are made by the Planning Commission, with respect to the location of the intermodal hub, that there be an element of flexibility so that at some point in the future, the City will have some options, when the financial means are possible, to run commuter rail along our own tracks. Mr. lker then stated that he does not like Amtrak dictating where the hub should be located, however, he really does not see an alternative to the 600 West 200 South site.
Mr. Mariger asked if the City had the financial means today to develop an intermodal hub the way we would like it, with all of the different transportation modes and having it underground, would the 600 West 200 South site be chosen? Mr. Mariger feels that the 600 West 200 South site would not be chosen because that site will never be the hub of Salt Lake City.
MOTION for the location of an intermodal Transportation Hub
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council that the intermodal hub be initially located at 600 West 200 South. It is also recommended that the window of opportunity be left open for a more elaborate commuter rail system at a future date when funding and ridership justify it. To accomplish this, the staff recommends the following:
1. The 500 West right of way be expanded to 190 feet the entire length, from 600 North to 900 South (the North Temple to 600 North portion would include the existing railroad right of way). This may not occur initially, but may happen incrementally as development occurs along the street.
1 No major public utilities be located in 500 West or, minimally, they be concentrated in one corridor within the right of way and the street be left clear of underground obstructions.
2 Additional utilities should be discouraged from locating within 200 South between 500 West and Main Street.
3 The grade of 500 West be modified over time to "flatten" the street in its north to south orientation.
4 The staff work with the developer of the Union Pacific South Yard property to insure a viable pedestrian corridor between 500 West and the Union Pacific Depot, preferably internal to the buildings, be fully integrated into the development to accommodate any potential future commuter rail stations or stops in 500 West.
5 The Planning Commission forward a philosophical recommendation of support for continued study of commuter rail and the expansion of service hours and frequency; including the option of creating a separate rail corridor where smaller, more agile and more frequent commuter rail trains could be used.
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion.
Mr. lker stated he would like to amend the motion by recommending that the City put in place a system of special improvement districts, or some other process, which enables the City to recover some of the windfall profits that will be made on the development of this property in the Gateway area.
Ms. Short agreed to the amendment made by Mr. lker. Ms. Kirk seconded the amendment to the motion.
Ms. Funk asked if the Union Pacific Depot site could become an intermodal hub sometime in the future? Mr. Dansie stated that with the scenarios given, the Union Pacific Depot site would not become the intermodal hub in the future.
Mr. Fife stated that he would like to amend recommendation #2, mentioned above, to also include 300 South. Which will now read as follows:
2. No major public utilities be located in 500 West and 300 South or, minimally, they be concentrated in one corridor within the right of way and the street be left clear of underground obstructions.
Ms. Short agreed to the amendment made by Mr. Fife. Ms. Kirk seconded the amendment to the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger voted "Nay". Ms. Funk abstained. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Funk moved that the Planning Commission send a recommendation to the City Council that they look further at the feasibility of the Union Pacific Depot site as the intermodal hub.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
DISCUSSION for the alignment of the East/West (University of Utah to Airport) Light Rail Line
Mr. McRea asked staff to explain the differences between the two East/West alternatives. Mr. Dansie responded by stating that the eastern portion of light rail will need to be on the 400 South/500 South alignment to make it up the hill. Therefore, at some point, the alignment needs to be on 400 South. The community council's position was to have the alignment on 400 South east of 200 East. The major consideration is where the alignment should be between 400 West and 200 East. The 300 South alternative has three different options that would join light rail onto 400 South. All three options would require the LRT to make two consecutive goo turns. As mentioned earlier, UTA does not support consecutive goo turns because of the potential problems it could create when using four light rail cars.
Mr. Dansie then addressed the 400 South alternative and its potential conflicts with a possible HOV lane exiting 1-15 onto 400 South. He stated that the traffic analysis concluded that 400 South could handle the light rail alignment as well as the traffic exiting 1-15. The concern was with the left-hand turn movements for the cars traveling east to then turn north to get into Downtown. UTA has ways of laying out the track in the station where there can still be protected left-hand turn corners. Mr. McRea then asked if 400 South will remain open during construction. Mr. Dansie stated that a detailed construction management plan has not been worked out with the property owners, so he does not have a definite answer.
Mr. Wright stated that the 400 South overpass is being built to be a bridge that is similar to a City street that will connect the Downtown with the Poplar Grove neighborhood. The bridge is not being built so that it comes directly off of the freeway and intersects at 400 South. The goal is to change the perspective of the driver so that they realize they are no longer on the freeway and that they are on a local City street; this is done by making their speeds slower.
Mr. Wright then spoke regarding the 300 South alignment, the option that would involve the land from 200 East over toward the Main Street corridor. There is a deliberate land use policy on Block 57 to exit the parking partly onto 200 South and partly on to 300 South. To consider using 300 South for light rail is a policy issue that the City should be careful with so that the parking facilities for that block do not fail.
Mr. Mariger asked, in reference to the people riding light rail, how will the usership of the light rail be facilitated, being in the middle of 400 South with three lanes of traffic on each side.
Mr. Wright stated that a very significant urban design issue is making the pedestrian, that has decided to use the system, comfortable getting on and off the system. He stated that the platform design in the center of the street will be developed so that it is efficient for both the pedestrian and the left turn lane. Getting on and off the light rail will be a similar concept of using the crosswalk system.
Mr. Harpst stated that pedestrians will embark and disembark onto a raised platform. At both ends of the platforms there will be traffic signals to stop the automobile traffic and allow the pedestrians to either walk halfway across the street to the platform area to utilize light rail or walk the full way across the street.
Ms. Kirk addressed the 300 South alternative by stating that 300 South has become so congested that traveling a short distance can take sitting through three or four red lights at one traffic light. She feels that 300 South is not as wide as 400 South and will result in a complete disaster. The Main Street construction has been completed very quickly and she is very impressed on how they have handled the construction.
Ms. Barrows mentioned that the Planning Commission should not forget the connections with the International Center and the potential future connection with Foothill Boulevard. She would like the Planning Commission to include in their recommendation that these two connections be studied.
Mr. Wright stated that tonight's hearing is not the last step. The staff will continue to work diligently with the consultants to review all of the different options of the urban design issues on the alignments which will then come back to the Planning Commission for their considerations.
Mr. Smith noted that 400 South and North Temple Streets are going to be vastly different with light rail and the accompanying urban design features. The streets will not function the way they function today, mainly because of slower speeds.
Mr. lker noted that most of the public input was focused on 400 South. He then noted that a letter from the Poplar Grove Community Council had been submitted with a very positive perception of what light rail on North Temple will do for their community by way of improving business opportunities and development. Mr. lker believes that having light rail on 400 South will be positive for the businesses in the long run, although the construction process will be an inconvenience for a short time. He recommended that, if the East/West LRT comes to pass, an effort be made to complete a section and leave a space of a block or two between sections. He then stated that a section should be completed, have it reopened and then start another section.
MOTION for the alignment of the East/West (University of Utah to Airport) Light Rail Line
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to advise the City Council to direct the Utah Transit Authority to proceed with preliminary engineering on the East/West (University of Utah to Airport), double track, center of the street alignment using 400 South as the main corridor through Downtown (Alternative #2). It is also recommended that Salt Lake City reserve further approvals of final design details concerning construction management issues and interfacing of bus and light rail. Also, that UTA be notified that urban design issues will be considered as an essential element in the planning and engineering stages of the development. Ms. Kirk further recommended that further design and review be studied for connections to the International Center a.nd Foothill Boulevard. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
DISCUSSION for the location of a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) on and off ramp from 1-15 North
Mr. Steed stated that he is opposed to locating the HOV lane on 1 00 South because it does not accommodate the viable businesses located west of where the ramp touches down.
Mr. Fife stated that he is opposed to locating the HOV lane on 200 South because it is one of the main corridors that connects the west side of Salt Lake to the east side of Salt Lake.
Mr. Steed then stated that he feels that locating the HOV lane on North Temple makes sense because it will accommodate viable businesses both on the east and west sides of Salt Lake.
Mr. Wright stated that the Transportation Advisory Board had a lengthy discussion regarding the North Temple option. The board determined that using North Temple for an HOV lane is not a good choice because it has poor access to the intermodal hub at 600 West 200 South (which has been recommended by the Planning Commission) and there are issues and concerns regarding traffic circulation impacting neighborhoods.
Mr. Funk feels that the 100 South location would be the best option. However, she is concerned about adding another on and off ramp in a small corridor coming into the lower part of Salt Lake. She then asked if it is feasible to use the general purpose on and off ramps for the HOV on and off ramps. Mr. Harpst stated that that option was discussed and the analysis shows that, for the projected use of the traffic volume on the freeway system, the HOV users would have to depart from the HOV lane so far to the north in order to have the time to make safe merges across the extra lanes to get to the general purpose lane that it would not be worth while to have the HOV lane. The concept is, if a vehicle is going to use the HOV lane a commitment needs to be made to give them good access into the Downtown and giving them the advantage.
Ms. Kirk asked if staff has looked at putting the HOV lane on 400 South. Mr. Wright stated that staff has looked at 400 South. He then stated that the HOV lane from the south is on 400 South which leaves the middle of the main line available for an HOV lane coming from the north. It was determined that if both HOV lanes, from the north and south, exit onto 400 South, the general purpose exit would need to be moved to another location. Therefore, all of the lanes cannot be at 400 South.
Ms. Barrows asked when this decision has to be made.
Mr. John Nepstead, of BRW, was present for this portion of the meeting. He stated that this decision is part of another study (EIS) for 1-15 from Downtown Salt Lake City to Kaysville that UDOT has been undertaking. A decision needs to be made as soon as possible so that it can be included in that study which is projected to be completed by this summer.
MOTION for the location of a High Occupancy Vehicle (H0\1) on and off ramp from 1-15 North
Mr. Fife moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council with 100 South as the preferred alternative for the location of an HOV ramp serving 1-15 North. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. lker, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Mr. Fife and Ms. Kirk voted "Aye". Mr. Steed voted "Nay". Ms. Barrows abstained. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.