SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Arla Funk, Gilbert Iker, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Gregory DeMille was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, David Dobbins, Margaret Pahl, Merrill Nelson, Doug Dansie, Craig Hinckley, Emil Pierson, Lisa Miller and Joel Paterson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 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
Mr. Iker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, February 18, 1999. Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-98-49 by the Salt Lake City Council requesting to amend Sections 21A.06.020, 21A.34.020F2h and 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically amending the standard of review and the number of voting members serving on the Land Use Appeals Board.
Mr. David Dobbins 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. Dobbins then stated that Ms. Linda LePreau, a former member of the Land Use Appeals Board, prepared the draft amendment to the Land Use Appeals Board Ordinance. Ms. LePreau was present for this portion of the meeting.
A brief discussion followed between the Planning Commission members, Mr. Wright and Ms. LePreau, to better clarify the Ordinance, specifically, Standard “F” which relates to the definition for ‘Substantial evidence’. Mr. Mariger commented regarding the definition for ‘Substantial evidence’ and stated that he is not comfortable with the way it reads.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-49:
Mr. Mariger moved to table this decision and direct staff to modify the definition of ‘Substantial evidence’ to make it more consistent with the current definition of ‘Substantial evidence’ as found in the court of appeals cases. Mr. Mariger further moved that the Land Use Appeals Board Ordinance be brought back to the Planning Commission for final review and decision. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-336 by the Community Development Corporation requesting a conditional use for a flag lot subdivision located at 1469 South Cheyenne Street in a Residential “R-1-7000” zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Mark Lundgren, representing Community Development Corporation, 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. Ralph Anderson, a resident in the area, stated that he is opposed to the flag lot because he feels that it will lower the property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson then stated that he also feels that it will set a precedent.
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. Steed questioned the fact that Community Development Corporation has already started to build the rear house without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Lundgren stated that Community Development Corporation started the development of the lot because they wanted to get the home built as quickly as possible so that the family could move out of their current situation. They started the construction for the new home under a permit which was issued for only one single family house on the big lot.
Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission should not feel obligated to approve the flag lot because the construction has already been started. Community
Development Corporation knew the consequences of their decision to begin construction.
Motion for Petition No. 410-336:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant conditional use approval for Petition No. 410-336 for a flag lot subdivision subject to meeting all departmental subdivision requirements. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
It was then noted by the Planning Commission that they were disappointed that Community Development Corporation started constructing the house without the conditional use approval for the flag lot.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-338 by YWCA of Salt Lake City requesting a conditional use (planned development) to allow a third building to be added to a previously approved planned development located at 342 East 300 South in a Residential Mixed-Use “RMU” zoning district.
Mr. Merrill Nelson 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. Nelson stated that the building will be a 12 unit residential health care facility for pregnant homeless teens and a child day care center for 70 children.
Ms. Susan Sheehan, Executive Director for the YWCA, and Ms. Angie Rowland, Director of the YWCA’s teen home, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-338:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-338 to allow the addition of a third building to a Planned Development. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-99-5 by the Salt Lake City Housing Authority requesting that the property at 1071 South West Temple be rezoned from a Commercial Corridor “C-C” to either a Residential Mixed-Use “R-MU“ or a Residential Multi-family “RMF-75“ zoning district.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie then stated that the Salt Lake City Housing Authority is requesting the property to be rezoned to accommodate the density of a proposed apartment building project. The proposed project will have approximately 120 apartment units and 91 parking stalls (this meets the “R-MU” parking standard, but not the “RMF-75” parking standard). Approximately 60% of the units will be market rate, the remaining units will be affordable.
Mr. Bill Nighswonger, Facilities Manager for the Salt Lake City Housing Authority, 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. John Francis, Vice-Chair of the People’s Freeway Community Council, stated that the People’s Freeway Community Council unanimously voted for the approval of rezoning the property at 1071 South West Temple from “C-C” to either “R-MU” or RMF-75”. Mr. Francis then stated that the community council favored rezoning the property to “R-MU”.
Mr. Larry Lindquist, a resident in the area, stated that he feels that the proposed project is too tall for the neighborhood and has too many apartments. Mr. Lindquist then noted that having the apartment building in the neighborhood could lower the property values.
Mr. Nighswonger stated that in order to make a good revenue producing project, the Housing Authority would need to have at least the 120 units to make a cash flow. The Housing Authority is a non-profit agency and can’t afford negative cash flow.
Mr. Michael Lake, a business owner in the area (President of Midwest Office Furniture), stated that he is opposed to the rezoning and the proposed project for many reasons. He feels that there will be a traffic impact and that it will devastate the community. Over the years, there have been several serious automobile accidents in this area. Mr. Lake is also concerned about changing the zoning for this property. He feels that zoning should be created to alleviate and eliminate the problems that exist between residential and commercial development. Mr. Lake then stated that he feels that a development such as this will eventually limit the potential for future commercial development of the other property. Currently, the infrastructure of the area between 900 South and 1300 South on West Temple is not in place. Mr. Lake feels that with the lack of infrastructure the streets cannot handle an increased volume of cars. Mr. Lake concluded by stating that he is not sure that the proposed project is the answer to making this area a better place.
Mr. Dave Kimball, a business owner in the area, stated that he is opposed to the rezoning and the proposed project. Mr. Kimball feels that if the use of the zoning is changed the people could prohibit any type of commercial development on adjacent property in the future.
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. Wright spoke concerning the “R-MU” zone. He stated that the intent of the “R-MU” zone is to have a wide variety of urban, residential and commercial uses. The “R-MU” zone also allows higher levels of intensity, office use or commercial uses than is allowed in the “C-C” zone. Mr. Wright then stated that he wants to make sure that it is understood that going from a “C-C” zone to an “R-MU” zone is not a downzoning that will result in residential uses only.
Ms. Funk stated that she has some concern about the traffic on West Temple. She feels that the traffic analysis that has been presented seems noncommittal which indicates to her that the traffic impact has not been fully analyzed. Ms. Funk then asked if the Planning Commission could request that the Transportation Department take another look at the traffic impact. Ms. Funk also feels that the “R-MU” zoning is a good transition between the small single family dwellings on the west side of West Temple and the commercial district that would be adjacent to the proposed project.
Mr. Wright responded to Ms. Funk’s request concerning the traffic analysis. He stated that the Planning Commission could go ahead and make a recommendation to the City Council. While it is being transmitted and advertised for a City Council hearing, the Transportation Department could do a more thorough traffic analysis and have it ready to present to the City Council at the time of the hearing. Ms. Funk agreed to this recommendation.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-5:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, that a positive recommendation be forwarded to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-99-5 requesting a zoning change from “C-C” to “R-MU” subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report and one additional condition:
1. The final site design meet all applicable ordinance requirements.
2. Rezoning shall become effective at the time the building permit is issued.
3. Planning Director approval of final site and landscaping plans.
4. The traffic impact be analyzed by the Transportation Department and then presented to the City Council at the time that this petition goes before the City Council for a hearing. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Funk then requested that Planning Staff do an analysis on the single family homes that are located west of West Temple that are currently zoned “RMF-35”. Ms. Funk feels that this area should be considered for a possible downzoning from the “RMF-35”. Mr. Wright stated that he will direct Planning Staff to do an analysis on this area and bring the results back to the Planning Commission identifying the land use patterns and issues.
PLANNING ISSUE
Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan. A joint public hearing on this item was held by the Planning Commission and Public Utilities Advisory Committee on August 20, 1998. At this meeting, the Planning Commission will review the Plan and the revisions resulting from the public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council relating to adoption of the Plan as an element of the Salt Lake City Master Plan.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the final draft of the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan ‘98 and the recommendation to approve, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Hinckley then stated that at the conclusion of the August 20, 1998 public hearing, it was decided that a recommendation would not be made to the City Council until the Public Utilities Advisory Committee reevaluated the Plan in light of the public comments, incorporated any revisions and made a recommendation on approval of the Plan.
Ms. Florence Reynolds, a representative from Public Utilities, was present for this portion of the meeting and highlighted the major changes that had been made to the Plan.
The Public Utilities Advisory Committee recommends approval of the Plan.
Mr. Smith opened the discussion to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the discussion to the public and returned it to the Planning Commission.
Motion for the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan:
Mr. Steed moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council that the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan, Final Draft, February, 1999 be adopted as an element of the Salt Lake City Master Plan. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-98-79 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) requesting the closure of Main Street between North and South Temple Streets to construct a landscaped plaza and an underground parking structure.
Mr. Emil Pierson 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. Pierson then stated that the Planning Commission held an “issues only” hearing regarding this petition on February 4, 1999. He submitted an updated staff recommendation with some language changes and an additional condition of approval.
Mr. Mariger stated that, at the February 4th hearing, he asked staff to explore the option of the City developing the property. Mr. Mariger then asked if this option has been explored. Mr. Wright stated that staff has consulted with the Director of the Community & Economic Development Department and found out that it is not believed that the City’s budget would support the development of this plaza as a City park. It is a very expensive proposition to build a plaza like the one being proposed and to maintain it over a long course. The City’s resources for maintaining the park system that is already in place is severely limited. Mr. Wright stated that one of the concerns that the Director had was if the City were to develop this plaza as a City park, resources will be taken from the neighborhood parks.
Mr. Mariger then asked what the expected cost would be for building a plaza. Mr. Kerry Nielsen, project manager, stated that he is not prepared for an actual budget estimate at this time. Some of the details and infrastructure for the plaza are still being determined. Mr. Nielsen then stated that as soon as the project has a reliable cost estimate, he will share that with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mariger then asked Mr. Wright if he knew the budget amount for the Gallivan Plaza above the structural support for the parking structure. Mr. Wright stated that he does not have that answer as this time. Mr. Mariger then stated that unless the City studies what the cost would be, how can the City say that the funds are not available. Mr. Mariger proposed that the City may be able to develop this parcel of property and enter into a public/private partnership with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to maintain it.
Ms. Kirk asked where the money will go if the City sells the property to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Specifically, can the money be designated for other parks in the City. Mr. Wright stated that the City’s policy for a sale of surplus property is that those funds are placed in a capitol improvement fund and then the funds are appropriated by the City Council to specific projects.
Ms. Funk asked if there have been any discussions with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as to whether they would be interested in doing some kind of a partnership. Mr. Wright stated that there have been discussions about different options and proposals. He then stated that due to the nature of the investment that needs to be made on the plaza, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not be interested in leasing the property because it would be too much of a risk.
Mr. Marc Mascaro, attorney representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Mascaro then stated that since the February 4th hearing, meetings have been held to consider the concerns that were addressed by both the Planning Commissioners and the public. Discussions have taken place to consider the option of a partnership with the City. However, other options do not make sense because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proposing a pedestrian plaza for Salt Lake City, which is going to be open to the public 24 hours a day, at absolutely no cost to the City.
Mr. Nielsen presented the details of the project to the Planning Commission members by using presentation boards. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hopes that their perspective of the project will be envisioned by everyone which is that this plaza will enhance the quality of life for those who work and live in Salt Lake City and provide a memorable enjoyment for all who visit. Mr. Nielsen then stated that the proposed plaza is a significant investment by the Church into the historic and culture core of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Mariger then asked Mr. Mascaro if he envisions any use restrictions by the public that are more restrictive than a public park in Salt Lake City. Mr. Mascaro stated that the plaza will be open to use by the public, however, there will need to be some limitations on uses that relate to protesting, picketing and demonstrating. These limitations have not been fully defined, but will be worked out with the City planning and legal staff.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that a concern that was expressed at the February 4th hearing was the effect on downtown business of ongoing construction. This is a point well taken, he feels that Salt Lake City is going to come through all of this construction as a better City, but while it is occurring it has had a very negative impact on downtown businesses. Mr. Snelgrove then asked if the Church would be willing to require contractors to keep construction activities totally confined to the site during daytime hours because both North and South Temple Streets are major arteries. Mr. Mascaro
responded by stating that he feels that Mr. Snelgrove’s request is not an inappropriate one to make. Approximately 50% of Church employees in the downtown use public transportation, van pooling or car pooling.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that one of the major concerns that the public has expressed about the project is the impact of traffic downtown. What current measures does the Church take to diminish its traffic impact on downtown. Mr. Nielsen responded by stating that the current measures would include van pooling, car pooling and participation in public transportation. The Church is a partner with UTA which provides a participation plan for employees for monthly bus passes. Programs are in place where work hours and schedules are staggered during the day.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gifford Price, a concerned citizen and resident in the Avenues, stated that he is in favor of the proposed closure of Main Street. He feels that the closure is a unique opportunity to continue a progressive attitude of the City and to continue its good development. Theodore Roosevelt once stated that “whenever a decision is being made in the public interest, it should be guided by the principles of the greatest good, for the greatest number, in the long run. This proposal meets that particular criteria.
Mr. Robert Hyde, a concerned citizen and resident in the Avenues, stated that he feels that the proposed pedestrian plaza is beautiful and a wonderful extension to a more quiet Main Street. Mr. Hyde then stated that he is also in favor of the tax payers not having to pay for this project.
Mr. Michael Martin, a concerned citizen and resident in the Avenues, stated that he is in favor of the proposed closure of Main Street. Mr. Martin then stated that there is also much support from the community for the closure.
Ms. Nuchanaad Martin, a concerned citizen and resident in the Avenues, stated that she is in favor of the proposed closure of Main Street and the pedestrian plaza. She then stated that she loves to take her family and children to places such as the proposed pedestrian plaza and that she is very much in favor of not having to worry about cars while visiting this area.
Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she is in favor of the proposed closure of Main Street, however, the traffic issues remain to be an ongoing constant problem. Ms. Gardner then asked the City to help with those traffic problems. She then stated that she feels that the pedestrian plaza will increase tourism and she is pleased that it will not be a burden on the taxpayers.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she feels that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the way it wants to do this project all mapped out and it has no interest in compromising. She then stated that her opinion has not changed since the last hearing on this issue, which is that bias is pervasive. Ms. Cromer continued by stating that in her research, the planning documents that have been cited call for traffic calming measures on Main Street, not the closure of Main Street, with the exception of the 37 year old “Second Century Plan”. She then stated that she believes the City does not know the answer to the public cost of building a plaza.
Mr. John Francis, Vice-Chair of the People’s Freeway Community Council, stated that he feels that this proposal has the appearance that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants to further dominate downtown Salt Lake City. If this proposal reflects the true vision of Brigham Young, why didn’t he originally lay out the Salt Lake Temple in the center of the street and have that street never platted in the first place. Mr. Francis then stated that the People’s Freeway Community Council did not vote on this, either pro or con, as stated in the staff report.
Ms. Mary McDonald, Chair of the Traffic Committee for the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that anytime a main arterial street is closed, there is a traffic impact. Ms. McDonald then stated that she feels that solutions to the existing traffic problems need to be resolved before adding the proposed closure of Main Street to the problems. She questioned the assumption that Davis County commuters will use 300 West and 400 West Streets to access the City.
Mr. Tom DeVroom, a concerned citizen and a resident in the Avenues, stated that he is opposed to the proposed closure of Main Street due to traffic access problems that already exist. Mr. DeVroom then stated that he feels that perhaps the street could be an underpass which would result in meeting the needs for both the community and the Church.
Mr. Aaron Teel, a student at the University of Utah studying urban planning, stated that he is in favor of the proposed closure of Main Street because he feels that it adds to the identity of downtown. Mr. Teel then stated that he feels that Salt Lake City is a major tourism area, particularly the Salt Lake Temple Square. When people go home to their respective states and countries, they will go with an image of this visual aspect of Salt Lake City.
Mr. John Sittner, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that he feels that the proposed pedestrian plaza is gorgeous and it will be a terrific asset and benefit for Salt Lake City. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Currently, Salt Lake is in transition and will be again in the future. Mr. Sittner asked the Planning Commission to consider the permanency of the closure and the sale and to keep the options open for the future.
Mr. Brian Hutchinson, a concerned citizen, stated that he believes that all good projects deserve sufficient time for study. Critical to the success of this project is its fit to the site, which includes the surrounding structures, neighborhoods and the community as a whole. Mr. Hutchinson then stated that he feels that, under the current conditions, the proposed Main Street project will exacerbate the commuter traffic. Several issues, relating to the community and traffic, need to be addressed before considering the proposed closure of Main Street.
Mr. Eric Jergensen, a member of the Transportation Advisory Board, stated that he supports the proposed closure of Main Street. Mr. Jergensen then stated that many of the traffic issues that have been a concern for many years are now being addressed
with potential solutions. There is now an opportunity, as a community working together, to create both a wonderful pedestrian plaza that will enhance Salt Lake City and the neighborhoods and discuss implementable solutions to traffic problems that have existed for many years.
Mr. Adam Lankford, a student at the University of Utah studying urban planning, stated that he supports the project that is being proposed because it will bring back some human scale that has been missing in downtown Salt Lake City. Mr. Lankford stated that he does not see the issue as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he sees the issue as auto dependency. The community needs to stop relying on the automobile and start creating places where people can take public transportation to work, enjoy spaces like the proposed pedestrian plaza and then return home on public transportation. He requested of the Planning Commission: “Don’t save a road to kill a human scale space”.
Mr. Werner Weixler, a concerned citizen, stated that it has taken him a while, but he has finally made his personal connection with Salt Lake City. Mr. Weixler then stated that he is glad that he found that connection, and that he feels that the proposed pedestrian plaza will be a special place where other people can find their connection to Salt Lake City. Therefore, he is in favor of the proposed closure of Main Street.
Mr. Ralph Evans, a concerned citizen and an architect, stated that he is in favor of the proposed closure of Main Street. Mr. Evans then stated that he is impressed with the idea of a pedestrian plaza, however, he would like to see a more sophisticated design. He recalled his involvement with AIA when that organization sponsored the “Second Century Plan” for downtown and illustrated this idea.
Mr. Ron Holbrook, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that taking cars away from the proximity to the Salt Lake Temple needs to be weighed very carefully. He is concerned about some of the design issues, particularly the proposed pond. Mr. Holbrook feels that the pond area could be better used if it were a gathering area with a lot of seating where people could discuss important life issues.
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. Steed spoke concerning the park issue. He stated that parks do not come easy because the City’s funding is limited. If the City were to develop this proposed pedestrian plaza, the funds for City parks would become more scarce. Mr. Steed then addressed the traffic issues by stating that traffic is terrible right now because of the I-15 and light rail construction projects and closed streets to and from the City. The streets will open again and the traffic patterns will change which will help divert some of
the cars from downtown. Mr. Steed then stated that he feels that the closure of Main Street will not be an impact on traffic. Mr. Steed concluded by stating that he is in support of the plaza and the street closure.
Mr. Wright stated that, in an effort to respond to Mr. Mariger’s comment about what the cost might be for developing a pedestrian plaza, he has been able to gather some relevant information. Using the plaza portion of the Gallivan Plaza (not the buildings that were placed there), as a relevant standard, the staff estimates the cost to be about $55 per square foot or $6 million. This calculation does not include waterproofing, decking and structural upgrade which is the responsibility of the LDS Church. The cost to rebuild a street on top of the parking structure would be approximately $800,000. The maintenance cost of a plaza is significantly more than a street.
Mr. Mariger stated that he believes that having a pedestrian plaza would be a nice addition to the City at this location. He supports the closure of the street to have a pedestrian plaza. Two traffic studies have been done that have concluded that traffic issues can be mitigated and should not “drive” the Planning Commission’s decision. There are traffic issues, however, those traffic issues do not seem to be materially impacted by the proposed street closure. Mr. Mariger then stated that his original suggestion, which was to consider a development by Salt Lake City, was because he wanted to know if that option had been explored. The reason why this option would make sense, is because the City would then have the flexibility of changing things in the future. Mr. Mariger continued by stating that he is concerned that there could be restrictions placed on the public use, which could make any group of our society unwelcome, of what used to be Main Street. Also, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bought Main Street, Mr. Mariger feels that there should not be any organized picketing against their religion or anything else. One thing that the Planning Commission could do to guarantee that no one is excluded from the pedestrian plaza is to forward a recommendation to the City Council that there be no more restrictive use than is currently permitted in a public park with the exception that there can be no organized picketing demonstrations or protests.
Mr. Iker spoke concerning the traffic issues. He stated that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is an agency which decides the fate of many traffic issues in this part of the City. Mr. Iker continued by stating that UDOT is a very critical player, and without their active and constructive participation, the global traffic issues cannot be resolved. Mr. Iker then stated that he came to tonight’s meeting strongly in favor of keeping one traffic lane open in each direction. He feels now that that option is not realistic nor the best option. He stated that in his opinion, closing a street, by definition, is not a good thing to do. To make it a good thing there needs to be a balance between the harm that occurs and the public good. Mr. Iker concluded by stating that he is going to vote in favor of the proposed project because he feels that there is more good than harm.
Ms. Barrows stated that she feels very strongly about public places. Across the country and across the world there are great communities that are created and sustained by public areas. Some have religious organizations that work in partnerships, some are actually part of a religious organization, some are part of civic organizations. Most of them tend to be supported by the municipal government or the state. Ms. Barrows then
stated that she would like to have this proposal be a public/private partnership because there is so much in this community that does not portray that “this is for everyone”. She appreciates staff assembling the public policies from the various master plans identifying some of these Main Street amenities, however, the only place where she saw closure for Main Street was the “Second Century Plan”. Ms. Barrows continued by stating that she does not believe that the City should make the commitment, at this time, to sell this portion of Main Street.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that one of the central questions to the whole discussion about the closure of Main Street is who benefits. He feels that one clear purpose is an ecclesiastical one for the benefit of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mr. Snelgrove then stated that he does not have a particular problem to that issue because he feels that the Church is sincere in its intent to make the space available to the public and their desire to want the public to enjoy it. He feels that the ecclesiastical purpose and benefit of the plaza is important in determining if the City should participate in developing the proposed plaza. Because of the ecclesiastical or purpose or benefit of the plaza, he feels that the City does not have any business investing any taxpayer money into the plaza. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants to build this plaza to unify its campus and one of the benefits to it is that downtown Salt Lake City will also benefit. Mr. Snelgrove continued by stating that another issue that needs to be addressed is the issue of closing off future options. It is a fact of life, that options are closed off all of the time even in our personal lives. What has to be done when a tough decision, such as this one, is faced is that the future is considered as best it can be determined and decide whether or not the decision will be beneficial or will be detrimental. Mr. Snelgrove then stated that his vision of the future is that the City will be a much better place with a plaza of this kind then it would be with Main Street open and cars continuing to use it. Mr. Snelgrove added he may disagree with portions of the design, but on balance, it is important to take advantage of this opportunity and build this plaza in downtown Salt Lake City.
Ms. Short stated that she has a little sadness about the loss and closure of the street, however, she likes the proposed plaza. She feels that the plaza is a nice companion to the Gateway project that is being planned. Ms. Short then stated that she is in favor of Mr. Mariger’s comments about making sure that everyone will feel welcome in the plaza.
Ms. Funk stated that she is not in favor of Mr. Mariger’s comments about making certain restrictions on this plaza because she does not believe that the Planning Commission has the right to tell a private entity how they govern these grounds if they pay for the land and if they maintain it. Ms. Funk then stated that she feels that people should be allowed to speak and to do what they want to in an appropriate setting.
Mr. Mariger stated that he feels the reason why the Planning Commission has the right to make certain restrictions is because if this proposal was made without a perpetual pedestrian and bicycle easement he does not believe the proposals would be accepted. He does not want groups to feel uninvited to this space. Therefore, there is a reason, when giving up Main Street, a public place, to put a restriction that there not be unreasonable restrictions on the use of this space.
Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Mariger’s comments, about making sure that all groups feel welcome to the plaza, resolves the concerns that he has had. Mr. Smith then stated that he has lived in Salt Lake City for many years and he has not visited the park/plaza behind the Church Office Building. He was recently in a neighboring high rise building and saw that it is incredibly beautiful. Mr. Smith continued by stating that he feels that the reason why he has never been there was because he had the sense that it was a private space. He understands that it is not meant to exclude certain people. Mr. Smith wants the plaza be available to the public. He would like to add to Mr. Mariger’s comments that the visible policing element of that portion of Main Street be the Salt Lake City Police. Mr. Smith feels that having the Salt Lake City Police presence will be an additional way of identifying this plaza as a space available to the public.
Mr. Wright spoke in favor of using the park restrictions as the framework for the proposed pedestrian plaza. He stated, however, that there may be some restrictions on parks that may not be necessary for this plaza. Mr. Wright then stated that staff will review the regulations for a park and evaluate them against the objectives for this project.
Mr. Mascaro commented regarding the current restrictions for Temple Square. He stated that the restrictions are limited to things that would be offensive in terms of protests, banners and picketing. Mr. Mascaro then stated that the Church will be working with the City staff to respond to those issues. Mr. Mascaro continued by reminding the Planning Commission that the property owner is proposing to purchase the land for $8.1 million, build a plaza estimated at $6 million and maintain it to the benefit of the public. Mr. Mascaro stated that comparing the Gallivan Plaza with the plaza that the Church is proposing, the cost will likely be double the $6 million estimate. Mr. Mascaro stated that renderings cannot do the plaza justice and that the end result will be a tremendously beautiful downtown plaza. The Church’s intent is to not restrict public access, but to provide public access. Mr. Mascaro’s hope is that the plaza will be inviting enough and presented in such a way that people will walk up that street and not think it is private property. At the same time, the Church has a responsibility to protect and to keep the character, atmosphere and beauty that already exists in the adjacent blocks.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-79:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance to approve Petition No. 400-98-79 to close the right-of-way on Main Street between North Temple and South Temple Streets. Ms. Short further moved that the excess right-of-way be declared surplus property so the ownership may be transferred to the petitioner in exchange for fair-market value subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report and two additional conditions:
1. The City shall retain a perpetual easement for 24-hour public pedestrian and bicycle access from North Temple to South Temple within the existing street right-of-way. The easement shall have no gates or fences across or within the pedestrian plaza except those approved by the Planning Director and shall be planned and improved so as to maintain, encourage, and invite public use.
2. The LDS Church shall submit a construction schedule showing the traffic impacts of their construction work related to other construction projects in the area which are already underway or planned, and what mitigation measures are planned.
3. Construction work on the underground parking structure and plaza shall be performed in such a way that it does not interfere with the travel lanes on North Temple and South Temple streets during the reconstruction of South Temple Street.
4. A utility easement shall be retained to Salt Lake City through the former Main Street right-of-way for all existing and additional public and private utilities.
5. To protect the view corridor to the Pioneer Museum and through to Ensign Peak no occupied buildings shall be constructed in the former Main Street right-of-way.
6. In the former Main Street right-of-way all structures and buildings/uses (i.e. fountains, kiosks, trellises) ancillary to a pedestrian plaza that require a building permit shall be subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Planning Director.
7. The Planning Director shall have final approval of the landscaping plan and pedestrian plaza.
8. The zoning for the plaza shall be determined according to Section 21A.22.030 A of the Salt Lake City Code. Therefore, the zoning will be “UI” and “D-1” and the centerline of the former Main Street right-of-way shall be the boundary of the two districts.
9. An emergency vehicle access easement shall be established and constructed on the west side of the plaza through the former Main Street right-of-way.
10. No through access shall be provided from the parking garage onto Main Street northbound through the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
11. The pedestrian plaza and parking garage shall meet all applicable City Codes and requirements from all City Divisions and Departments.
12. Any construction activity associated with the new parking structure and/or plaza that will impact travel lanes on either North Temple or South Temple shall be completed before reconstruction work is started on the South Temple reconstruction project between Main Street and 700 East.
13. The LDS Church shall participate on a special task force comprised of City, UDOT, and neighborhood representatives to identify and recommend solutions to the long-standing traffic issues in these neighborhoods, including, but not limited to:
a. Excessive traffic volumes entering the Avenues neighborhood on Second Avenue;
b. Excessive commuter traffic using Victory Road, 600 North, Columbus Street, Main Street, and other Capitol Hill neighborhood streets; and
c. Jurisdictional roadway and/or operational transfer agreements between the City and UDOT affecting traffic control and operational issues such as traffic signal placement and timing, route signing, employment of traffic calming techniques, etc.
14. That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold an open house to gain public input for the design of the pedestrian plaza before final approval. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
15. That there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows voted “Nay”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Short moved that the Planning Commission suggest to the City Council that they consider putting the $8.1 million back into the beautification of downtown. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion.
Mr. Steed spoke against the motion saying the Planning Commission should focus on the land use issues and let the Administration and City Council decide how to appropriate these funds.
Ms. Short and Ms. Kirk voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Nay”. Mr. DeMille was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.