SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Diana Kirk, Richard J. Howa, Jim McRea, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gilbert Iker, Aria Funk and Max Smith. Ralph Becker, Kimball Young and Fred Fife were excused.
Present from the Planning Commission were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Joel Paterson, Doug Dansie and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Ms Kirk who acted as Chair during Mr. Becker's absence. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting.
Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Iker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, February 22, 1996 as presented. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted l'Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Fife were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
SUBDIVISIONS
Petition No. 400-96-3 by Glen Saxton requesting Capitol Hills Subdivision, plat “A" (Lot #108 be amended.)
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Kirk asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on this matter even though it had not been listed as a public hearing. She received no response.
Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-3, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted “Aye". Mr. Becker, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Fife were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Review alternatives for the Shoreline Trail through the Ensign Downs area and Ensign Downs Nature Park.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson stated that the staff preference was in the same order as the Alternatives were numbered.
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that the reason this item was on their agenda was in order to establish a clear public record to ensure that the Shoreline Trail does not become disconnected and that as the Ensign Peak Nature Park develops, the possibility exists that an element of the Shoreline Trail might have to be located on part of the City property in the Nature Park.
Mr. Paterson used briefing boards to outline each of the Alternatives.
Mr. Iker asked if condemnation of the Higley/Peterson property, or a portion of it, was a reasonable expectation. Mr. Wright stated that it was an option but had not been explored in enough detail to call it a "reasonable expectation".
Mr. Iker stated that Alternative # 1 was definitely the most superior option but added that it could lead to the condemnation issue. Mr. Wright said that was correct and added that it could also lead to a partnership between all of the concerned parties and the City.
Ms. Funk asked what the master plan for this area called for.
Mr. Wright stated that the Ensign Downs Development Master Plan would probably favor Alternative #4 and a portion of Alternative #5 over the other Alternatives. Mr. Wright explained that from a conceptual standpoint, there was a way to connect the trails without going through the North Cove properties but as the City became more experienced in developing trails, they were discovering that there were more elements involved that just locating the trails along City property, that there were better locations. Mr. Wright stated that master plan policy would be to ensure that the trail was not disconnected and to ensure a provision for uninterrupted bike access along the tower road.
Ms. Kirk stated that this item had not been posted as a public hearing but asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on this matter.
Mr. Jim Byrne, Co-Chair of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, stated that his personal preference was for Alternative #1 and his main concern was that the trails not be disconnected. He did request, however, that the City not wait so long to develop Alternative #1 that the remaining Alternatives were no longer possible.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, expressed concern about formally reopening master plans without adequate public input, even though the end result appeared to be in the best interest of the trail. Ms. Cromer handed out a copy of her written concerns to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Those concerns include ensuring there was adequate public input, notification to all affected community councils in order for them to discuss this issue, the need to reopen the Ensign Downs Development Master Plan and the Open Space Plan, that signs should be posted along all of the trails, that trails should not be made less aesthetically pleasing, that accessibility should not be decreased for less athletically-inclined individuals, and that all costs should be incurred by those parties requesting the changes. Ms. Cromer stated that adequate public process also needed to be ensured relative to justification of any condemnation proceedings.
Mr. Glen Saxton, representing the Ensign Peak Foundation, stated that they believed continuity of the Shoreline Trail was important and they preferred Alternative #1. Mr. Saxton suggested that Alternatives #3 and #4 be switched in their priority. He also suggested the City hold all of their options open at this time, that the Ensign Peak Foundation proceed with the Ensign Peak Nature Park and the Shoreline Trail issues be resolved over time.
Mr. J. Malan Heslop, President of the Ensign Peak Foundation, handed out copies of a chronological history of their efforts to create the Ensign Peak Nature Park, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He requested the Planning Commission approve Alternative #1. Mr. Heslop stated that they were on a tight deadline and had made a commitment to dedicate the Nature Park in July.
Mr. Smith asked how long it would take to legally examine Alternatives #1 and #2.
Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Division was not the only division involved in this matter and he could not speak for the other divisions but stated that six months would be reasonable to bring this matter to a conclusion. Mr. Wright stated that the staff believed the proposed park was consistent with the master plan and added that the key issue in this matter was to approve the Ensign Peak Nature Park as being consistent with the master plan and to make sure it was understood that there was an outside possibility that the Shoreline Trail might have to cross that trail with a crossing at some time in the future. Mr. Wright said he had not felt comfortable making that administrative decision. He stated that this matter could be brought back before the Planning Commission when more information about which Alternative would have to be implemented was available.
Mr. Wright stated that consensus could be built between the City and the community that Alternative # 1 was so superior that whatever needed to be done should be done in order to make that happen.
Mr. McRea stated that any time an issue involved a potential condemnation, there should be more public process. Mr. McRea stated that he would like to put together a motion to put a delay on this matter but to still satisfy the administrative point Mr. Wright wanted included in the record. Mr. McRea suggested an additional public hearing be scheduled but to recognize tonight's presentation as the framework under which that public process would take place.
Mr. Iker asked if Mr. McRea was making a motion to approve the Ensign Peak Plan. Mr. Wright stated that Mr. McRea's suggestion was to say that the Ensign Peak Plan was consistent with all of the master plan elements but that it needed to be made clear to the Ensign Peak Foundation that there was a remote possibility that the Shoreline Trail might have to come across the face of that park.
Mr. Wright asked if his understanding was correct that Mr. McRea desired to have a public hearing scheduled on definitively taking action on Alternative #1 since it might involve a condemnation of other properties before determining that Alternative #1 was the best choice.
Mr. Iker expressed concern that he was not clear on exactly what was included in the motion. Mr. Howa said he did not understand the condemnation questions.
Mr. McRea stated that he was seeking a tentative approval of this proposal, that he was desirous of getting this process moving but that he also wanted to ensure more public input was accepted because of the possibility of a condemnation of property. Mr. McRea said he believed there should be a valid reason for any condemnation of property.
Mr. Iker said he would like to approve the Ensign Peak Nature Park as proposed at this meeting. Mr. Iker stated that the Ensign Peak Foundation needed to be put on notice that there may be a necessity for intersection with the Shoreline Trail as well as to ensure that if the issues relative to Alternative #1 could not be resolved without some type of legal action, that this matter be taken through a public process prior to condemnation of the easement or the entire parcel of land owned by Mr. Higley and Mr. Peterson. Mr. McRea stated that he believed the issues were more clearly stated by Mr. Iker and withdrew his motion. Mr. Iker then moved to approve the Ensign Peak Nature Park as stated above. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted “Aye” Mr. Becker, Mr. Young, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Fife were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Consider adoption of the City-wide Transportation Master Plan.
Mr. Tim Harpst, the City Transportation Engineer, handed out a copy of a letter outlining the changes they recommended be made to the “Transportation Master Plan" as a result of the public input received at the previous public hearing on February 22, 1996 on this matter. A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes. He stated that no specific comments had been directed to the text of the draft plan which explains the background and philosophy of the master plan, and therefore, they were recommending no text changes to that document.
Mr. Harpst stated that some of the recommendations had been incorporated into the plan and some had not. He explained that their letter outlined each of the areas in question and the reasons behind the decisions of whether or not to incorporate the suggestions offered at the previous hearing. Mr. Harpst recommended the Planning Commission accept and consider any additional public comment offered at this meeting and approve the “Transportation Master Plan" subject to their deliberation and any additional comments by the public and that they then forward this matter to the City Council.
Ms. Short asked how the plan would be updated in the future and if there would be public input in that process.
Mr. Harpst stated that the “Action Plan" called for annual updates and they would need to determine what the best format for that process would be. Ms. Short stated that many of the proposals that came before the Planning Commission involved transportation impacts and she asked if it would be possible to have more input from the Transportation Division on those proposals.
Mr. Wright stated that a section could be added to the staff reports outlining the recommendations from the Transportation Division and how the proposal fit with the “Transportation Master Plan."
Mr. Harpst stated that the City had already established the Development Review Team which included a planner, an engineer and a transportation planner and ideally, the major projects would be reviewed by that team and some of the more difficult issues resolved before the project reached the Planning Commission for their consideration. Mr. Harpst added that during the past few months he had had one of his staff members attend the Planning Division's staff meetings to act as a liaison between the two divisions. He stated that he would probably start rotating that staff member with other staff members and added that they hoped to have a stronger and more regular presence with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Max Smith asked if the master plan maps were ever updated.
Mr. Harpst responded in the affirmative and stated that in the past, that had occurred about every ten years. Mr. Harpst explained that when the maps were amended, the proposed changes were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval of those changes. Mr. Smith asked if the master plan anticipated that the City would have the latitude to re-designate a collector street to a neighborhood street for the sole enhancement of the neighborhood. Mr. Harpst responded in the affirmative. Mr. Harpst stated that the designation of a street suggested the type of usage that should be expected of a particular street and that when an error was discovered, it could be corrected through the appropriate measures.
Ms. Kirk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tom Rogan, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council and a member of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on the “Transportation Master Plan", commended the Transportation Division on the development of the draft plan. Mr. Rogan stated that the Greater Avenues Community Council believed, however, that the “Action Plan" was in need of a neighborhood impact policy and a public input process; that many people were still not in favor of light rail, even though the majority of the members of the community council supported light rail; and that according to the maps for the master plan, Second and Third Avenues were designated as collector streets "from their points of beginning up to Virginia Street, whereas the master plan, updated in 1987 referred to them as neighborhood streets between III" Street and Virginia Street. Mr. Rogan stated that the conflicting points in those two documents needed to be reconciled since the residents of this area were counting on these streets be designated as collector streets only as far east as “I" Street.
Mr. Rawlins Young, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the rail corridor on the recently abandoned line near Granite Furniture in Sugar House was reflected as a potential corridor for light rail and/or as an arterial. Mr. Young stated that the Sugar House Master Plan called for that corridor to be a trail and was identified as a “Rails for Trails” program and should remain as such.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Kirk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion. Motion on the City-wide “Transportation Master Plan"
Mr. Howa moved to recommend, to the City Council, adoption of the City-wide “Transportation Master Plan", based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report subject to the Transportation Division meeting with the Greater Avenues Community Council to address the Second and Third Avenues issues and the Sugar House Community Council on the “Rails to Trails" issue. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Short raised the issue of the need to address the neighborhood impacts and the opportunity for neighborhoods to have some say in the master plan and plan update processes. Mr. Harpst stated that the Transportation Division had the desire to meet with the community councils and concerned citizens when making decisions relative to traffic controls with significant impacts to a particular area.
Mr. Harpst said they would be happy to add some language relative to obtaining this kind of public input.
Ms. Funk suggested an amendment to the motion that the designation of all streets should be reviewed, by the affected community council, as part of the long term master plan specificity on the “Action Plan". Ms. Funk said she believed this would address the concerns raised by Mr. Rogan. Mr. Howa and Ms. Short accepted the amendment to the motion.
Mr. Harpst stated that they did review the street designations regularly but added that since the City was basically a “built-up" City the need to change the designation of roadways was not that great. He stated that those kinds of changes, through the formal public process, historically had only been needed about every ten years. He agreed that they would look at including a public process to their annual review of the mapping issues. Ms. Funk suggested that these kinds of reviews be taken to the various community councils.
Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted “Aye” Ms. Roberts just arrived at the meeting and abstained from the vote. Mr. Becker, Mr. Young, and Mr. Fife were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS Petition No. 400-96-14 by Randy Barton requesting a Class “C" beer establishment on the interior of the block at 476 Trolley Square in a Commercial “CS" zoning district.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Kirk stated that this item had not been scheduled for as a public hearing but asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. She received no response.
Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-14 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith, Ms. Roberts and Mr. McRea voted “Aye” Mr. Becker, Mr. Young, and Mr. Fife were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-186 by Eastland Regency Company requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development for the construction of an office building, service commercial. and restaurant as well as a conditional use for a building larger than 20,000 square feet and conditional use for additional height. This project is located at 2800 East Parleys Way in a Commercial "c-e" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the overview of the staff report outlining the major issues of the case.
Mr. Jeff Woodbury, the petitioner, gave a brief history of the project and stated that they had attended numerous meetings with the various community councils to present their proposal to them. Mr. Woodbury used briefing boards to demonstrate their site plan, elevations of the proposed structure and outlined the size of the building and ingress and egress to the project.
Ms. Pahl now presented the remainder of the staff report, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation. Ms. Pahl stated that the traffic study had been conducted in 1993 with an addendum completed in 1995. She explained that a correction to one factor had been received in the Planning Office earlier that day. Ms. Pahl stated that one of the buildings on the site was a dance studio which the consultants had not felt would impact the traffic study but the staff had requested they provide traffic analysis for a retail use in that same space in the event the use of the building were to change in the future. Ms. Pahl explained that that was the information that had been faxed to the Planning Office that day.
Mr. Iker asked if K-Mart was in favor of the proposed intersection. Mr. Woodbury responded that they had held a series of meetings with the K-Mart officials but had not yet reached a final agreement. Mr. Woodbury stated that they were close to reaching that final agreement.
Ms. Pahl stated that she had a copy of a letter from K-Mart stating that they had seen the intersection conceptual redesigns and they were in the process of discussing its completion with the petitioner.
Mr. Woodbury added that they did have a current, recorded cross easement agreement with K-mart that allowed for more square footage to be constructed on this property than what was currently being proposed. Mr. Woodbury added that they needed to amend their agreement with K-Mart for the creation of the traffic light which would amend K-Mart's parking lot and in order to get K-Mart to agree to that, the Woodbury Corporation had agreed to install all of the landscaping and maintain it. Mr. Iker asked if the buildings would be permitted uses rather than conditional uses if they were constructed to be less than 20,000 square feet.
Ms. Pahl stated that since the project also lacked frontage on a dedicated street, they would still need planned development approval from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Howa asked if their agreement with K-Mart would allow them to reconfigure the entrance to the K-Mart in a different location. Mr. Woodbury responded that their existing agreement would not allow that reconfiguration but added that they had had a series of negotiations with K-Mart and they had seen the proposed plans to relocate that entrance. Mr. Woodbury added that they seemed to be in favor of the new entrance because as their current entrance was designed, their trucks had a difficult time accessing their property during the winter months and they seemed to favor the traffic signal at the proposed intersection. Mr. Woodbury added that changing the intersection would allow K-Mart to better service their store. Mr. Howa asked which firm had conducted the traffic study.
Ms. Pahl responded that Bingham Engineering had conducted the traffic study and Sear Brown had designed the intersection and traffic light installation design. Mr. Howa asked if the Planning Commission had been provided with copies of the traffic studies. Ms. Pahl responded in the negative but added that the tables "from these studies had been given to them at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Howa stated that he would not be able to read that information at this time but would read it before taking a vote on this matter.
Ms. Kirk opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address
the Planning Commission. Ms. Kirk explained that a three minute time frame would
be given to each person wishing to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rawlins Young, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the Sugar House Community Council had dealt with this site several times and approximately one year ago had given their conceptual approval for a development on this site if certain concerns were met relative to site access, internal circulation, building height and assurances that the cross easement agreement would be in place before proceeding with final plans. Mr. Young stated that there had been some confusion about the ownership of the K-Mart land and added that they had been informed that K-Mart leased their land from the property owners, and therefore, any cross easement agreements would have to occur with the property owner, not K-Mart.
Mr. Young stated that the developer had subsequently changed their plans without presenting them to the Sugar House Community Council, and therefore, the Sugar House Community Council had withdrawn their conceptual approval of the development for this site. Mr. Young stated that there was a great deal of concern from the residents of this area about development on this site. Mr. Young stated that the proposed configuration of the signalization of the intersection for this project conflicted with statements in the Sugar House Master Plan about negative impacts from off-set “T” intersections. He stated that many of the streets intersecting with 2100 South Street were off-set “T” intersections which created a great deal of confusion and a proposal for another such intersection was bad urban design.
Mr. Reed Rowland, representing the Benchmark/Arcadia Heights Community Council, stated that they had met with the various community councils affected by development on this site and their vote found that the building size of the proposed project had not been objectionable to most of the attendees; that their biggest concern had been traffic issues. Mr. Rowland stated that they had not addressed the Foothill Drive access because they had given up on that issue. He stated that they felt the proposed signal and new intersection were good ideas.
Mr. Matt Mathie, Chair of the Bonneville Neighborhood Council, stated that they had fought and lost the battle of Foothill Village which he felt had turned out to be a fiasco. He stated that they understood, "from the Utah Department of Transportation, that Foothill Drive was currently designated as a Class "0" street and a little bit of increase would make it a Class “E" street which meant three lanes going in each direction. He stated that they were opposed to this development.
Ms. Jan Haug, representing the Southeast Neighborhood Council, stated that this property had been zoned Commercial "CS" and they had requested the site be rezoned to Commercial "CB" in order to reflect the residences surrounding it. She stated that they were cognizant of the fact that the Woodbury's had owned this land for about four decades and added that it had been an ugly weed patch for that four decades. She stated that the zoning had been changed from "CS" to "CB" and they felt the "CB" zone was necessary for the entire Parley's Corridor and Gateway. She stated that the residential areas surrounding the businesses in the area were stable, vibrant and vital family neighborhoods. Ms. Haug stated that their major concern was traffic and recommended the conditional use issues for this project, including, building height, street frontage and square footage be very carefully considered.
Mr. Michael Mahaffey, a resident of the area, expressed concern that the access changes would only suffice for the existing traffic and not do anything for additional traffic.
Ms. Sherrie Carlson, a resident of the area, stated that she was not in favor of this proposal. Ms. Carlson stated that the she did not agree that the proposed traffic signal would be a benefit to the community since it would not mitigate the impacts caused by on over-sized office building. She expressed frustration with the fragmented nature of planning for growth in this neighborhood. Ms. Carlson said she wished City Administrators would coordinate with each other in analyzing and determining an overall structure and time frame for improvements in this area which should be done before any variances or conditional use permits were approved that might affect existing services. She said she was referring to traffic needs, storm drain needs, increased power and utility needs being addressed and met as a single project. Ms. Carlson said she would rather it all get done simultaneously than to get caught up in reactive fire-chasing. She said she felt the City should plan ahead to prepare for any impacts on its infrastructure before developments such as this were considered. Ms. Carlson stated that the zoning ordinances had recently been updated and this proposal did not demonstrate thoughtful consideration for this community. She stated that office space in this area will not benefit the residential components of this area and that the developer did not have more presumptive rights than the residents of the area. She urged the Planning Commission to deny this request.
Ms. Heidi Nielson, a resident of the area, stated that many of the neighborhood streets in this area would be impacted by this development, not just those immediately across the street from this site. Ms. Nielson added that Blue Cross Blue Shield would be vacating their building on 2100 South Street and there was already vacant office space on 2100 South and 2100 East Streets. She said she did not feel an increase of 88,000 square feet of office space would benefit the community with other vacant office space already in existence. Ms. Nielson added that the hours of increased traffic to access this site coincided with the hours the streets would be filled with children going to and from school.
Mr. N.J. Malmquist, a resident of the area, stated that he and his wife supported free enterprise, however, they did not see any way the traffic problems for this area could be resolved, and from that perspective, they were opposed to this project.
Mr. Robert Neville, a resident of the area, stated that he had been disappointed that the view from below this site had not been presented for consideration. He stated that this area could not handle the increased traffic this project would create, traffic signal or not.
Mr. Chris Nielson, a resident of the area, stated that he was concerned with this project and stated that he believed an objective, not just subjective, presentation of the proposal should be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nielson said he believed this was a poor site that Mr. Woodbury was trying to develop as a great site, and though he believed in free enterprise, it should not be at the sacrifice of those who lived in the area. Mr. Nielson stated that this was not as simple as the staff's interpretation that a big building should go here and be broken into four, 20,000 square foot buildings. Mr. Nielson stated that he believed there was too much slant in the staff report and added that he felt the Planning Commission should take adequate time on this issue. He stated that he would take offense at the way this matter had been presented if he were a Planning Commissioner and the information needed to make a decision at this time, such as the traffic study, had not been made available. Mr. Nielson stated that he had been offended by that as a citizen. He explained that the traffic study that had been provided to the Planning Commission had been conducted in March 1993 and significant changes had occurred since that time. Mr. Nielson stated that to make an addendum that addressed only the developer's request was unacceptable and did not take into effect new traffic studies. He stated that he felt that was unprofessional of the staff to present that information to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wright explained that Mr. Nielson's three minutes were up. Mr. Nielson stated that he had a problem with that time limit since this was an important issue that could not be dealt with in that three minute time allotment. Ms. Kirk suggested he write down the issues which concerned him and make sure the staff received those comments so they could be made part of the record. Ms. Kirk explained that the Planning Commission had studied this site in great detail, that they were members of the community and they had very carefully studied this project and the City's zoning requirements relative to this request. Ms. Kirk stated that she believed the Planning Commission had been objective in their study of this matter.
Ms. Mary Jo Broom, a resident of the area, stated that they had lived across from this site for 26 years and put up with the weeds and the seeds of the weeds blowing into their yards, with their children trying to get across 2100 South Street safely, and snow so deep and shoveled off to the sides of their street that they couldn't see to get out onto 2100 South Street. Ms. Broom said she believed the Woodbury's had dealt with the issues involved in this project over and over and had done a good job. She stated that they were in favor of a traffic light and an intersection as proposed and added that she was very much in favor of this proposal.
Ms. Beth Thomas, a resident of the area, stated that they had noticed a significant increase in traffic in this area in the past three years. She stated that about two years ago she had done a quick survey to determine the available office space within a one mile radius of the proposal site and stated that there were over 300 retail spaces and added that she would hate to see the K-Mart area become a Foothill Village or a Shopko shopping center. Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission,
Ms. Kirk closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea asked if the traffic study that had been provided to them was relevant.
Ms. Pahl requested an opportunity to address some of the issues raised by Mr. Nielson and his statements relative to her professionalism. Ms. Pahl explained that the traffic counts available to her were from June, 1995. Mr. Wright stated that the traffic consultants were in attendance and could address any issues of concern the Planning Commission might have. Ms. Pahl stated that the traffic report that had been faxed to the Planning Division earlier that day had been a correction as a result of the Planning Staff noticing that one of the tables in the traffic study charts contained a zero. Ms. Pahl stated that the zero traffic expected related to a gymnastics studio and the consultant had made an assumption that it would not create much traffic. Ms. Pahl explained that the staff had decided to obtain traffic information for a "worst case" scenario in the event the tenants of that building changed and a use that would create more traffic occupied that building. Therefore, the staff had contacted the consultant and the fax received earlier that day had been in response to that request in order for the staff to present as accurate a case as possible, to the Planning Commission.
Mr. McRea asked what kind of certainty they had that an agreement would be reached between the K-Mart property and the developer. Ms. Pahl stated that the City would not allow any kind of development on that parcel without the traffic light which would not be installed without an intersection reconstruction. She explained that K-Mart would have to approve of a crew coming onto their land for the purpose of constructing the intersection.
Ms. Pahl stated that they had studied a cross intersection with Wilshire but the engineers studying that had stated that in order to achieve the necessary grade, that intersection, with retaining walls on either side would take the traffic right at the K-Mart door step. Therefore, it had been determined an off-set intersection would provide the best solution and the greatest amount of pedestrian safety.
Mr. Wright addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Rawlins Young relative to off-set “T” intersections and informed the Planning Commission that the majority of those intersections on 2100 South Street were not controlled by traffic signals and that in this case, due to grade changes, the off-set intersection was the better alternative.
Mr. McRea said it almost appeared, by the amount of dissent on this issue, as if this plan were being discussed for the first time, even though statements had been that there had been more than 30 meetings on this matter.
Ms. Pahl responded that the Planning Staff had attended many, if not all, of the community meetings on this matter and in an effort to consolidate the concerns of the different surrounding communities, the staff had mailed out nearly 700 notices inviting people to a cooperative community council meeting to discuss this matter. Ms. Pahl stated that there had been bad weather the day of the meeting but only about 30 people had shown up. She added that the people who had attended that meeting seemed to have had their concerns addressed and the staff had believed that they had arrived at a compromised solution that addressed many of the concerns.
Ms. Funk stated that she understood the neighborhood concerns relative to traffic but added that this proposal was probably the lowest type of traffic generator that might want to develop this site. She stated that she could not imagine a better configuration for this land than the proposal before them and none of the comments had suggested an improvement to this plan, only a request to stop the developer's current plans. Ms. Funk stated that there were no other options for access to the site. Ms. Pahl stated that past plans had suggested a south access from Foothill Drive but the staff had felt that would be a bad idea and had suggested it be eliminated.
Mr. Wright stated that letters had been received in the Planning Office from Diana Hart, five residents from the upper portion of Maywood Drive and from Mary Carlson expressing opposition to this proposal because of traffic increases and inadequate access to the site. Those letters are filed with the minutes. Mr. Wright added that 26 phone calls had been received from residents of the area expressing opposition to this project. A chart of those phones calls had been handed out to each of the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting and a copy is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Iker stated that the existing access to the K-Mart site was very dangerous and he believed the proposed intersection and a traffic signal would significantly reduce the speed along Parley's Way and would be a great improvement.
Ms. Roberts asked if her understanding was correct that the traffic light would have to be installed before any development took place.
Mr. Woodbury stated that they could not receive a certificate of occupancy without first installing the light.
Ms. Roberts asked if they could construct a smaller building and still put in the traffic light.
Mr. Woodbury responded that a smaller building would not be economically feasible for them.
Ms. Roberts requested Mr. Agraz, the traffic study consultant, address the traffic study issues.
Mr. Jess Agraz stated that they had not seen the need to conduct an entirely new traffic study since they had looked at this site several times. Therefore, they had provided the addendum to their original traffic study based on the current proposed use of the land and the square footage of the proposed buildings. Mr. Agraz stated that the gymnasium next to the K-Mart was not the type of use that would impact the peak hours of traffic, but at the request of the Planning Staff, they had determined what the result would be of a "worst case" scenario in that building. He stated that they had faxed that information to the staff earlier in the day in response to the staff's question the day before.
Mr. Agraz stated that they had worked very closely with the City's Transportation Division before they had even started on this project. He stated that they did not conduct their studies in a vacuum and then suddenly submit a report. Mr. Agraz stated that he believed they had come to a meeting of the minds on what the issues and mitigating factors were relative to this case, and that they were an improvement to the overall system.
Mr. Agraz stated that Mr. Woodbury had said that the retail being proposed was primarily office support. Mr. Agraz stated that if that were the case, there would be a downward adjustment in the number of trips, because the office people at that location would not have to get into their cars and travel elsewhere for the services they needed. He explained the figures they had used were for the more traditional types of retail uses. He added that they had conducted a chronological study of traffic on Parley's Way using Utah Department of Transportation records for the last seven or eight years to determine the trends and patterns. He explained that they were able to show that there had been a continuous downward trend in the actual volumes of traffic on Parley's Way.
Mr. Agraz stated that the point for the Planning Commission to keep in mind was that this was a planning level document used to identify issues and problems and come up with mitigation measures. He stated that the detail planning, such as the timing of the traffic signal, would come later on. He added that they felt comfortable in what they were proposing.
Mr. Howa asked if Mr. Agraz was stating that there would not be a traffic problem at this site if a traffic signal were installed.
Mr. Agraz stated that, based on what was being proposed, he believed the traffic signal would be necessary and would in1prove the accessibility of that site and would be a benefit to the neighborhood.
Mr. Woodbury stated that the K-Mart store and the Samuelsons, the owners of the K-Mart property had entered into a cross easement agreement with the Woodbury Corporation to allow them to create a circular traffic program within the site.
Mr. Howa stated that he believed the developer needed to solve his traffic problems on his own site.
Motion on Petition No. 410-1 86
Mr. Howa moved to table Petition No. 410-186 and go back and address the traffic issues in a way that would address the concerns raised at this meeting. Mr. Howa stated that he did not agree with some of the findings contained in the staff report, that he did not agree with the traffic issues, nor did he agree with Findings #D, #G or #H. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion.
Mr. Wright stated that it would be helpful if a subcommittee were established to work with the staff on these issues. Mr. Iker suggested the motion should include a time frame to complete this matter, rather than to leave it hanging. Mr. Howa stated that the reason he had tabled this matter was that the plans were not complete and it was not the responsibility of the staff or the Planning Commission to assist the developer in drawing up his plans. Mr. Howa stated that his comments were not a criticism of the staff report, that the staff report had addressed all of the issues that had been presented to the staff.
Mr. Howa stated that the plans were not well designed and he was not prepared to move this matter along until a better design was presented.
Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Mr. Howa, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith, Ms. Roberts and Mr. McRea voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Young, and Mr. Fife were not present. Ms. Kirk, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Kirk suggested Ms. Short Chair the subcommittee on this matter.
Mr. Wright stated that this matter could not be placed on their next agenda since those agendas had already been mailed out. Mr. Wright stated that he assumed the staff would need at least a month to analyze this matter.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-199 by Watts Corporation requesting a conditional use for a 34 unit planned development to be located at 263 Almond Street in a Residential IIRMF-45" zoning district.
Ms. Kirk declared a conflict of interest on this matter and left the meeting at this time. She was not present during the discussion or the vote on this matter. Mr. Howa Chaired the meeting in her absence.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson stated that this matter had come before the Planning Commission on January 11, 1996 as an issues only public hearing and that the petitioner had met with the community council several times since that hearing. Mr. Paterson explained that a subcommittee had been established to work through the major issues relative to this petition. He stated that the subcommittee had been comprised of members of the Planning Commission, the Planning Staff, the Petitioner and members of the Community Council. Mr. Paterson used briefing boards to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the five options and explained that the staff supported Option #D.
Questions were asked relative to how the traffic would circulate under Option #D and how the underground parking would work. Mr. Paterson demonstrated those functions on the briefing boards.
Mr. Russ Watts, representing the petitioner, gave a presentation of their proposal using a scale model and briefing boards to demonstrate their site plan, ingress and egress, elevations, the number of proposed units, cut-back parking that would be available for community parking as well as for the project tenants and their visitors, and building design. He stated that they had redesigned this plan a dozen times in order to arrive at the best possible design. Mr. Watts gave a brief history of this project, their meetings with the community council and the changes to their design as a result of those meetings.
Mr. Watts pointed out that in accordance with the existing zoning for this site, they would be able to construct a 68 unit tower similar to the other towers in the area without having to come before the Planning Commission or meet with the community council but he explained that they were professionally committed to create something better and assist with the revitalization of the neighborhood.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Eric Jergensen, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that this was a very problematic site and a sensitive area and they hoped that this project, if approved would bring quality to the area, not just quantity. He stated that even the developer had worked with the community, there was still to much quantity and not enough quality. Mr. Jergensen stated that the developers had informed them that their previous recon1mendations were not feasible. He added that earlier in the day, however, they had developed some new ideas that they would like more time to pursue, rather than try to examine those new issues at this meeting. Mr. Jergensen stated that they believed these new ideas might be less objectionable than the five options already identified, but added that they would need more time to fully examine these new options. Mr. Jergensen stated that they believed three of the five options made sense but the option they felt was the least objectionable was Option #A because it would leave 300 North as it presently existed, create a nice green space in the triangular piece of land, and deter some of the traffic that might otherwise end up on Quince street. Mr. Jergensen stated that their neighborhood group had identified several issues that had been raised during the past few months. A member of that neighborhood group handed out copies of those issues, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Jergensen stated that those concerns included traffic, garages located on Almond Street, that they would rather see uniformly fenced in back yards along Almond Street than the garages, and the need to address geotechnical issues and possible movement and foundation cracking to surrounding buildings during the construction phase and mitigative measures relative to that movement and cracking. Mr. Jergensen concluded by stating that this area deserved a quality development but added that they did not feel this proposal was a quality development. He added that more time needed to be spent on this matter. Mr. Jergensen stated that they were still investigating the possibility of creating an orchard on this land rather than a housing development.
Ms. Carolyn Andree, a resident of the area and a member of the neighborhood committee, stated that in the Planning Division staff report dated March 7, 1996 the site had been described as being located on the south side of 300 North between West Temple and Almond Street but added that during the discussions on this matter, the site had been referred to as 263 Almond Street. Ms. Andree stated that the traffic study requirements had not included 300 North in the traffic analysis which alarmed the surrounding community. She stated that the proposed condominiums would create severe public safety hazards. Ms. Andree said the neighborhood committee believed there were eight problem areas: 1) any underground tunnel accessed "from 300 North, especially one accessed near Almond Street, would create a safety hazard because westbound cars turning left would not be visible until the oncoming westbound cars were into a serious traffic hazard. Because the downtown area was located to the east of the project, it was reasonable to predict that a large percentage of the residents' trips would be westbound on 300 North despite minor attempts to discourage left hand turns; 2) tandem parking was not recognized by the City's code, thus by code, they calculated that those units had one, rather than two parking places allocated to them. Tandem parking would create a public safety hazard when one car had to back out into the street in order to let the car parked deeper into the garage back out; 3) if 300 North were widened on the south side and then again narrowed near Almond Street, it would narrow just below Almond Street and cars following the south edge would turn almost into incoming traffic in a blind spot; 4) cars would be backing out from tandem garages onto a tight double curve on West Temple about half way between 200 and 300 North Streets which were blind corners; 5) if 300 North were widened on the south side, it would tempt illegal parking due to the extreme pressures for on-street parking which would further limit visibility; 6) the short two-way section of West Temple would force drivers not entering the underground parking onto private property to turn around or to go the wrong way down West Temple; 7) parking north of the project was extremely limited and overflow parking would be tempted onto the 300 North block of Quince Street in every plan not containing the island extension blocking that traffic; and 8) residents of the units with tandem garages would probably park at least one car per residence on the street, leaving less parking available for the other residents of the area or for guests.
Ms. Robin McLall, a resident of the area and a member of the neighborhood committee, stated that they had been involved in this project for six months and had attended every meeting regarding this project. She stated that they felt they had provided a variety of options for this project that would still allow the developer to build but would be more in keeping with the character and scale of their historic neighborhood. Ms. McLall stated that it seemed that none of their options had been truly considered, but added that she was happy to hear that another option had been discovered earlier in the day and she was looking forward to discussing that option. Ms. McLall stated that their concerns had remained consistent and they had tried to clearly and accurately state those concerns and document them. She stated that one of their concerns was the protection of their historic district which they believed would be put at risk in several ways: 1) potential harm to surrounding historical buildings during the construction phase of this project; 2) the creation of a wall of large scale intrusive development which would cut off a portion of the historical district on 200 North and Almond Street; 3) potential for the loss of State tax credits if their historical neighborhood was damaged; and 4) the potential loss of their faith in the City and the regulations they had been required to comply with relative to historic preservation, if the City were to approve a project so obviously in conflict with the area's master plan and the historic district guidelines. Ms. McLall stated that they were also concerned about the traffic issues raised by
Ms. Andree and geotechnical issues.
Ms. McLall stated that their geotechnical
concerns included the steepness of portions of the terrain which exceeded 30%, and the inferred presence of the Warm Springs Fault, on or directly adjacent to the property. She stated that the City code prohibited building within 500 feet of a fault and yet the staff report listed portions of this project with 1 50-200 feet of the Warm Springs Fault. She said they were concerned the stability of the soils in the area and they believed the cumulative effect of these problems created a public safety risk to the community and a liability to the City. Ms. McLall stated that several City and County documents strongly suggested that the Warm Springs extension of the Wasatch Fault followed the steep scarp on which the Almond Street property was located. She added that because of the historical development in this area there had been little serious testing to determine the depth or the exact location of the fault. She encouraged the City to consider the potential for this fault at this location and any effect it might have on the development, especially given the history of the site. Ms. McLall stated that their greatest concern was the instability of the soils at this location. She stated that within the neighborhood, this hillside had a long history of slippage and resultant structural damage, and of the entire neighborhood, this hillside had lost all of its historical buildings. Ms. McLall stated that they had documented incidents of soil movement back to the 1950' s and the hillside's relatively late date development (turn of the century) was suggestive of earlier difficulties. She said there continued to be a slight creep of the soil and foundation cracking due to the construction of the parking lot at 200 North and West Temple.
Ms. McLall stated that in the 1960's construction of the retirement center had resulted in the demolition of the apartment building at 246 North West Temple, the exact site for this proposal. She stated that the legal ruling on this matter had found that the soil slippage could not have been predicted since the appropriate geotechnical studies had been conducted and she expressed concern that this scenario was being repeated. Ms. McLall stated that their final concern was that the integrity of the policies contained in the Capitol Hill Master Plan would be violated if this project were approved. She stated that they believed that if this project were approved, it would also irreparably damage the infrastructure of this neighborhood. Ms. McLall stated that the master plan also stated that old, steep, narrow streets should not be widened except in the case of critical problems, and traffic on those streets should not be intensified. Ms. McLall stated that they had protested the existing zoning for this property long before the current project had been proposed for this site. She stated that they felt there had not been any serious efforts to address their concerns throughout this process; that it appeared the City and the Watts Corporation had been ignoring the issues addressed by them, except for the traffic issue on 300 North. She stated that they believed this project would damage this neighborhood and the City if approved.
Mr. Brian Romriell, an attorney representing the neighborhood committee, stated that there needed to be either additional consideration or rejection of this application because the proposed development did not satisfy City code requirements, conditional use criteria, and the developer had not sought or received the approvals necessary for the development as it was currently planned. Mr. Romriell stated that tandem parking raised traffic and safety concerns. Mr. Romriell stated that the staff report concluded that the Planning Commission could ignore the Zoning Ordinance in order to approve a planned development. He added that the staff report admitted that this proposal was a violation of the Code. Mr. Romriell stated that the Planning Commission could only alter or modify existing zoning ordinances to the extent that they did not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of the ordinances. Mr. Romriell stated that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to make this kind of a parking alteration; that alternative parking arrangements were expressly within the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Romriell's time limit was up. Mr. Howa stated that he would be given another three minutes. Mr. Romriell said he would object to that limitation if he was not through. Mr. Romriell reiterated that alternative parking arrangements were decided by the Board of Adjustment, that the Planning
Commission had no authority to consider and approve tandem parking. Mr. Romriell stated that he found it interesting that the 300 North portion of the project had been deemed the front of the property in order to eliminate the need for variances since the remaining sides of the property would not provide enough setback for frontage. Mr. Romriell stated that when this project had been applied for, the address listed had been 263 North Almond Street. He stated that you could tell by looking at the project that 300 North was not the front of the project. He stated that setbacks for front yards had been established for a reason, and yet this project had an extensive front yard that was not being required to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Romriell stated that there were a lot of these kinds of issues that raised serious concerns about the approval of this project; so serious, in fact, that there were grounds to challenge an approval should the Planning Commission approve the project. He urged the Planning Commission to study these legal implications and added that he would be happy to file a brief if the Commission desired and that it would require the Planning Commission to not approve this request as it was currently presented.
Mr. H.K. Sepehrinik, a property owner in the area, stated that he owned an apartment building in the area which was already experiencing parking problems and if this proposal were approved, the parking and traffic problems in the area would increase. He stated he had been interested in purchasing this property since he had been told that building heights would be restricted to 44 feet and yet this proposal was planned at 60 feet. He asked how the height extension had occurred.
Ms. Robin McLall asked if there were any documentation if the Warm Springs Fault was exposed at the gravel pits. Mr. Wright stated that, to his knowledge, there was a place on the Monroc property where field trips were taken by geologists and students to experience faults. Mr. Wright added that he was not personally aware of the name of that fault. Mr. Wright stated that he needed to correct an earlier statement made by Ms. McLall that City ordinances prohibited building within 500 feet of a fault. Mr. Wright said that statement by Ms. McLall had not been correct and that if there was an indication of a fault or knowledge of a fault at a particular location, and a subject property was within 500 of that fault, there was a requirement for site specific geotechnical study and recommendations from a licensed geotechnical engineer concerning that fault. Ms. McLali asked if those studies had been done for this property. Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative. Ms. McLall said she wanted to review the books because she had heard that there was an ordinance, though it was not followed, that building could not occur within 500 feet of a fault. Mr. Wright stated that setbacks from fault lines varied depending on the geotechnical studies. Mr. Paterson pointed out that a letter had been given to the Planning Commission from the Salt Lake County Geologist, a copy of which is filed with the minutes, that stated that the Warm Springs Fault ended a couple of blocks north of this site according to their most recent information.
Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Howa stated that he, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker had served on the subcommittee on this matter. Mr. Howa stated that Ms. McLall had claimed that their efforts had not been serious but he countered that statement and stated that they would not have wasted their time if a solution to this matter had not been possible.
Mr. Smith stated that he felt the subcommittee meetings had been very productive. Mr. Smith requested the Transportation Division address Option #A that
Mr. Jergensen had stated the community council preferred.
Mr. Kevin Young, representing the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, stated that the triangular piece of land created a vehicular traffic hazard for those traveling along West Temple Street since they would have a view of 300 North Street from their peripheral vision that would be distracting. Mr. Smith stated that the chance for that to occur had ruled out Option #A for him. Mr. Smith said he could not imagine approving a scheme that created an obvious traffic hazard.
Mr. Smith stated that the subcommittee had spent a fair amount of time discussing the issues of Almond Street as a streetscape relative to having no garages or driveways or front doors, in other words, that the back doors would be located on Almond Street. Mr. Smith said he had a strong feeling that that would not create a good development, that the rear of the units was not the elevation that should be exposed to a street. Mr. Smith stated that he felt they needed to create a more positive street. Mr. Smith said he had been surprised to hear that the neighborhood favored Option #A after attending all of the subcommittee meetings on this matter, that it had been determined that Options #0 and #E offered the best solutions. Mr. Smith addressed Item #11 in the handout dealing with Mr. Jergensen's comments from the community council, and stated that that might require due process and was not something the Planning Commission could get into. Mr. Howa stated that he agreed with that statement from Mr. Smith, that those kinds of issues were better left in legal hands.
Mr. Iker stated that designating 300 North as the front yard for this project had resulted from discussions with the community council and the neighbors since the 300 North frontage seemed to cause the greatest concern for them and needed the greater setback.
Ms. Roberts asked if any of the properties would really be removed from the historical register as claimed by Ms. McLa11. Mr. Wright responded that there was no automatic process to amend the boundaries of the national or the City's historical districts. Mr. Wright stated that that process could be initiated to have the boundaries redrawn. He added that the site had been vacant when the boundaries had originally been drawn and he was not sure how that conclusion had been placed before the Planning Commission at this time. He reiterated that their decision would not automatically amend the national historic district boundaries.
Mr. Wright stated that if the State Historical Preservation Office, or the property owners, were to choose to amend those boundaries in the future, there was a process available to accomplish that. He added that if the State Historical Preservation Office decided to amend that boundary, the City could provide input to suggest that that boundary not be amended.
Ms. Funk asked if the visibility coming over the hill on 300 North and making a left turn into the project was as poor as suggested by Ms. Andree.
Mr. Kevin Young responded that the conditions were not ideal but added that approaching cars were visible.
Ms. Funk asked if the statements made by Mr. Romriell relative to tandem parking were correct.
Mr. Brent Wilde, the Deputy Planning Director, stated that alternative parking was a Zoning Administrator/Traffic Engineer function and added that this had not been viewed as an alternative parking issue as much as a modification that was under the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilde stated that the staff would go back and look at that issue and if necessary, the Zoning Administrator would become involved in the decision-making process on this matter. Mr. Wilde stated that regardless of the process, the important question was whether or not tandem parking was an appropriate design solution. Mr. Wilde added that once that decision had been made, the appropriate process would be followed. Mr. Wilde stated that alternative parking was usually used as a means to reduce the number of parking stalls through shared or leased parking.
Mr. Howa stated that it was time either to move this matter forward based on the petition and the staff report or deny it. Mr. Howa stated that he realized not everyone agreed with the proposal but added that it did recognize that there was a better use for this ground than a 1 2-story high-rise. He stated that if the developer had chosen to build a high-rise the neighbors wouldn't have known about it until the contractor was digging the hole. Mr. Howa stated that this land was zoned for a higher density, a bigger use that did not need Planning Commission approval or approval from the neighborhood. He stated that he understood the neighborhood's position as well as the petitioner's position. He stated that the Planning Commission would need to state a reason if they were to deny this request. Mr. Howa stated that there were traffic problems on every site in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Smith stated that they were well aware of the historic aspects of this neighborhood but the City needed to move forward and that might mean an increase in density near the downtown area.
Motion on Petition No. 41 0-199
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report, to grant preliminary planned development approval for the Almond Street Condominiums based upon the site plan presented with modifications required to implement Option #D subject to: 1) "final design approval by the Historic Landmark Commission, and 2) all City department requirements. Mr. Smith further moved to grant the requested modifications to the Zoning Ordinance requirements to allow:
1) the setback reduction of the required corner side yard setback from West Temple in the vicinity of the southernmost 90 degree corner of West Temple where the proposed building is twelve feet from the property line but approximately 35 feet from the street improvements;
2) the grade changes in excess of two feet to allow ingress and egress from the underground parking structure and for the interior drive off of West Temple that provides access to the seven interior units, subject to Planning Director review and approval of 'final grade change details;
3) the tandem parking which allows the garage doors along Almond Street and West Temple to be de-emphasized as a design element of the building facades; and
4) encroachments for the underground driveway along the Almond Street frontage. Mr. Smith further moved to delegate final planned development approval to the Planning Director and to recommend that the City Council grant final condominium approval for this project. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Mr. Iker, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted J/ Aye." Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young and Mr. Fife were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.