SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Max Smith, Aria Funk, Judi Short, Gilbert lker, Andrea Barrows, Fred Fife, Jim McRea and Carlton Christensen. Diana Kirk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Dansie, Margaret Pahl, Robert Glessner, Doug Wheelwright and Everett Joyce.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:20 p.m. by Mr. Young. 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. Smith moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, May 1, 1997 subject to making the minor correction that had been discussed. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. McRea, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
PUBLIC HEARING - Major Investment Study for the East/West Transportation Corridor from the Airport to the University of Utah.
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. He stated that the Major Investment Study (MIS) is being prepared by Parsons Transportation Group/Deleuw, Cather & Co. for the Wasatch Front Regional Council. Mr. Dansie then stated that the MIS looked at all available options for accorr1modating transportation in the East/West corridor. Several options were removed early because of the lack of feasibility (commuter rail, HOV lanes, widening streets, monorail). The final report focuses on bus lanes and light rail. The final decision regarding which option to pursue will be made by the Wasatch Front Regional Council and UTA, based upon the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Administration, City Council and other public input.
Mr. Doug Hattery, of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, was present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Hattery stated that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared which is being reviewed by the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations and it is also being presented to the public for their comments. The next step is to prepare a final draft if the decision is made to move ahead with the recommendation for light rail.
Mr. Christensen asked how the community councils have responded to light rail in reference to the alignment and the feasibility of it.
Mr. Hattery stated that the community councils were mostly supportive of light rail, however, there was some opposition. There were no major issues in reference to the recommended alignment.
Mr. Dansie stated that Doug Jackson, from the Fairpark Comn1unity Council, could not be present. Mr. Jackson's concern was if the alignment goes along North Temple, he does not want to see it become a divider to the community.
Mr. Ralph Jackson, DeLeuw, Cather & Co., explained the notification process and also further explained the light rail system that is being recommended in the MIS for the East/West Transportation Corridor.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. He stated that the public comments should be based on whether or not the Planning Commission should endorse the further study of a light rail system connecting the Salt Lake International Airport to the University of Utah, via Downtown.
Ms. Edie Trimmer, a representative from the Poplar Grove Community Council, stated that the community council is in favor of the light rail system due to the increased vehicle traffic in the neighborhood. There are some people in the neighborhood who feel that light rail is not the best option. Ms. Trimmer continued by stating that she is in favor of further studying the light rail system. There needs to be a good alternative transportation system that links neighborhoods that would involve light rail, pedestrian traffic, bike trails, etc.
A concerned citizen, who wished to remain anonymous, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system because there is a bus system already in place that could work if it had further study.
Mr. Jim Decker, a concerned citizen, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system because he feels that the buses would be safer and faster. Mr. Decker also stated that he is in favor of HOV lanes.
Dr. Ken Larson, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system, because he feels that light rail will increase congestion of people, businesses, buildings and housing. Mr. Larson also feels that the Downtown residents would prefer the open space.
Mr. James Ramsay, a concerned citizen, stated that he is in favor of further studying the light rail system. He feels that having a light rail system will minimize air pollution, congestion and noise.
Mr. Preston McConkie, a concerned citizen, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system. He feels that it should not be studied because the citizens voted for no tax dollars in 1992 and that light rail is an inflexible means of in-city transportation.
Another concerned citizen, who wished to remain anonymous, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system.
Mr. Chris Larson, a concerned citizen, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system. He suggested that the bus system be further studied and then see how many people utilize that service before a light rail system is constructed.
Mr. John Adams, a concerned citizen, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system. He feels that the money could be better used for development in the City and improving the bus service that is already in place.
Mr. Sam Taylor, a member of the Board of Directors for the UTA, stated that he is not speaking for the UTA today, he is speaking for himself and for the tax payers of Salt Lake City. Mr. Taylor then stated that he is against further study of the light rail system because he feels that buses are the best means of mass public transportation.
Mr. Thurston Huvy, a concerned citizen, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system because he feels that the light rail system would not be flexible to the riders.
Mr. Durell Dibb, representing First Security Corporation, stated that if there is further study of the light rail system, he would like the International Center to be included in the corridor.
Ms. Joy Short, a concerned citizen, feels that more people may be likely to ride a mass transit system if there were not so many parking terraces available to park their cars.
Mr. Gary Bliss, a concerned citizen, stated that he is in favor of further studying the light rail system. He asked which consulting firm would be selected to implement the study.
Mr. Hattery stated that Wasatch Front Regional Council will use DeLeuw Cather to prepare the final Environmental Impact Statement. At that point, other consulting firms will be given the opportunity to be selected for the preliminary engineering phase.
Mr. Bliss stated that he would like the consulting firm to be as independent toward light rail as possible.
Joshua Stewart, a student at the University of Utah, stated that he is in favor of further studying the light rail system. He stated that it has become very difficult to find parking and that he, and several other students, would appreciate any form of transportation that would keep them out of the automobile.
Ms. Ruby Young Hansen, a concerned citizen, stated that she is against further study of the light rail system because she feels that the light rail system would not be flexible to the riders. She also stated that if the bus system were improved, it would serve the needs of the people and it would be less expensive.
Mr. Fred Klass, a concerned citizen from Davis County, stated that he is in favor of further studying the light rail system. He mentioned that he is very interested in all forms of public transit. Mr. Klass feels that the light rail system be recommended could be improved by using different elevations for the track.
Mr. Drew Chamberlain, a concerned citizen, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system. He feels that the consulting firm that is selected should be a firm that is independent from light rail. Mr. Chamberlain also stated that he feels that light rail would be a tragic mistake because of the many dangers involved. Mr. Chamberlain distributed a document entitled "The Dark Side of Light Rail", a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Mike Ridgway, a concerned citizen, stated that he is against further study of the light rail system. He stated that he does not want his taxes to increase in order to fund the light rail system.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. lker asked if the study is continued would it be confined to just light rail or will the study include the bus system.
Mr. Hattery stated that the hope is to have a decision made, by the involved organizations, on their preferred alternative so that the consultants would be focused on one preferred alternative for the final Environmental
Impact studies. Mr. Jackson added that there will be a significant expansion of the bus system for whichever alternative is selected, HOV lanes as well as a light rail system.
Mr. McRea asked about the conflict of interest mentioned in reference to the current consulting firm.
Mr. Jackson responded by stating that DeLeuw, Cather & Co. is part of the Parsons Transportation group. DeLeuw, Cather is a professional organization that has done several planning studies and has completed final design on systems all over the country. DeLeuw, Cather does not perform construction, so therefore, they do not bid on the construction of the system. Mr. Jackson then stated that his firm will compete for the next phase of the study, which is the design.
Ms. Barrows asked if the Planning Commission has any control over which consulting firm is selected.
Mr. Hattery stated that there is a steering committee that oversees the project with representatives from Salt Lake City Corporation, UTA, UDOT, the Airport and the University of Utah. The steering committee also selects the consulting firms.
Mr. McRea asked about the integration of light rail with the other forms of transportation. Mr. Jackson stated that DeLeuw, Cather has coordinated with Greyhound, Amtrak, and commuter rail and there will also be an expansion of the bus system to help meet the transportation demand management such as higher parking fees, variable work hours, car pooling and van pooling. These issues would be considered for both the HOV lanes option or the light rail option.
Mr. Christensen asked if the integration of the buses within the neighborhoods to light rail would be addressed. Mr. Jackson stated that the study has addressed light rail station locations and bus transfer locations and how the two systems will work hand in hand.
Motion on the Major Investment Study for the East/West Transportation Corridor from the Airport to the University of Utah:
Mr. Smith moved, based upon the findings of fact listed in the staff report, to endorse the further study of feasibility and funding of a LRT system connecting the Salt Lake International Airport to the University of Utah, via Downtown. He further moved to endorse further study of a North Temple/400 South alignment with a connection being made in the general vicinity of 400 West, consistent with the outcome of the Gateway planning study subject to the results of further study, including final alignment, station locations and urban design features be brought back to- the Planning Commission for review and detailed analysis if a LRT line appears to be fundable.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short directed the consulting firm to look at San Diego and other con1munities where development is driven by the location of light rail and consider including the International Center as a connection to the east/west corridor.
Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. McRea, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Collins Development and Construction requesting preliminary approval for the Warehouse District Condominiums a residential, mixed use development located at 327 West 200 South in a Downtown "D-3" 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. Scott Collins, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Young 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 on the Warehouse District Condominiums:
Ms. Short moved, based upon the findings of fact listed in the staff report, to approve the Warehouse District Condominium Conversion application, subject to compliance with departmental requirements and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. McRea, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-263 by Gary Bliss requesting conditional use
approval for a 29 unit residential planned development. located at 550 West 300 North. in a Residential "RMF-35" 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. lker asked if the parking within the proposed hammerhead would affect the turnaround ability for emergency vehicles.
Ms. Pahl stated that one of the City's major concerns with private drives is not having a turn-around for emergency vehicles. She then mentioned that the hammerhead, with the cars parked in the stalls, was reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
Mr. Gary Bliss, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Ms. Barrows asked if the development will be gated. Mr. Bliss stated that it will be a gated community with a pedestrian gate so that the playground can be accessed by the public.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rawlins Young, a concerned citizen, was concerned that this development is automobile oriented and not human oriented. Mr. Young then mentioned that he feels that all new developments should include in their review whether or not it is transit oriented.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows stated that she was concerned because of the garages being placed in front of the housing and that the development seems to be automobile oriented. Ms. Barrows also would like a condition added stating that there will be a pedestrian easement that will integrate the new development into the existing community.
Motion on Petition No. 410-263:
Mr. lker moved, based upon the findings of fact listed in the staff report, to grant approval to the proposed planned development with the following conditions:
1. That the final site plan review approval authority be delegated to the Planning Director;
2. That the final landscaping plan approval authority be delegated to the Planning Director;
3. That there be final plat completion and compliance with all departmental requirements; and
4. That the development, although it is a vehicular gated community, be opened to all pedestrian traffic.
Mr. lker further moved to grant preliminary subdivision approval to the lot which fronts on 200 North. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. McRea, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows voted "Nay".
Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30p.m.- Petition No. 400-96-75- Continuation of May 1st Planning Commission Meeting to discuss rezoning properties from Corr1mercial "CB" to Commercial "CS" to implement the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan. located on the east side of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gary Stevens, a property owner in the proposed rezoning area, asked what the reasoning is for the proposed zoning change.
Mr. Wright stated that changing the zoning from "CB" to "CS" would bring more attention to the area. Any new development will be required to follow a conditional use process and be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Stevens then asked if there would be any uses lost with the proposed zone change.
Mr. Joyce stated that there are more uses permitted in a "CS" zone than
there is in a "CB" zone.
Mr. Bob Mock, a property owner in the proposed rezoning area, asked why residential land use is being emphasized in this area. Mr. Wilde stated that during a West Capitol Neighborhood Master Plan process, there was a lot of interest in maintaining residential land use in that area. Mr. Mock then stated that he feels that 300 West would not be a feasible location for residential homes. Mr. Smith responded by stating that there are great plans for 300 West and the zoning change would be a way of incorporating the residential land use back into the corridor.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Christensen stated that he feels the zoning change will improve the area because right now the residents are bound by barriers and any retail opportunities.
Motion on Petition No. 400-96-75:
Mr. Smith moved, based upon the findings of fact listed in the staff report, to approve a zoning map change from Commercial "CB" to Commercial "CS" for the properties on the east side of 300 West Street between 500-600 North Streets, and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning map modifications.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. McRea, Mr. lker and Mr. Srr1ith voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-90 by Lance Goulet for Viking Freight Company requesting Salt Lake City to amend a portion of the Centennial Industrial park Phase 2 amended subdivision reconfiguring Lot 5A and part of Lot 4A to include the dedication of the 3230 West/Giadiola Street extended approximately 900 feet north from 1820 South Street. located in an Industrial "M-1" zoning district. and including preliminary subdivision approval for two lots.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright 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. Nile Eatmon, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that the petitioner was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Young 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 on Petition No. 400-95-90:
Mr. Christensen moved, based upon the findings of fact listed in the staff report, to grant prelirr1inary approval of the proposed Viking Industrial Park Amendment to the Centennial Industrial Park, Phase 2 Amended Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the avigation easement be granted to Salt Lake City for continued aircraft over flight activities;
2. That there be compliance with all the usual City Department conditions and City Ordinances; and
3. That final plat approval be delegated to the Planning Director.
Mr. Christensen further moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the plat amendment. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. McRea, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING at 7:10p.m.- Petition No. 410-259 by Milton Updegraff reguesting a conditional use for an automobile repair/detail shop to be located at 622 S. State Street in a Downtown "D-1" zoning district.
Mr. Robert Glessner 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. Milton Updegraff, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a previous Planning Commission member, addressed the signage being proposed Ms. Cromer asked the Planning Commission to make sure that the actual signage will be what was approved tonight.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Petition No. 410-259:
Mr. Smith moved, based upon the findings of fact listed in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 41 0-259 subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant submit detailed building elevations to the Zoning Administrator, including signage, for final approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the garage door;
2. That the applicant shall not park cars in tandem for service or maintenance purposes within the garage during business hours. The applicant may store the vehicles that is being serviced within the garage after regular business hours. The applicant may park cars in tandem near the waiting area for clients to pick up;
3. That the business shall not conduct major auto repair which includes, but is not limited to: frame straightening, transmission and engine rebuilding, body repair and auto painting, and custom body and interior installation and manufacturing;
4. That any future changes to this conditional use would require an amendment to the approved conditional use;
5. That no auto work shall be conducted on vehicles outside of the building other than automobile washing; and
6. That clients of Autograff Motor Works, Inc. will enter from Gregory Place and exit onto State Street through the new garage door.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. McRea, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. McRea excused himself ·from the meeting .
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-237 by Reavely Engineering requesting a conditional use for the construction of an addition to an existing non-residential building that includes the demolition of a residential structure. at 1521 South 1100 East. Which requires conditional use approval.
Mr. Everett Joyce 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. David Wagner, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that Mr. Ron Reavely was in agreement with the staff recorr1mendations.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cromer stated that the potential variance for parking, to her recollection, was not brought before the East Central Community Council for their review. Ms. Cromer then reminded the Planning Commission and Planning Staff about a request she made approximately two years ago. Her request was to downzone the "RB" designation on the south side of 900 South, from McClelland to 1100 East, to make it consistent with the master plan. Mr. Wright responded to the parking variance by stating that it was not brought before the East Central Community Council because it was not identified, at that time, that it would be needed to permit the existing situation.
Mr. Wright continued by stating that if the Board of Adjustment requires Reavely Engineering to meet the existing code requirements, it will result in a reduction of 4 parking spaces on the site.
Mr. Wagner stated that Reavely Engineering has worked out the buffer with the neighbor to the north that they are satisfied with the buffer. However, he realizes that the variance will still need to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Wilde responded to Ms. Cromer's downzoning request by stating that a petition has been filed and staff will initiate the process soon.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms Funk stated that she is concerned with the parking situation and she feels that the petitioner should meet the parking requirements and have the required landscaped buffer with the neighbor to the north.
Ms. Barrows asked what the total number of required parking stalls would be with the proposed expansion. Mr. Joyce stated that it would be 21 stalls and there is currently 23 stalls provided on the proposed expansion plans. There is an allowance for on street parking, but it is not encouraged.
Motion on Petition No. 41 0-237:
Ms. Funk moved, based upon the findings of fact listed in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 410-237 by Reavely Engineering to demolish a residential structure within the "RB" zoning district to allow for an office expansion subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow for a saw-tooth parking layout along the north property line to allow for some landscaping; and
2. That the landscape plans and final site plans be submitted to the Planning Director for approval after Board of Adjustment consideration.
Mr. lker seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Mr. McRea and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-247 by Homestead Village and Woodmen Properties L.C. requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development subdivision for a hotel and a restaurant located at 1222 East 2100 South Street. Petition No. 400-96-95 by Homestead Village and Woodmen Properties L.C. requesting approval for vacation of a portion of the View City Subdivision Plat.
Mr. Everett Joyce 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. Short asked about connecting trails from the adjacent uses to Hidden Hollow as mentioned in the master plan.
Mr. Joyce responded by stating that the access walks will remain the same. Once the design is out we will know what the design solution is for the walkways and landscaped areas and try to preserve some nature areas. When that is done, the entrances to the buildings will be re-evaluated to determine the best places to have access, if appropriate. Mr. Joyce then stated that additional walkways may not be appropriate because of grades or because of the impacts on the natural area being preserved.
Ms. Short then asked if the master plan would hold up the project.
Mr. Joyce stated that it would not hold up the project, but that it would hold up additional walkway construction if there will be walkways connecting to the existing building along the south elevation.
Mr. Richard Mendenhall and Mr. Jeff Woodbury, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting to answer questions.
Mr. lker asked if tonight's design is a final design. Mr. Joyce stated that it is a conceptual design that will still be going to the Design Review Committee for their comments and suggestions. Mr. lker then asked if the overhead power lines would go underground.
Mr. Woodbury responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rawlins Young, a deeply concerned citizen, stated that the Sugar House Master Plan recommends a town center development that is transit and pedestrian oriented. Mr. Young feels that the current proposal was not designed to meet the transit and pedestrian needs. Mr. Young then mentioned that the Planning Commission should not approve the proposal at this time and that they should take more time to look at the detail nature of what a transit and pedestrian oriented environment would be in the future of Salt Lake.
Mr. Wright responded by stating that there are more than just transit orientation issues that are being evaluated. He then stated that the best approach for a pedestrian to get to a hotel in an urban area is to have it right at the sidewalk. The community has seen several different designs for the hotel proposal and the majority voted for the proposed design. Mr. Wright also feels that the proposed design is very accommodating to the transit and pedestrian issues.
Ms. Lynn Olson, representing the KOPE Kids, stated that the KOPE Kids would like me to express their thanks and appreciation to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff for allowing them to continue to be a part of this process. Ms. Olson then stated that the KOPE Kids support the proposed design but they do have a few concerns. Their concerns include the need to have a strong street presence, to endorse the Sugar House Community Council's motion with the consideration to amenities for public transit and pedestrian use and to preserve the well on the north bank of the creek.
Mr. Del Brewster, with the East Valley Chamber, referenced the Rails to Trails project and stated that the Rails to Trails is looking to connect to the proposed Sugar House development with bicycling, walking and jogging paths. Mr. Brewster then stated that the bikers will be encouraged to go up Wilmington Avenue and not through the project. He then encouraged the Design Review Committee to consider the walkers and joggers in the trail program. Mr. Brewster then stated that he feels that sometimes there is a lot of focus put on Hidden Hollow and that the rest of Sugar House gets neglected. He hopes to see future development on Wilmington Avenue and that the landscaping issues be equal to that of Hidden Hollow.
Mr. Daniel Wahe, a concerned citizen, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He feels that a hotel would not fit into the Sugar House environment. He also stated that having another restaurant is not needed in the area.
Mr. Joyce stated that the hotel is an extended stay type hotel that is concentrated toward business people. The master plan has identified this particular location for a hotel and an extended stay hotel is the type of hotel that is considered supportive of the business district.
Mr. Rawlins Young referred to the Salt Lake Area Long Range Plan Technical Report that was published in May 1996 by the Wastach Front Regional Council. He stated that the report has some recommendation for the future of 2100 South for the next 20 years. Mr. Young then stated that the recon1mendation is to have local governments develop a right of way for arterial streets and that 2100 South would have 110 foot right of way. He mentioned that the Planning Commission should at least secure the right of way by having the construction of the hotel be placed behind the right of way.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Kimball Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows stated that she has some concern with the amount of asphalt parking and would like to see if the parking could be spread out by the retail use. Ms. Barrows was also concerned that there is no street frontage on 2100 South. Mr. Woodbury stated that the traffic issues and all other issues were analyzed and that the majority of people like the hotel at the proposed location. He realizes that 21 00 South needs to be made interesting and be heavily landscaped.
Mr. Wright stated that the one reason for choosing the proposed location is that the grades work better there.
Mr. Smith stated that he feels that the hotel, and the users of the hotel, will be an asset to Hidden Hollow.
Ms. Short concurred with Mr. Smith
Mr. lker stated that there has been an enormous amount of work that has gone into this project and that the latest design is a very good approach to the total problem. However, the design still needs further review before it is finished.
Ms. Short moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition Number 400-96-95 to vacate part of Lot 9, Lots 10 through 18 and adjacent (previously vacated) alleys of Block 1 of the View City Subdivision based on the finding that the original platting has no relationship to the existing or proposed parcels on the property at 1222 East 2100 South Street. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. lker and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Mr. McRea and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote.
The motion passed.
Ms. Short moved to conceptually approve Petition Number 410-247, a planned development for a hotel and restaurant, based on the findings of the staff report and that the plan can meet the guidelines of the master plan upon refinement of plans through a design review process subject to the following conditions:
1. Establishment of cross over easements for public pedestrian access on pedestrian corridors as approved through Conditional Use 410-24 7;
2. Establishment of crossover easements for vehicle access to Lot 3 for the purposes of property improvement and maintenance of Parley's Creek Open Space Corridor, emergency access and flood control maintenance by City, County, or designated private firms or individuals in the performance of work for the City or County.
3. That final landscape plans within the development as a whole maintain an appropriate level of landscaping;
4. That pedestrian walks location and materials are appropriate;
5. That building materials and design are appropriate for the Sugar House Business District and relates to pedestrian scale;
6. That Lot 4 be made available to Salt Lake City through acquisition or other means for public space as part of the Parley's Creek Open Space Corridor; and
7. That final development plans including landscaping, hard surfacing, pedestrian corridors, building design materials and design relationships of site plan to adjacent developments be approved by the Planning Commission Design
Review Committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.