SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Kent Nelson. Tim Chambless and Laurie Noda were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright and Planners Melissa Anderson, Doug Dansie, and Ray McCandless. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith was excused.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Arla Funk left the meeting at 7:35 prior to this matter.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-06, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040, Table of Permitted And Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts: of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the “M-1" zoning district.
Petition No. 400-02-07, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to rezone a 19.61 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South, 5600 West from a General Commercial “C-G” zoning district to a Light Manufacturing “M-1" zoning district.
Petition No. 400-02-11, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by removing 4800 West, between 1300 South and 700 South as an arterial street and designating 4400 West, between the same two streets, as an arterial street. Also, an approximately 1300 foot portion of the existing 4800 West street is also requested to be closed as a public street, and declared surplus to facilitate that street property being combined into the railroad freight terminal site.
Case No. 410-528, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting Conditional Use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility located at approximately 800 South 5600 West in a Light Manufacturing “M-1” zoning district.
Robert “Bip Daniels noted that this matter is one project with four (4) petitions with different parts. He allowed the petitioner to give their presentation first, at their request.
Mike Allegra, director of transit development at the Utah Transit Authority, provided background information regarding the petition. He explained that the Utah Transit Authority has worked aggressively since the public referendum in 2000 to advance the commitment made to the community. Since then they have provided TRAX, Sunday bus service, and other service extensions. They appreciated the support and cooperation that occurred between UTA, Salt Lake City, and the Department of Transportation during the Olympics. He stated that, while working on these other things, they also worked on the major aspect of the referendum, which was continued expansion of the rail transit program in the Wasatch Front. They spent the past 2-l/2 years working with Union Pacific Railroad to acquire the rights-of-way which are the key elements in developing the transit program. This culminated in a purchase and sale agreement being signed in January 2002 to provide UTA access to 175 miles of railroad right-of-way from Payson to Brigham City with multiple rights-of-way and accesses throughout the Wasatch Front. Mr. Allegra presented a map representing the three distinctions of the acquisition. One area represented where UTA could operate on existing Union Pacific Railroad track. It was noted that the level of freight service north of Ogden is small enough to allow commuter rail and freight rail at different times sharing the same right-of-way. Another right-of-way, representing the predominant acquisition, is an approximately 20-foot right-of-way extending the entire length of the corridor where UTA could construct its own transit facility to provide the advantage of service reliability, schedule frequency, and speed of service. Additional lines on the map represented rights-of-way owned entirely by the Utah Transit Authority. Mr. Allegra explained that, in order to acquire the right-of-way, two major parcels of property were required to satisfy the conditions. One was acquisition of a 60-acre auto transfer facility parcel in Clearfield. The other acquisition is the Beck Street acquisition in North Salt Lake which consists of a piggyback operation where vehicles arrive, are loaded on trucks, and are distributed throughout the valley. Mr. Allegra explained that UTA needed to acquire both parcels to provide a contiguous transit line from Salt Lake to Ogden. Acquisition of these parcels required that UTA find an alternative site to accommodate this multi-modal operation. The site located at approximately 5600 West and 700 South is the best and only site that can accommodate this type of operation. It is surrounded by two main line railroad tracks, is in an area with an industrial use, is located in the airport fly zone, and has excellent access to the freeway system. This site provides an excellent opportunity to consolidate these activities, allow the Transit Authority to consummate the deal, and provide a contiguous commuter rail system north and south of Salt Lake.
Dave Urrick, representing Union Pacific Railroad, stated that he has been working with UTA on this project from a real estate perspective, and his involvement relates to the corridors and the property required to relocate the two major commercial facilities, which are the subject of this public hearing. Union Pacific consultants and Staff have worked closely with City Staff from various departments in the design of the facility. Union Pacific has also worked with the property owners involved to either acquire a portion of their property or address concerns about operation of the facility after it is built. Mr. Urrick noted that a letter was sent to the Planning Commission from Union Pacific’s Chief Engineer of Design addressing some of Union Pacific’s concerns related to Staff recommendations for conditions of approval. He provided another letter this evening as an update on where they stand with those issues. He reported that the issue of the connector road on 10th South between 5600 West and 4800 West had been resolved because Union Pacific reached an agreement with PRI, the adjoining property owner. This agreement takes care of one of the conditions of approval because they will participate and insure that 10th South is built up front along with this facility. Union Pacific has agreed to a cost sharing plan with PRI to make sure this happens. Mr. Urrick addressed concerns related to other conditions, including the grade crossing at 700 South. The Staff also identified issues related to heat islands, storm water detention, and utilities that are more fully detailed in the staff report. Mr. Urrick requested that the 700 South grade crossing not be a condition of approval because it is not impacted by nor does it relate to the proposed project. Concerning the conditions involving heat islands, utilities, and drainage, he requested that these conditions be general in nature so Union Pacific and the City could have maximum flexibility to deal with them and arrive at workable solutions for both parties.
Gary Lunenberg, representing the Union Pacific Engineering Department, discussed the project. He stated that, as Director of Project Design, he is responsible for the design of new construction projects in 23 states. His involvement with this project has been to work with UTA to find a location for the facilities and to work with the consulting engineering firm, Parsons Transportation Group, to develop the design for the relocation facilities. Mr. Lunenberg presented drawings showing how Salt Lake fits into the railroad’s inter-modal and auto transportation system. He noted that this project will not increase the amount of train traffic. He explained that an average of nine trains a day stop at Clearfield and Beck Street combined, and with this project, nine trains a day will stop at 5600 West. He explained that a portion of this request is to stub off 4800 West, and he believed that doing so and eliminating the intersection would help with the Staff recommendation to improve the crossing. Mr. Lunenberg discussed access to the facility and noted that the truck and inter-modal facility is a truck/train interface. The trucks that come in and out of the facility will access from 5600 West and go to distribution facilities around town. A traffic study shows that this will happen on the major arterials going to those centers.
Planner Ray McCandless explained that this proposal triggers five zoning review processes which are addressed in the staff report. First is a request to amend the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts. Currently, railroad freight terminals are only allowed in the M-2 district as a conditional use, and the petitioner is requesting that the City amend the zoning to allow a railroad freight terminal in the M-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, and this will go on to the City Council. Mr. McCandless explained that the main purpose of a railroad freight facility is to on and off load rail cargo for distribution. Distributing cargo and freight in the M-1 and M-2 zoning district is fairly common. A truck freight terminal is a permitted use in both the M-1 and M-2 zones, but with so little of the City zoned M-2, it seemed appropriate to consider such facilities in the M-1 zoning district. He referred to a partial table of uses contained in the staff report and noted that the Staff recommends that freight facilities become a conditional use in the M-1 zoning district.
Mr. McCandless explained that the second request is to rezone the frontage of the applicant’s property along 5600 West from a General Commercial Zoning District to a Light Manufacturing Zoning District to bring the entire property under the same zoning. The zoning was initiated in 1995, and at that time the City envisioned a strip of general commercial along the east side of 5600 West to buffer the roadway from heavier manufacturing uses to the east. Since then, a number of changes have occurred along 5600 West which changed the overall appearance and how the area functions. Although a land use master plan has not been formally adopted for this area, the proposed rezone is consistent with existing land uses in the area.
Mr. McCandless explained that the third and fourth components are that the City close and declare as surplus property a 1300-foot portion of 4800 West. Part of that request is that the City amend the City Transportation Master Plan. Currently, 4800 West between 700 South and 1300 South is an arterial street, and the applicants would like to remove it as an arterial and make 4400 West the arterial street. Mr. McCandless referred to the area around 4800 West at about 1000 South and explained that, in order to provide access for this area as it develops in the future, the Staff recommended that at some point a street be connected from 4400 West to 5600 West. The petitioners have indicated a willingness to do this. Mr. McCandless noted that two rail lines cross 5600 West at 800 South and 900 South, and the applicants are looking at relocating the 900 South line next to the existing line on 800 South.
Mr. McCandless stated that the final review component is the conditional use. The master plan amendment, rezoning, and street closure will all go on to the City Council, but the conditional use component is the purview of the Planning Commission. The Staff report identifies 11 findings that need to be made, and he highlighted the important ones. The airport recognizes the need for storm water detention, but since aircraft routinely fly over the area, they have requested that the storm water collection areas be built and managed to minimize standing water. The Public Utilities Department has significant concerns with protection of and access to an existing 27" sewer trunk line at 4800 West. There are also significant storm drainage issues that need to be resolved. Given that there will be 97 acres of hard surfacing, the Management Services Department has requested that the potential heat island effect be minimized by using a lighter-colored surface material. They recommend either concrete or other light-colored surfacing. The property will be subdivided and assembled from other parcels; therefore, a subdivision review will be required and handled administratively. The Staff recommended dedication of property sufficient for a 150-foot right-of-way on 5600 West and an 84-foot right-of-way on 700 South. The Staff is also looking at recordation of an avigation easement and implementation of recommendations of the transportation impact study. Mr. McCandless noted that the Staff recommendations are detailed in the staff report.
Mr. McCandless commented on the issue of the 900 South rail corridor and whether it can be linked to this project. He asked Lynn Pace from the City Attorney’s Office to address this issue with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Muir asked for clarification that the petitioner took exception to Staff recommendations regarding the 700 South rail crossing, the use heat island, and the on-site storm retention. Mr. McCandless explained that reference to the water loop is contained in the Public Utilities Department comments and is part of a general recommendation to meet all department conditions.
Lynn Pace, representing the City Attorney’s Office, stated that he was asked to address a suggestion made by the Poplar Grove Community Council that approval of this project be withheld unless Union Pacific agreed to abandon its 900 South rail line. Subsequent to that recommendation, the Community Council recognized that this might be problematic and instead asked that the Planning Commission consider the impacts this facility would have on the amount of train traffic that would use the 900 South line. Mr. Pace explained that it is inappropriate to link approval of a project to something that is unrelated. In their analysis this evening, he suggested that the Planning Commission consider what impact this facility will have on trains and where they may run as well as other traffic concerns. He noted that, in response to this discussion, the Union Pacific representatives have represented that rail traffic serving the replacement inter-modal auto unloading facilities at 5600 West will not be routed over Union Pacific’s rail line at 900 South except in an emergency situation. Mr. Daniels asked what would constitute an emergency situation and how often that might occur. Mr. Pace suggested that the Planning Commission discuss this question with the Union Pacific representatives.
Mr. Muir asked if a condition requiring improvement of the 700 South overpass would be an inappropriate linkage to the petition. Mr. Pace replied that he was not familiar with the 700 South issue and could not answer without more information. He stated that the Planning Commission can focus on impacts that would be created if Union Pacific brings a facility to this location, but it is inappropriate to address impacts that may already exist from other sources.
Ms. Barrows clarified that, because this is a conditional use, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to look at anything that impacts that property. She asked if they would be limited to what is confined within the property boundaries or whether they would be allowed to deal with interface issues such as transportation and access to public rights-of-way. Mr. Pace replied that the Planning Commission has the ability and obligation to look at the broader impact. The question is a matter of reasonableness. Case law requires that anything required of the developer should have a reasonable nexus with what they are proposing.
Mr. Jonas asked for an explanation of the time constraints in moving this project forward. Kathryn Pett, Legal Counsel for UTA, explained that UTA is facing two time constraints in this transaction. One is the need to close this transaction consistent with the closing provisions in the contract, which calls for a May 30 closing. They have the ability to extend, but that ability is limited. The closing must occur no later than August 30 under the contract. In order to achieve that closing schedule, UTA must obtain financing of $185 million in bonds, and that has a long lead time. In order for UTA to get the bonds placed in the public markets and achieve the closing date, assuming it is extended to August 30, they need approval from the governing entities, including the Planning Commission and Salt Lake City Council, no later than July 31.
Ms. Barrows stated that she could not find a true definition for a railroad freight facility in the zoning ordinance and asked if there was a definition for this type of facility. Mr. McCandless replied that there is no definition. Ms. Barrows asked if the Planning Commission would have the opportunity at this time to write an appropriate definition, noting that Union Pacific has used examples of the current facilities to show how they might be inappropriate in the M-1 zone, yet they are also freight terminal facilities. She was trying to determine how the Planning Commission could distinguish and identify what they are considering. Mr. McCandless felt the Planning Commission could, as part of their motion, create a definition for a rail freight terminal. Ms. Barrows asked if Mr. Pace could help with the language. Mr. Pace stated that he was not in a position to write a definition. If the Planning Commission moves forward with this approval, he suggested that they not only authorize the text amendment for a railroad freight facility in the M-1 zone but also recommend that a definition be provided for that facility.
Chairman Daniels opened the public hearing.
Edie Trimmer, Poplar Grove Community Council Chair, stated that the community is looking for something that will help them produce a just, equitable, and sustainable comprehensive plan for everyone’s benefit. They want the community, the City, and UTA to benefit. They believe in light rail, but they believe this process is being rushed too fast. Ms. Trimmer stated that she took exception to Mr. Pace’s characterization of their second motion. The motion was that there should be a master plan in place and better data before this decision is made, and she believed Mr. Pace mischaracterized that intent. She commented that the Planning Commission is not just to protect the petitioners’ rights but to lead the community toward a good and better City for everyone. She believed that, with a good planning process and time for all parties to talk to one another, and if all the issues were brought forward and addressed, the issues could be resolved. She referred to Mr. Pace’s comment about the 900 South line being an existing use that the Planning Commission cannot consider and noted that the line has not yet been fully upgraded and feeds directly to the freight inter-modal site. She asked how they could separate rail lines that lead to an inter-modal site and say they are not connected. Ms. Trimmer asked that the process be slowed down to allow time for appropriate study of all the impacts, including the fact that there is not a master plan and that there is a western transportation corridor proposed that runs at 90-degree angles. She did not think that adequate study, data, or answers had been provided. She referred to a May 10 letter from the Community Council to the Planning Commission outlining a number of issues including the fact that this was supposed to be light manufacturing. The letter contains four questions the Community Council wanted to have answered. Ms. Trimmer believed there was a good solution for everyone which might involve Grant’s Tower or other alternatives, but she believed it needed better research and review of data. Without traffic and rail data, people are being asked to believe this and accept that there will not be increased use of the 900 South line.
Mark Smedley, a Poplar Grove Community Council board member, echoed Ms. Trimmer’s comments. He stated that the process is occurring very fast with little notification. He commented that the community was not notified when different petitions were submitted to the City, and the first they heard about this was when he attended a Transportation Advisory Board meeting the first of March. He felt the information provided at the Community Council meeting was inadequate. He stated that they agree with the intent of the petition, but they would like the City Staff to do some analysis of how it will impact the neighborhood rather than just asserting that it does not. Mr. Smedley believed the staff report was dishonest in saying that the neighborhood would not be impacted and does not address any ways that it could or will. In order to be honest, the staff report should say that commuter rail is needed, and therefore they will put a heavier industrial use in the area than what the zone allows. He believed that would be a fair way to say it up front. Instead, the people are told that it has no effect on their neighborhood. Mr. Smedley remarked that the staff report fails to provide an analysis of how the rail yard will affect train traffic through Grant’s Tower. Union Pacific has already said that Grant’s Tower is a constriction in their system, and one reason for changing the 900 South rail line to heavy freight use from passenger use was that they needed to reduce or remove the constriction in Grant’s Tower. Mr. Smedley believed the City should run an independent analysis of how train traffic coming into the valley will affect train traffic through Grant’s Tower and not accept Union Pacific’s assertion that it will not have an affect. He commented on a study conducted in collaboration with Union Pacific, RDA, and the City related to upgrading Grant’s Tower so Union Pacific could move its trains through that area more quickly. It was a $21 million study to relocate the two main lines adjacent to each other so instead of being on Folsom Street and South Temple they would both be relocated to South Temple and the curves re-figured through Grant’s Tower to operate at a higher rate of speed. Mr. Smedley believed the planning process should look at the whole transportation system, not just this one facility as an independent unit, and that they should not decide on a location without a study or consideration of how the effects of this facility on the west side of Salt Lake could be mitigated.
David Anthony, representing the Glendale Community Council, stated that, in April, Union Pacific and UTA addressed the community council meeting, and it was voted unanimously not to have this facility at 5600 West. The reasons for denial were traffic impacts and manufacturing and commercial sprawl. He commented that no studies have been done on hazardous material, hazardous material handling, or who will respond to hazardous material incidents. Mr. Anthony stated that 900 South is an issue with the Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils. Union Pacific runs heavy freight through that area, and Mr. Anthony noted that they identify box cars, flat cars, covered bulk cars, coal cars, etc. He asked what etc. means. He also wanted to know what emergency means. He commented that this will have a great impact on Salt Lake City. He was not against Union Pacific having a yard, but 5600 West is not the place for obvious reasons. He worried about what would happen to the west side neighborhoods, particularly with hazardous materials, and he believed those issues needed to be addressed. He believed the project should be put on hold until they have all the answers, because there was too much at risk. Mr. Anthony stated that the City limits do not end at State Street, and the residents of Salt Lake City need to be addressed; not the industrial residents, but the people who live in Salt Lake. He stated that approving this would be a terrible injustice to Salt Lake City.
Ralph Becker provided comments from a historical perspective when he sat on the Planning Commission. He stated that, a number of years ago when they looked at the downtown plan and Gateway before its inception, they considered the opportunity represented by moving the freight operations and main operations to the west. The Planning Commission did not have a specific area identified at that point. Their interest was in moving the tracks to open up west downtown and move much of the rail traffic away from the downtown area to allow the space and benefits of less rail traffic. At that time it appeared that this would also be a great benefit to Union Pacific. Mr. Becker acknowledged that much had changed since then, but he believed this proposal would be a big step in that direction. He felt the Staff had done a great job of analyzing the proposal. From the community point of view on the west side, the issue of the 900 South rail line has been disastrous. The west side of Salt Lake has been at a disadvantage in the City, and reopening the 900 South line worsened the problem. Mr. Becker felt it was unfortunate that Union Pacific did not work toward another solution that would not further damage a critical residential area on the west side of Salt Lake City. He suggested additional conditions of approval for this facility which has been needed for a long time. One condition would be to require initiation of a long-term plan to relocate all long-distance railroad traffic away from the downtown and residential areas. He stated that he had read in the newspaper about a plan to limit the amount of rail traffic on the 900 South line, and he felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to require a commitment that the traffic will not increase.
Dan McConkie stated that he is Chairman of the Davis County Commission and Chairman of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, which is the Chair of the Metropolitan Plan Organization for the five-county area including Tooele, Salt Lake, Davis, Morgan, and Weber Counties representing the mayors, commissioners, and council members. He stated that he was appearing as the Chairman representing that body this evening. He commented that commuter rail is an important ingredient in relieving the congestion in the Great Salt Lake Basin and has been part of the planning for many decades. It is particularly important to Davis and Weber Counties. He referred to the sales tax increase in Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake Counties that the public voted in to support commuter rail. He believed this Union Pacific right-of-way was especially important in giving mobility to the residents of the Wasatch Front and all who visit here. Commuter rail is the important component that the residents of the northern counties look to and count on as a way to find mobility choices. Mr. McConkie asked the Planning Commission for their wisdom and judgment in a speedy resolve to this matter and to support and expedite the Union Pacific rezone so UTA could move forward with this very important project.
Jay Ingleby, representing the West Side Community Council, expressed concern about traffic impacts. Four roads run from the facility--North Temple, 700 South, California Avenue, and 2100 South. Roadway Truck Lines is located at 3200 West California Avenue, and they haul a lot of freight for Union Pacific. Roadway trucks go up and down 1300 South every day. If this facility is built at 5600 West, he believed the traffic would increase because the truck drivers would use 1300 South and 700 South as a matter of habit and would not use North Temple or 2100 South. Therefore, the impact on the residential areas would be significant. Mr. Ingleby believed that this facility would be a detriment to the residents and to the location. He commented on wetlands, holding ponds, birds, and other environmental issues and urged the Planning Commission to look at all the issues involved and realize that this is not a good thing for the community. He stated that the west side is sick of getting the short end of the stick because everything is pushed to the west side. He commented on hazardous waste materials and the disaster that would occur if a train derailed in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Ingleby asked the Planning Commission to put a stop to all that is happening and think of the west side as part of Salt Lake City.
Donnie Sweazey stated that he is a resident of the west side and owns a piece of property directly across the street from the proposed facility. He was not opposed to this proposal, but if it were rezoned, he believed all adjacent properties should have the same zoning.
Bob Fisher, organizer of the Property Rights Foundation of America in Utah, stated that he did not oppose this project. He agreed that it would bring more traffic and commotion and that the people who are already there should get a better benefit. Currently they are zoned M-1, and he believed M-2 will provide more development options. He believed people in the State would demand more rail and better ways to get around because the freeways and highways are being saturated with semi-trucks. He stated that he was born and raised around railroad tracks, and although it can be nerve racking at times, it can also be educational.
Ila Rose Fife, resident in the Poplar Grove area across the street from the 900 South tracks, stated that the residents have been actively improving their neighborhoods, and she believed their neighborhood was vital to the entire City. She believed it had been a tragedy to have the trains back in their neighborhood. She wondered how much the people in the Glendale and Poplar Grove area could take. The noise, smells, and inconvenience of reactivating 900 South, heavy freight, a change in usage, and the high amount of hazardous materials Union Pacific carries through their neighborhood are all on the backs of children who already have many challenges in their life. Children have no choice where they live, and she questioned why they do this to people who need it the least. She commented that Union Pacific chose to reactivate that line so they could get by with lower standards than putting in a new line somewhere else. Consequently, the children in that area are not as safe as children in other places where Union Pacific has put in new lines. Ms. Fife stated that she could not talk about the new inter-modal hub without worrying that more trains would be running through the neighborhood, along with the probability of more truck traffic. She was not against the hub but felt that the impacts needed more study. She proposed that Union Pacific not send contributions to charitable foundations in the next five years and put that money toward closing the 900 South track between 600 West and Redwood Road as their charitable act to the children who need it most.
Janette Gonzales, a resident in the Glendale area, stated that her son’s bedroom window is 35 feet from the tracks, and they are kept awake most of the night due to the shaking of their house, the sound of the train, and the horn that blows when trains come through. It is affecting their lives and damaging the foundation and walls of their home. She noted that Union Pacific upgraded the operation from Class I to Class II, and the train speed has increased from 10 mph to 25 mph. She was concerned about accidents from chemical waste and children playing near the tracks because they have no choice. She stated that she and her husband do not have the resources to move, and it is very sad to have to live that way. The City had no idea what Union Pacific had done to their neighborhood, and it was unfair to allow this to happen to them because they are not rich enough to fight. She stated that she wonders every night why the City would allow this to happen in their neighborhood and urged the Planning Commission to help them.
Michael Clara agreed with Edie Trimmer that the people are being asked to believe that the 900 South line will not be used or have an increase in traffic. Mr. Clara stated that the community is skeptical because at one point Union Pacific made a mockery of this very body. In 1997 the Planning Commission considered the Railroad Consolidation Plan that indicated that the 900 South line would be removed. Mr. Clara referred to earlier comments by Mr. Becker that the plan was to move tracks out of downtown and out of the Gateway area. Mr. Clara stated that they were also part of the Gateway area. Federal funding was brought into the area, and they were part of that. According to the Railroad Consolidation Plan, the 900 South line was to be removed. Mr. Clara referred to a plan that was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1998, Creating an Urban Neighborhood Gateway District Land Use and Development Master Plan, and noted that several pages of that document contain a map showing a green parkway on the 900 South line. Mr. Clara questioned why Union Pacific had decided to come to the Planning Commission tonight to make an amendment to a transportation master plan. He believed Union Pacific deceived the community and the federal government and let everyone believe that the 900 South line would become a linear parkway to connect their community to downtown. Mr. Clara asked the Planning Commission to take the petition this evening with a grain of salt in light of Union Pacific’s past deception.
Fred Fife, a resident across the street from the 900 South rail tracks, thanked the Staff for distributing a letter he had written to the Planning Commission. He stated that his letter was his attempt in desperation to have something done to restore the neighborhood he has lived in for more than 30 years. Based on Mr. Pace’s comments, Mr. Fife felt he should be trying to find the tie between the reactivation of the 900 South railroad tracks and the proposed location of the inter-modal transfer facility. He believed the reactivation of 900 South was contrary to all the planning work that has been done for that part of the City. The Salt Lake Master Plan, the Rails Consolidation Plan, and the zoning ordinance all call for this rail corridor to be open space and to be converted at some time into a linear park to connect the west side with areas east of the freeway. Mr. Fife pleaded with the Planning Commission to find a way to ask Union Pacific to restore the neighborhood. He believed this had done more damage to the residents and the future of the neighborhood than anything he could envision.
Roger Borgenicht, chair of the Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board, read the motion that board passed concerning this matter on March 4, 2002. The motion endorsed the closure of 4800 West as part of the proposed relocation of the Union Pacific freight inter-modal facility as long as there is a commitment from Union Pacific that the project would not impact the 900 South rail line. He stated that the board realized they were under a quick time frame, and some of the issues were studied more quickly than they would have preferred. On a personal note, he felt that the momentum toward developing transit in this community and in the metropolitan area had turned around 180 degrees in the last two years. Much of that credit goes to UTA and the wisdom of the people in Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake County for voting additional taxes. They realized that more transportation choices will help maintain a quality of life in this region. Mr. Borgenicht was sympathetic to many of the comments from the west side community. He stated that he has been involved with these issues for a long time, and the Railroad Consolidation Plan did contain promises of railroads moving out of neighborhoods. He had heard in meetings that this railroad consolidation would occur and separate some of the division between the east and west. He recalled conversations about reducing the impact of freight rail on communities and increasing the positive impact of passenger rail, and closing the 900 South line was part of that in terms of freight traffic. He hoped the recommendation from the board about getting a commitment from Union Pacific could be met and that the railroad will be able to move toward removing freight traffic from 900 South. Mr. Borgenicht urged the Planning Commission to do whatever is possible to make that commitment real, not just something on a piece of paper.
Charlotte Fife Jefferson, a resident in the west side of Salt Lake, stated that she grew up there, and she and her husband chose to buy their first home there. They live there by choice because it is a wonderful, diverse, and close area. As a neighborhood, they are forced to bear the burdens of industry, and now they are being forced to bear the burden of this project. She pleaded with the Planning Commission to look at the broader impacts on the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. They are vital neighborhoods, but with all the burdens Union Pacific has placed on their neighborhoods, people who can afford to move out will. She explained that they have been trying to get a Jordan River Parkway trail connection, but they cannot get access with the rail line. Ms. Jefferson stated that asking the residents of these neighborhoods to accept the burdens of this heavy industry for the good of the City is not fair. She asked the Planning Commission to look at the impacts of the inter-modal hub more closely. The residents feel this is being rushed, and they need a more comprehensive plan for the west side or this piecemeal process will kill their neighborhoods. Mr. Daniels asked Ms. Jefferson to elaborate on her comments about the Jordan River trail and the rail tracks. Ms. Jefferson noted that Fred Fife sits on the Jordan River Parkway Foundation and has been involved longer than she has. She asked that he be allowed to answer the question. Mr. Fife explained that the Jordan River Parkway is completed through the City from North Temple to 2100 South in various phases. Where the river goes under the railroad tracks, there is a blockage of the trail continuation due to the inability to have a surface crossing of the trail over the railroad tracks. The City has been working hard to get the trail completed and get approval from the railroad to cross those tracks. It will be particularly difficult at the reactivated 900 South line because it is becoming a 25-30 mph railroad line.
Chairman Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Nelson referred to a map showing the railroad coming from the north and south, then turning left into the proposed inter-modal. As the trains come from the south, he could see a natural short cut up 900 South to the inter-modal site, and it would appear to be a natural event to increase the load on that street. He asked the railroad to address that issue, because it impacts the inter-modal issues. He also asked the railroad to expand on what constitutes an emergency.
Mr. Lunenberg used a system map to explain the routes coming from Ogden to Salt Lake. Another line runs from Denver to Provo and into Salt Lake, but it is not used for inter-modal and auto traffic because the route is too difficult. He explained what the 900 South line is used for and felt there would be no reason to use the 900 South line for inter-modal traffic.
Ms. Barrows asked about chemical loading. Mr. Lunenberg explained that chemicals run through Salt Lake but cannot be stored here.
Mr. Nelson clarified that the inter-modal hub will be used exclusively for unloading cars and trucks/trailers. Mr. Lunenberg replied that it would be used the same as Clearfield and Beck Street are today. He reiterated that intermodal and auto traffic does not use 900 South. They have an expedited route that comes through the Midwest to Ogden, into Salt Lake, and goes west at Grant’s Tower. Trains run on the 900 South line, but the expedited intermodal/auto traffic will not. Mr. Lunenberg commented on emergency use of that line and stated that it would be very difficult to use. It would take a disaster, such as a flood, to be considered an emergency. Mr. Nelson asked if there would be any reason for trains coming from the south, such as Texas, to use the 900 South rail line. Mr. Lunenberg stated that he could not imagine any market generated for inter-modal or auto coming from Texas toward Salt Lake. He explained that the inter-modal business is primarily from the west coast ports to Chicago and points east. The trains that come through Salt Lake have materials and goods that are used locally and serve the Utah and the greater Salt Lake area. Mr. Nelson commented on the utilities under 4800 South where there are major trunk lines to sewers and noted that the proposed solution is to work it out. Mr. Lunenberg outlined the options they need to evaluate for any existing utilities. The options have been discussed, and Union Pacific needs to decide which one is best. A troublesome issue is the drainage problem. Union Pacific thought they could detain storm water and meet the criteria of 2.2 cubic feet per second of off-site flow. They cannot keep that flow and not detain the water without major changes to the storm drain take-away systems, and they have conflicting information that needs to be worked out.
Ms. Barrows was unclear as to how this facility will be used and what it will be used for. She understood that any trains involved with the inter-modal facility would go through Grant’s Tower. It appeared to her that 900 South would go directly to the inter-modal facility. Mr. Lunenberg explained that the 900 South line goes by the facility and ties into the same piece of rail that the inter-modal and auto trains will use to get there. Ms. Barrows noted that there is nothing to preclude inter-modal and auto traffic from using 900 South. Mr. Lunenberg reiterated that nothing precludes it except that inter-modal and auto business does not come from that direction. Ms. Barrows asked what Mr. Lunenberg would see as Union Pacific’s future growth increase to this inter-modal center. Mr. Lunenberg replied that currently there are 9-12 trains a day. They do not have enough business to run another train, but if business were to grow 2% to 3% per year, they would eventually have enough business to create another train. He noted that they are restricted by train length. He would see that increase as quite a way out. The current plan is to run the same trains they do today and stop at Clearfield with the autos and Beck Street with the inter-modal. Those same trains will go around the corner to Grant’s Tower and end up at the facility at 5600 West. Ms. Barrows referred to a letter from Jeff Koch dated April 5 stating that any future growth in the levels of Union Pacific’s automobile transportation businesses is not reflected in this transportation operating plan. She asked Mr. Lunenberg to forecast what they will see in the future, because this facility, if approved, will be forever. Mr. Lunenberg replied that if they are fortunate enough that their business grows, they will add a car or two to each train to make them longer. At some point, if the business grows enough, they may have to add another train to that particular service.
P. D. Kaiser, representing Parson Transportation Group, stated that they projected to the year 2010 for operation of the facility and explained how that was done. The projected growth is 16% from now to 2010. At the time this was done, Union Pacific did not anticipate additional trains and believed they would only have to add cars to existing trains. A 5,000-foot train may go to 6,500 feet by the year 2010. Mr. Kaiser explained that the impact would be the length of time it would take for the trains to get through the crossings, and the length of time depends on how fast the train is going. They typically run at 60 mph, but when they come into or out of the facility, they would be going 15 mph. He anticipated the traffic delay to be approximately 10 minutes over a 24-hour period. During the 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. peak periods, an average delay would be seven to eight minutes total. He clarified that trains run 24 hours a day, and out of 34 trains, only four or five occur during a peak period. Ms. Barrows asked if the study considered that fact that 5600 West will not always have peak traffic, and at some point they will have constant traffic. Mr. Kaiser replied that he met with the Utah Department of Transportation to discuss the future plans for 5600 West. UDOT did not have an exact plan and presented him with a number of possibilities. Ms. Barrows asked if UDOT was represented this evening. No one came forward.
Mr. Nelson commented on the 700 South crossing and Union Pacific’s claim there is no connection between that crossing and the inter-modal facility. Mr. Kaiser explained that they assessed the number of trips generated by the facility, where they go, and how many occur during the peak period. This facility will generate approximately 560 vehicular trips per day over a 24-hour period. The only access to this facility is on 5600 West, and there is no access on 700 South or 4800 West. He identified the existing trucking distribution sites that serve the inter-modal facility and noted that they are the same distribution sites that will serve the new site. Most of the sites are west of I-215, some are south of State Route 201, and a couple are toward Davis County. Mr. Kaiser noted that the automobile dealerships are destination points for the auto traffic coming through this facility. In order to serve those dealerships, 60% of the truck traffic will make a left turn onto 5600 West, six peak hour trips will use California Avenue, and only one peak hour trip will go onto 700 South. He believed that would represent little or no impact on 700 South.
Ms. Barrows stated that her concern was with the impacts on the crossings rather than the actual trucks going out. Mr. Kaiser explained that they looked at the impacts of the train operations on 5600 West, with and without the facility. Without the facility, 34 trains currently go through that area at 55-65 mph. Four to five of those trains occur during the peak period. With the facility, there will be the same 34 trains with 9 to 11 of the trains coming into and out of the facility. Only two of those trains occur during peak traffic periods. Those two trains slowing down to 15 mph were compared with the delays currently caused at 55 miles per hour, and it was found that there is a 10-minute difference between what happens today and what could happen in 2005 when the facility opens. Using the same trains but adding cars would add approximately seven more minutes to the projections for 2010.
Mr. Muir asked about the intent for the existing inter-modal sites at Beck Street and Clearfield and asked if the asphalt would remain. Mr. Allegra replied that the Clearfield site is approximately 60 acres and is located next to the rail line. It is paved and lit and has rail access. It has excellent potential for a commuter rail station, but 60 acres of land is not needed for that. Mr. Allegra noted that site is adjacent to two high-density residential areas with great potential for a transit-oriented development. They are just starting the environmental impact statement phase to help identify the stations along the corridor and the activities that would occur at those stations. UTA will let local governments make the decision as to where the stations will be located. UTA does not need that amount of land to make the stations work, and a typical station size is approximately 10 acres. Mr. Allegra explained that it is not anticipated that the Beck Street facility will be used as a commuter rail station. UTA has just started a facilities maintenance study because of this recent acquisition of the facility and these parcels of property as part of the Union Pacific Railroad acquisition and intend to evaluate its usefulness in terms of transit purposes. They are looking at relocating and adding bus maintenance facility uses as part of the referendum commitment to add bus service to the community. They also need space for the commuter rail operations. The intent would be to use the space in a transit development phase that will help them contain costs as they move forward with their transit development projects.
Mr. Daniels stated that he intended to follow Mr. Pace’s advice and not tie this petition to the abandonment of the 900 South rail line, but he wanted to assure Salt Lake City that it will not be to the detriment or the buildup of the 900 South rail line. He commented on emergency use and the possibilities of floods, train derailments, automobile accidents, and unexpected growth that could lead to expansion of use on the 900 South rail. He understood that it might be unfair to look for an assurance that Union Pacific will never build up traffic on the 900 South line to relieve the inter-modal traffic. He asked how close Union Pacific would come to saying that there will not be additional impacts. Mr. Lunenberg stated that the traffic using the 900 South route today has the same potential growth as stated earlier, but he did not foresee a change in the business that would cause them to use that route for trains coming from the south. He also could not see business coming from the Denver lines over the mountains that would increase that traffic. He commented that an automobile accident or train derailment would not constitute an emergency. It would truly have to be a flood or some type of disaster.
Mr. Diamond asked what would happen if Union Pacific did not have use of the 900 South rail and noted a route on the diagram that turns left past Grant’s Tower. Mr. Lunenberg replied that there is a route coming from Roper that turns west at Grant Tower. Mr. Diamond asked if there was a relationship between 900 South and what UTA wants to do. Mr. Lunenberg replied that the project proposed at 5600 West and the trains serving that facility will not use the 900 South route, and this is not related in any way to the UTA project.
Ms. Barrows stated that five years ago no one gave them any reason to believe that the 900 South line would be reactivated. Union Pacific says tonight that they cannot anticipate an increase in the inter-modal use, and she was concerned about how good their forecasting is. She was on the Planning Commission when there was discussion of Phase 3 of the Gateway Railroad Consolidation Study which planned to remove the line, and she did not understand why 900 South was reactivated. Mr. Lunenberg stated that he was not prepared to speak to that issue since he was not involved in that decision.
Kay (berger) Arnold stated that she had a problem with the emergency use language and suggested that the sentence be deleted. She preferred to not leave it to the railroad to determine what constitutes an emergency.
Ms. Barrows asked if the City has any control over what the railroad can do and where. Mr. Pace explained that Union Pacific and UTA have asked for certain approvals, and the Planning Commission is debating what conditions should be attached to that approval. Union Pacific has also offered conditions they are willing to abide by in certain commitments. Those take the form of either an offer or acceptance in a contract or a voluntary agreement where the City says if UTA and Union Pacific want this approval, it must be on certain terms, and if they do not agree to those terms, they will not get the approval. Mr. Pace did not think the City had the authority to regulate how rails lines are used, but the City does have authority to approve this project with certain terms. Union Pacific has the choice of agreeing to those terms or walking away from the table.
Mr. Muir referred to comments made this evening implying that the railroad has not followed through on previous agreements and asked at this juncture could it be an enforcement issue? Mr. Pace stated that it would depend on the nature of those agreements. He was not involved in that process, but he believed they were master plan conceptual documents of what the City hoped to accomplish over time in consolidating and removing rail lines. He was unsure whether the railroad ever agreed in writing to those proposals. In this context, the Planning Commission would be the final decision maker on the conditional use approval. In other parts of the petitions reviewed this evening, the Planning Commission will only be making a recommendation to the City Council. In whatever form that final decision is made, part of it will say that the City grants approval conditioned upon certain elements, and the permit is granted to do what the applicant wants provided they abide by those conditions. If they do not abide by the conditions, the permit is withdrawn, and it becomes an enforcement issue. Mr. Muir felt it would be to the public’s benefit if the City Attorney’s Office would investigate those agreements that are binding and inform the City Council as to whether or not they have been abided by. Mr. Pace assured Mr. Muir that other members of his office who have been heavily involved in the litigation over the 900 South line have already done that investigation.
Mr. Jonas referred to Mr. Becker’s comments and the perspective that a Planning Commission is supposed to plan for the future and plan the best for what they can see happening for this community and for the area. It appeared to Mr. Jonas that the Planning Commission had the opportunity to bring to fruition something that has created a good momentum in terms of commuter rail, mass transit, and alternate transportation forms. They do not have the benefit of a master plan for this area, and as unfortunate as that is, it is where they sit today. However, there is zoning in this area that seems to indicate the intent of the City to push industrial and manufacturing out to the area where this facility is planned. Mr. Jonas referred to Mr. Becker’s comments about the intent of the City years ago to move the rail yards out to the west, and this is an opportunity to see that occur. Mr. Jonas preferred to see the facility at 5600 West rather than Beck Street from the standpoint of planning and looking forward to the development of the City. He did not have answers to all the transportation questions and what would happen in the future with 5600 West, but the impacts did not seem that tremendous, and the City has the opportunity now to move forward with a transportation plan. Union Pacific may get the benefit of the momentum created by UTA because they are involved in this transaction, and while they may be considered the bad corporate citizen because they reactivated the 900 South rail, they also helped with Gateway by moving the tracks and making that land available. Mr. Jonas believed this project was far from done because much of the coordination still needs to take place with other departments in the City. However, all the parties are at the table, and as a Planning Commission they are looking at a proposal that requires an action. It may be quicker than everyone would like, but he felt they had to take advantage of this opportunity.
Ms. McDonough agreed with Mr. Jonas in terms of supporting the full steam of transportation efforts, but she was disturbed by the timeline, lack of notice to the public, and long-term impacts. She believed this area was the only direction in which the City could grow, and they are hearing from citizens that this master plan and the intent of only manufacturing in this area is ideal and not realistic. If possible, she would like Union Pacific to be obligated to be part of a long-term impact study and commit to responsibility for some impacts by mitigating them either financially or actively. Ms. McDonough noted that, if the Planning Commission continues to look at pieces of this in only a piecemeal fashion without considering the greater obligation of such a major impact, it will continue to not be in the best interest of the City’s growth. She suggested an approval subject to integrating a long-term impact study and obligating some mitigation on the part of Union Pacific. Mr. Daniels asked Ms. McDonough if she was suggesting a study for a period longer than 3 to 5 years and possibly 20 years or more. Ms. McDonough replied that was correct.
Mr. Jonas stated that he was unclear as to what type of mitigation Ms. McDonough would want, because this area is zoned M-1 and is not intended to be a neighborhood. Ms. McDonough stated that she does not see a mechanism that obligates Union Pacific to be a good citizen. She clarified that her comment was not specific to 5600 West and includes everything from 5600 West to downtown.
Ms. Barrows stated that she was comfortable with the petition for a text amendment. On the zoning amendment petition, she would consider changing the zone, but she would also change some of the conditions. Her biggest problem was with the transportation master plan, because UDOT is a partner in this project, but they are not represented this evening. She stated that she had difficulty visualizing changing from an arterial to a collector to a local. These are huge decisions that determine the where and how of density. She believed the Planning Commission should have a transportation master plan and all the players at the table, and at least a full transportation report should be gone through in detail. She agreed that on the surface they all want commuter rail, and if this is going to facilitate UTA getting commuter rail, they all want to participate. However, this is huge in terms of transportation and how it will effect the entire area, and that is where she believed there was a big hole. Ms. Barrows asked Kevin Young to explain which streets will be arterial and which ones will be local.
Mr. Young explained that currently 700 South is an arterial road on the City street map. California Avenue is an arterial, 5600 West is a State road, and Bangerter Highway is a State road. On the map, 4800 West is listed as an arterial. Mr. Young explained the reason for and benefits of closing 4800 West and moving the arterial to 4400 West. Mr. Kaiser further explained that UDOT has given verbal approval for a driveway from the new facility or a new road on 1000 South. The railroad has agreed to realign their driveway to tie into the new 1000 South road so the City can make the connection to 5600 West. Mr. Kaiser believes they would have that approval in writing by the first of the week. Ms. Barrows clarified that the facility access would then be off of 1000 South. She expressed concern about sight distance at the railroad crossing. Mr. Kaiser replied that it will be 800 feet from the crossing, and there is plenty of room for sight distance because it is a flat, straight road.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-06
In the matter of Petition 400-02-06 by UTA and Union Pacific requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040 to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the “M-1" zoning district, Mr. Jonas based on the finding of fact contained in the Staff report and the testimony herein moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council to allow the text amendment with an additional condition to include a definition of a “railroad freight terminal”. Andrea Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present for the vote. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-07
In the matter of Petition 400-02-007, a zoning amendment by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting approval to rezone a 21.979 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South and 5600 West, from a C-G Zoning District to an M-1 Zoning District, Mr. Jonas based on the finding of fact contained in the Staff report and the testimony herein moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council that the property be rezoned from C-G to M-1 subject to meeting the requirements of all City Departments, including approval by the Salt Lake City Airport, the FAA, and UDOT based upon the findings of fact contained in this report and the testimony herein. Andrea Barrows seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact - Petition No. 400-02-07
1. Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area, the proposed rezoning is consistent with other existing land uses in the area. The rezoning is consistent with the Airport Master Plan.
2. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
3. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
5. Public facilities are adequate to service the proposed facility provided approval by the Salt Lake International Airport, Public Utilities Division, and Streets and Sanitation Division is obtained.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 400-02-11
In the matter of Petition No. 400-02-11 by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by downgrading 4800 West between 1300 South and 700 South from an arterial street to a local street and designating 4400 West between the same two streets as an arterial street and to declare as surplus property an approximately 1300-foot portion of the existing 4800 West Street to be closed as a public street, Mr. Jonas moved to forward a recommendation based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report and the testimony herein moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows:
a) That a future road connecting 4800 West with 4400 West should be added to the major street plan.
b) That the street classification of 4400 West between 700 South and California Avenue be changed from a local to a collector or arterial street as determined by the Transportation Division.
c) That a new street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West at approximately 1000 South be added. This street will be a local from 4800 West to 5500 West and a collector from 5500 West to 5600 West.
d) The street classification of 4800 West north of California Avenue be changed from an arterial to a local street.
The Planning Commission recommends to City Council that the City close and declare as surplus property the portion of 4800 West street between approximately 700 and 900 South subject to:
a) Meeting all department requirements and addressing the concerns of the Public Utilities Department.
b) Union Pacific Railroad agreeing to allow future crossing of the spur line for the future road connecting 4800 West to 4400 West.
Prescott Muir noted that the applicant is challenging the need to extend water lines as addressed in item a) and asked if it would be appropriate to add language to that condition that reads, “directly impacted by the development.” Mr. Muir felt that if the utilities are directly impacted, Union Pacific should have to upgrade them. Mr. Nelson liked the intent of Mr. Muir’s language but wondered if it would create an interpretation of “directly impacted” which could result in a judge making that decision. Mr. Jonas pointed out that Union Pacific has asked that the conditions be general in nature so they can negotiate with individual City departments. He was comfortable with that request because, if they cannot come to an agreement with City departments, the petition cannot move forward. Mr. Jonas preferred to leave the language as stated and recommended by Staff. Mr. Wheelwright stated that he was confident that the Public Utilities staff would come to an amenable agreement with Union Pacific.
Kent Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Jonas realized that he had not finished the motion on the remaining parts of the petition and continued his motion as follows:
With regard to 4800 West, the Planning Commission recommended that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows:
a) Creating a cul-de-sac to City standards for the new terminus of 4800 West Street.
b) Participation in the construction of the road between 5500 West and 4800 West at 1000 South.
c) Provide a “No Outlet” sign on 4800 West (for northbound traffic) just north of 1000 South.
d) Construction and dedication of the proposed 1000 South Street between 5600 West and 5500 West and realigning the main access driveway to tie into the new street as a driveway, or, UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future.
With regard to 5600 West, the Planning Commission recommends that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows:
a) Proposed improvements to 5600 West must be reviewed and approved by UDOT.
With regard to the 700 South Rail Crossing, the Planning Commission recommends that Union Pacific discuss with the City and UDOT the improvement of the crossing.
Ms. Barrows suggested adding language to address movement of the existing 700 South line in the event the railroad creates more traffic. She did not know what would happen to 700 South, and since the line will be on Union Pacific property, the City would have no say unless they add language now. Mr. Jonas stated that it is not part of the proposal, and he was unsure how they could connect it to the future. If Union Pacific has committed to improving the crossing, and they have a legal obligation to make all crossings safe, the railroad will be involved in any future improvements to 700 South. Mr. Wheelwright stated that upgrading of crossings is UDOT’s responsibility, and to the extent they are City streets, it is a City responsibility. Mr. Muir felt this would be a terrible situation, because Union Pacific has admitted that additional trucks will use that crossing. Mr. Kaiser stated that the impacts would be positive, because there would be fewer trains after the new facility is built. They have identified only one additional vehicle trip per day on 700 South that will go to a trucking facility further east on 500 South. Ms. Barrows favored fewer trains but would like a collaborative effort for the crossing. Mr. Kaiser stated that UDOT is responsible for analyzing any train/highway crossing in the State. They use a priority list to determine where money is spent to improve crossings. The list is based on train traffic, vehicular traffic, accidents, etc., and the 700 South crossing is far down on the list. Mr. Kaiser noted that Union Pacific will be eliminating crossings on 5600 West and 4800 West with this project, and he did not see any significant impact to 700 South with the project.
Ms. McDonough understood that part of the awkwardness with the crossing was due to the height of the rail, and adjusting the rail higher over time has made that intersection worse. She believed this was a retroactive impact that has become progressively worse. Now that Union Pacific is activating this site, she believed it would be appropriate to obligate the condition suggested by Ms. Barrows. After further discussion, Mr. Jonas felt that anything they do now will only be a band-aid for later, and he was not comfortable amending his motion. Mr. Nelson noted that the language recommended by Staff states that “Union Pacific and the City jointly investigate improving the 700 South Crossing” which is probably passing the buck, but he felt the language was sufficient.
Mr. Jonas agreed to include the following language:
a) Union Pacific and the City jointly investigate improving the 700 South rail crossing at approximately 4900 West.
Kent Nelson seconded the second part of the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition 410-528
In the matter of Petition 410-528 by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting conditional use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility located at approximately 800 South and 5600 West in an M-1 zoning district, Mr. Jonas moved to approve the conditional use based on the findings of fact and the testimony herein and subject to conditions a.-k. in the staff report moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council.
Mr. Nelson seconded the motion.
Mr. Daniels suggested adding Condition l. to read, “Assurance be made that all possible alternatives to diverting any inter–modal traffic on to the 900 South line be used.” He commented that the Planning Commission does not have the purview to take the trains off of 900 South, but they do have the purview to say that this project should not adversely affect 900 South.
Ms. Arnold stated that it was not clear whether the Planning Commission could take emergency use away from Union Pacific. Mr. Jonas clarified that Condition l. would require Union Pacific to use all possible alternatives other than 900 South in any kind of emergency. He stated that he was comfortable with the amendment to his motion. Mr. Nelson understood that the language as stated by Mr. Daniels would include any inter-modal traffic. Mr. Daniels replied that Union Pacific has already stated that they will not need 900 South for inter-modal trains except in an emergency. Mr. Jonas added the word “emergency” to his condition but explained that he was referring to any kind of inter-modal use. He added Condition m. that the City and Union Pacific should initiate a plan to relocate all long-haul trains away from downtown and residential areas.
Mr. Nelson accepted the amendments to the motion.
Findings of Fact - Petition 410-528
A. Approval of the proposed facility should be conditioned upon adoption of the zoning ordinance text amendment.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans, current zoning and uses.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided UDOT approval is obtained and Transportation and Engineering Department concerns are addressed.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
E. Existing utility services are adequate for the proposed facility and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources provided departmental concerns can be addressed.
F. At this location, no significant impacts from light, noise, or visual impacts are anticipated. As this facility will operate 24 hours per day, a lighting plan should be provided and approved by the Airport.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures in the area.
H. A landscaping plan will need to be provided and approved by the Planning Director.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural, and environmental features of the property.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State, and Federal codes and ordinances.
Conditions of Approval - Petition 410-528
a. Adoption of the proposed zoning text amendment to allow a rail freight terminal in the “M-1" zoning district.
b. Designing the automobile parking and rail freight container storage areas to minimize the potential “heat island” effect.
c. Minimizing the need for on-site storm water detention acceptable to the Airport Authority and Public Utilities Departments.
d. Subdivision approval including construction agreements on roadways and utilities.
e. Obtaining a letter from the Army Corps of Engineering/verification that any wetlands will not be disturbed or will be mitigated.
f. Airport approval of a lighting plan.
g. A landscaping plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
h. Meeting all applicable City, State, and Federal requirements.
i. Dedication of property along 5600 West sufficient for a 150' wide right-of-way and dedication of the property frontage on 700 South to 84 feet as required by the Transportation Division. Dedication of street right-of-way for the 5500 West/1000 South Street connections or UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future.
j. The property owners signing an Avigation Easement.
k. Implementation of the recommendations in the Transportation Impact Study.
l. Assurances be made that all possible alternatives to diverting any emergency inter-modal traffic onto the 900 South line be used.
m. The City and Union Pacific should initiate a plan to relocate all long-haul trains away from downtown and residential areas.
Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Ms. Barrows voted “Nay.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. Barrows noted that some of the findings were based on things such as 700 South, and she asked the Staff to make sure there were no contradictions based on the fact that a conditional use has been approved.
To address her concern, Mr. Jonas modified his motion to revise Finding C to read, “Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided UDOT approval is obtained and Transportation and Engineering Department concerns are addressed.”
Kent Nelson seconded the modification to the motion.
Ms. Barrows stated that she was troubled by Finding K which indicates that the Conditional Use is compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Ms. Barrows voted “Nay.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion:
Mr. Jonas moved to initiate a petition to have a master plan developed for this area which would include a transportation impact study. Ms. McDonough seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote.
Mr. Nelson stated that he hoped Union Pacific had listened carefully to the comments made tonight and considered the difficulties of the neighborhood on 900 South.
Mr. Daniels echoed Mr. Nelson’s comment and stated that he was one individual who is closely impacted by the 900 South railroad line as he resides less than 100 feet from it. He took the time in May 1999 to telephone Omaha, Nebraska, to ask someone in the corporate offices about the status of that track. He was told that the track had definitely been abandoned and would not be used again. The next day he signed to buy his home. Mr. Daniels stated that his comments are aside from the decision made this evening.