SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph Neilson, Cindy Cromer, Jim McRea, Kimball Young, Diana Kirk, Judi Short and Gilbert Iker. Ralph Becker, Lynn Beckstead and Ann Roberts were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Val Halford, Doug Dansie, Joel Paterson, Margaret Pahl and Katia Pace.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Howa. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
PETITIONS and CONDITIONAL USES
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 400-95-17 by the Salt Lake City Airport Authority requesting Salt Lake City to close a portion of 3200 West south of 2200 North.
Ms. Katia Pace presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pace stated that the Transportation Division recommended a fence be required to define the closed-off area in the event of future development to the north so that the service entrance would be off-set from the intersection.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Iker moved to recommend, to the City Council, approval of Petition No. 400-95-1 7 as presented by the staff and subject to the fencing condition recommended by the Transportation Division. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson and Mr. McRea were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-17 by Consolidated Realty Group requesting a parcel of land located north of 1-80 at the southeast corner of the Salt Lake International Center be declared surplus.
This item was postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting at the petitioner's request.
PUBLIC HEARING - Preliminary Plat approval for Westpointe Village for 45 single family lots on 11 acres located at approximately 1 300 North and Morton Drive in a Residential “R-1/7000” zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Craig Burton, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they had worked hard to minimize their losses following the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project. He stated that they had experienced a substantial loss due to that project. Mr. Burton stated that they were familiar with the staff recommendation and in agreement with it. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to grant preliminary plat approval for the Westpointe Village subdivision, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Roberts and Mr. Neilson were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-0175 by Thom Williamsen requesting a conditional use for a planned development located at 353 South 600 East in a Commercial “CS" zoning district.
Mr. Val Halford 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. Russ Naylor, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and used briefing boards to demonstrate the project. Mr. Naylor stated that Mr. Williamsen was hoping to convince Taco Bell to utilize the site identification signage and remove the existing Taco Bell sign. He stated that they did not know if Taco Bell would agree to that proposal but added that they would try to work it out. Mr. Naylor explained ingress/egress, architectural details, parking, landscaping and building materials for the project.
Ms. Cromer suggested the parking stall immediately north of the Snelgrove establishment be removed to facilitate maneuvering for the Snelgrove drive-up window.
Mr. Naylor responded that he had no problem with that since they had more than enough parking.
Ms. Cromer also suggested more architectural detail in the wall buffering the residential area from the commercial area. Mr. Naylor said he would be happy to incorporate that detail in the wall.
Mr. Wright stated that the City was hopeful that the two businesses to the east of this project would upgrade their sites as a result of this project or even tie into this project.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Cromer moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-175, based on the ·findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Cromer further moved that as part of the continuing design review process with the Historic Landmark Commission, that the north elevation of the building be looked at for additional architectural detail, that safety issues associated with berming be considered carefully and that the parking arrangements behind the existing Snelgrove establishment be reviewed. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Wright explained that the outdoor dining on the 600 East side of the project required a special exception and recommended that if the Planning Commission supported the outside dining, it should be mentioned in the motion.
Ms. Cromer stated that she understood the staff report conditions and findings to cover that. Ms. Cromer stated that support for the outside dining was included in the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Neilson, Mr. McRea, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted “ Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-173 by Mark Frazier and Julie Johns requesting a conditional use for a comedy club and an approval for a liquor license located in Trolley Square. not fronting a major street. at 602 East 500 South in a Commercial “CS" zoning district.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Mark Frazier and Ms. Julie Johns, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Frazier stated that they were in agreement with the staff report and requested the Planning Commission approve
this request.
Mr. Iker asked if they would be able to serve wine.
Mr. Frazier said his understanding was that only beer and wine coolers would be allowed under this zoning classification.
Mr. Howa opened the bearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 410-173 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Roberts were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-176 by Pat Gavura and Kevin Oakes representing Park City Construction/OMN Development requesting a conditional use for Capitol Park planned development consisting of 60 single family lots located at approximately 12th Avenue and "D" Street in the Foothill Residential "FB-3" zoning district.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson explained that this was an issues only hearing, that no decision would be made by the Planning Commission at this time and that the main purpose of the meeting was to receive input from the community on this matter.
Mr. Chris McCandless, Mr. Peter Brunjes, Mr. Eddy Santamaria and Mr. Fred Campbell, representing the petitioners, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Chris McCandless stated that one of their major concerns was to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible and explained that the project had been designed around them. Mr. McCandless stated that they wanted to develop this project as a planned development rather than a subdivision with dedicated streets in order to obtain the most flexibility relative to design. He stated that there were several lots where they hoped to be able to reduce the setbacks in order to accommodate the existing trees, to cluster some of the lots and provide as much open green space as possible. Mr. McCandless handed out a question and answer document outlining the major issues involved with the project, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. McCandless stated that the bricks from the old Primary Children's Hospital would be given back to Intermountain Health Care for fund raising opportunities. Mr. McCandless stated that they wanted to get the community's and Planning Commission's input, that they would discuss that input and determine if they could incorporate those comments into their plans.
Mr. Peter Brunjes, one of the project architects, stated that the front entry to the project would incorporate many of the details and materials already on the site. Mr. Brunjes stated that the homes along 11th Avenue and “D" Street would be required to have two front yards since they would be oriented toward the project and not 11th Avenue. He stated that the design of the homes would reflect a New England style of architecture.
Mr. Eddy Santamaria, one of the project architects, stated that the entryway would resemble an entryway to a park incorporating some copper materials and a monument to the hospitals. Mr. Santamaria stated that there would be two entrances to the development, one on 11th Avenue and one on “D" Street. He explained that some of the trees on the interior of the project would be relocated to the entryway in an effort to preserve as many trees as possible. He added that they had worked hard to incorporate the feeling and character of the Avenues into this project.
Mr. Brunjes demonstrated on the site plan how the homes along 11th Avenue and “D" Street would incorporate the double front yard and that the materials would be stucco and brick and that earth tones and colors would be utilized. Mr. Brunjes stated that the 11th Avenue fencing would be wrought iron to prevent wood or stone fencing and a separation of these homes from the others along 11th Avenue.
Mr. Fred Campbell, one of the project engineers, handed out a map detailing the cuts and fills for the project and a letter from AGRA Earth & Environment outlining their findings relative to soil stability of the site. Copies of these documents are filed with the minutes. Mr. Campbell stated that this site was unusual in that it had already been developed. He stated that their study indicated that this development would produce less impact than what already existed on the site since the existing asphalt would be eliminated, there would be less damage from run-off that currently existed, and that the soils on site were very stable.
Mr. Howa asked how much fill would be needed in the fill areas.
Mr. Campbell responded that it would range from zero feet to 20 feet.
Mr. Howa stated that it seemed to him that would not work in the areas where the trees existed because it would damage them.
Mr. Campbell stated that they would not be saving trees inside the parking lot limit where the most extensive filling would occur. Mr. Campbell stated that many of the trees that would have to be removed would transplanted to other areas.
Mr. Kevin Oakes, one of the petitioners, addressed the issues of covenants, conditions and requirements and stated that setbacks for front yards would be 20 feet in the front, 15 feet total on the sides and 20 feet in the rear. He requested they be given flexibility on the rear yard setbacks in order to accommodate some of the existing trees. Mr. Oakes said their plans had been developed to be compatible with the surrounding area relative to size, cost, and building materials and that accessory structures would be required to have continuity with the homes. Mr. Oakes stated that the double fronted homes along 11th Avenue and "D" Street would have a 54" high wrought iron fence and a vinyl coated fence would run along the rear of the project located above Bonneville Drive. He added that any decking would be required to resemble the building materials of the home.
Mr. Howa stated that the homes with double frontages on 11th Avenue and “D" Street would not be allowed to have the type of typical back yard paraphernalia found in most neighborhoods such as sheds, swing sets, swimming pools, satellite dishes, and other recreational equipment. He informed the petitioners that the Planning Commission would want an explanation on how they planned to deal with these situations since they had stated that they intended to discourage variances.
Mr. Oakes stated that sheds would be banned. Mr. Wright stated that even though the developer banned them, the petitioner would still have the right to apply for a variance for them and the Planning Commission would like to see this matter addressed at the time of the hearing on this case.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Phil Carroll, the Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, handed out a copy of a letter outlining their view on this matter which had been approved by their board, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Carroll stated that they had been meeting with representatives of the Park City Construction Company on this matter for the past year and now felt that they might be involved in a “bait and switch" because none of the people they had met with were now present and they had never met the people making this presentation. Mr. Carroll stated that they were concerned and skeptical about the status of commitments already made. Mr. Carroll stated that the name the developers had chosen for this project did not belong to the area proposed for this development. He explained that projects using the name “capitol" were usually located nearer to the Capitol Building in the Capitol Hill area. Mr. Carroll stated that they would prefer the lots remain within the 12,000 square foot lot size, that all of the setbacks meet the zoning requirements, and that the houses be designed for the foothills instead of flatland houses being placed on the foothills. Mr. Carroll stated that they were opposed to the back sides of the houses
being placed along 11th Avenue and ''D" Street and added that that would be
divisive to the community. He stated that they would rather see something that
would be part of the community, not an entity unto itself. Mr. Carroll said they
would like to see sidewalks constructed along 11th Avenue and liD" Street and
access provided through the development.
Mr. Carroll stated that the proposed entryway would be destroying the historical
entrance to the Veterans Hospital off of 12th Avenue and that this was an
important issue to the community. Mr. Carroll said they would rather see
something real and historical than something calculated. He recommended the
Planning Commission carefully consider this matter before allowing more than half
the lots to be less than the 12,000 square feet required by the zoning and not
allow the building pad to exceed 25% of the site or the total coverage of the site to exceed 50%. Mr. Carroll said they felt strongly that the lots along 11th Avenue and “D" Street should be lined up and face the streets, not put their backs to the neighborhood. He concluded by stating that they were willing to meet with the developers in order to let them know exactly what the neighborhood had to say, not what the developers thought they had to say.
Mr. Jay Allred, a resident of the area, expressed concern that nobody knew anything about the reliability of the developers and their track record. He expressed concern about the construction vehicles and the impact they would have on the neighborhood for a long period of time. Mr. Allred said he believed the existing streets should be extended through this project and that it needed to be a integral part of the community, not an isolated section with its back to the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ron Daniels, a resident across the street from the proposed project, stated that he and his wife were basically in favor of this project but not in support of the backs of these homes facing their neighborhood. Mr. Daniels asked if the Planning Commission would allow them to rebuild their home with its back to 11th Avenue if their house were to burn down and stated that he did not believe they would be allowed to do that. He added that neither should this development be allowed that opportunity.
Mr. Brian Johnson, a resident of the area, stated that he was familiar with Mr. Chris McCandless and that Mr. McCandless' work was high quality work. Mr. Johnson added, however, that he believed this project should be integrated into the neighborhood with the houses facing 11th Avenue and “D" Street. He stated that he was more concerned about Phase IV of the project and the disturbance it would cause to the topography of the land. Mr. Johnson said he could not conceptualize what would be maybe 20 single family homes suddenly being converted into 45 or 50 condominium units with above ground parking making any sense. He stated that he did not believe that this project could be considered without also considering the Veterans Hospital project. He concluded by stating that if the hospital were converted to residential use, there was no way an appropriate density would be designed for that project.
Mr. Gary Anderson, a contractor who hoped to be able to build houses in the City, stated that he knew the developers and stated that they were dependable developers who were concerned about building quality projects for the community. Mr. Anderson said he believed this project would be a high quality project.
Ms. Susan Allred, a resident of the area, stated that she was concerned that no direct notice had been provided to the people who would be directly affected by this project. She stated that she had not received one personal letter or notice of a meeting dealing with this matter. Ms. Allred stated that the residents along 13th Avenue, 12th Avenue and the other streets surrounding this project were being treated like they were alleys. She said the residents of the area had joked that if this project was approved, they would not have to take their garbage cans in anymore. Ms. Allred said it was important for the Planning Commission to consider the people who already lived in the area and had made an investment in the area, not just the wishes of the developers. Ms. Allred expressed concern that they would be the entryway to a gated community and added that no one had addressed whether or not this project would be gated relative to security. She stated that it was already “gated" relative to neighborhood access by the design on the ingress and egress which were intended only for the members of the enclave. Ms. Allred stated that this was not consistent with the Avenues attitudes and lifestyles. She expressed surprise that all of the developers had mentioned how important the trees were but had never addressed how important the people were who lived in the area and the impact this project would have on those people.
Mr. Douglas Knight, a contractor for the developer, stated that he had worked with the developer for several years and that they were the best developers he had ever worked with. He stated that the developer had informed him that their biggest concern was to ensure that all of the homes were in keeping with the character of the Avenues with varied designs that would produce an effect that the Avenues had been continued up the foothills.
Mr. Richard Dunlop, a resident of the area, stated that he was in support of the letter from the Greater Avenues Community Council that had been provided by Mr. Phil Carroll. Mr. Dunlop stated that he believed it was wrong to look at only one of the projects proposed for this area without looking at future use of the Veterans Hospital and the land owned by the LDS Church. Mr. Dunlop stated that he believed this proposal was making a mockery of the new FR-3 zoning district. He stated that the developers had already proposed to reduce the side yard and rear yard requirements, that 31 of the 60 lots would be less than the required 12,000 square feet, that many of the lots would not have the required 80 feet of frontage or 100 feet for corner lots, that the fence along 11th Avenue and ''D" Street would be 54" high rather than the 42" allowed by the Ordinance, the houses would not be required to be squared to the street, and that many of the lots would have more than 50% coverage by buildings. Mr. Dunlop said he believed this request made a mockery of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mr. Jim Bach, a resident of the area and Co-Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council Subcommittee which had been reviewing development for this area, stated that he agreed with the other comments made by concerned Avenues residents. Mr. Bach said he believed that any developments proposed for sensitive sites should strictly adhere to all zoning requirements and any exemptions from those regulations should not be granted on a wholesale basis at the preliminary plat level, but only on an individual lot basis with reasonable due cause and a trade-off in favor of the City for the granting of the exemption. Mr. Bach invited the developers to meet with the community to try and plan a development that would satisfy everybody.
Mr. Ken Millo, a resident of the area, stated that he believed the letter provided from the Community Council accurately expressed the concerns and opinions that had been voiced for many months relative to this matter. Mr. Millo stated that, in general, he was in support of a development on this site, but not as currently designed. He stated that the Avenues was an area of great diversity but this proposal was a suburban subdivision type development proposed for an urban neighborhood. Mr. Millo stated that this proposal was configured to design the land to meet criteria for flat lot houses rather than vice versa. He explained that traditional architecture training called for houses to be designed to fit the land. Mr. Millo expressed concern that the developers were proposing to wholesale these lots to contractors rather than to sell the lots to individual homeowners who would be inclined to design custom homes.
Mr. Milt Taylor, a resident of the area, stated that he was looking forward to homes being developed on this site rather than the hospital traffic they had lived with for so long. Mr. Taylor added, however, that he would rather see a development that fit in with the character of the Avenues and did not conflict with it. He stated that there were already several homes along 11th Avenue with established setbacks and to approve the proposal as presented would go against what already existed in the Avenues. Mr. Taylor expressed concern relative to the proposed cuts and fills and said he would rather see the slopes coped with as they had been coped with for the homes already built on the Avenues' slopes rather than to allow such extensive cuts and fills. He requested the developers meet with the community to work out some of these concerns.
Ms. Hilary Jacobs, a resident of the area, stated that she had received a notice of this meeting in the mail but none of her friends in the area had been informed. Ms. Jacobs stated that one of her major concerns was the potential loss of open space. She also expressed concern about the phasing of the projects in this area. Ms. Jacobs stated that a private community would not fit into the character of the Avenues. She asked where all of the children moving into these developments would go to school and what the impacts would be to the schools and expressed concern for the additional traffic that would be introduced into the area. Ms. Jacobs said she found it hard to believe that the highest priority of the developers was really preservation of the trees.
Christian Fonnesbeck, a resident of the Avenues, expressed concern about slope stability on the east side above City Creek Canyon and stated that that area had been noted by the staff as being seismically unstable. Mr. Fonnesbeck stated that the upper area was currently covered with a parking lot which drained the water away and contributed to the present stability, but pointed out that a slide had occurred just to the north of the this area. He reminded the Planning Commission that during the floods of 1 983 the slope on the west side of City Creek Canyon had been destabilized. Mr. Fonnesbeck expressed concern about the setback reductions the developers were requesting and requested some site line studies be done and that all construction be pulled back from the slopes to protect the visual effect of this development.
Ms. Alberta Harrington, a resident of the Avenues, stated that she had already suffered due to the Northpointe Development and this project seemed to her to be a parallel development. Ms. Harrington stated that the Northpointe project had changed during the middle of the development and though not originally proposed to be close enough to her property to obstruct her view, the actual construction of the project had done just that. She stated that they had proposed to save the trees but had not actually done so and added that this proposal sounded exactly like the proposal that had been made relative to Northpointe. She requested some sort of enforcement occur to guarantee the developers kept their word.
Mr. Dan Byer, representing Park City Construction Company, stated that this plan and the Veterans Hospital plan had been floating around for about nine months and any claims that this was the first time this had been seen was not accurate. Mr. Byer stated that they had decided to save the Veterans Hospital based on input from the Community Council. He added that they were proposing to construct not more than 32 units for the Hospital but were still taking input relative to whether or not to save the structure. Mr. Byer said he believed this was a good plan and would benefit the neighborhood.
Mr. Howa asked if Mr. Byer was representing Mr. Chris McCandless.
Mr. Byer responded that they were two separate entities and his company would be developing the Veterans Hospital site and would have options to purchase up to 50% of the lots in the old Primary Children,s Hospital project.
Mr. Howa asked if the Greater Avenues Community Council had reviewed his plans for the Veterans Hospital.
Mr. Byer responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Howa then asked if the other proposal had been reviewed by the Community Council.
Mr. Byer responded in the negative.
Mr. Howa asked why those other plans had never been presented to the Community Council.
Mr. Byer stated that when they had originally financed the property they had planned to carry it through but Mr. McCandless and Mr. Oakes had come in as the secondary developer. Mr. Byer explained that his group was the primary developer.
Mr. Howa asked if the two groups were equal partners.
Mr. Byer responded in the negative.
Mr. Iker asked when the plans for the Veterans Hospital would be available.
Mr. Byer said they should be filed with the City within six to eight weeks. Mr. Byer added that the grounds would not be altered and no buildings would be added to the existing buildings.
Mr. Iker stated that it was very hard to consider one proposal without having a better understanding of the other and added that a total picture was necessary before the Planning Commission could make a decision on this matter.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and reminded everyone that the Planning Commission would not be making their decision at this time. Mr. Howa asked if the request to bring this back for a decision at the next Planning Commission was possible.
Mr. Wright responded that he did not believe the issues and concerns presented at this meeting could be addressed in that time frame. Mr. Wright explained that the agenda for the next meeting would be mailed out to the public the following day and he believed this issue needed additional review.
Mr. Iker stated that he was not comfortable with the planned development concept for this project and that he would vote against having the backs of the houses facing 11th Avenue and “D" Street. Mr. Iker said he did not believe the historical aspects of the Veterans Hospital had been considered and they were as important as the trees.
Ms. Short said she liked the concern for the trees but agreed with the comments made by Mr. Iker.
Mr. McRea said he agreed with Mr. Iker.
Ms. Cromer said she felt the following issues needed to be addressed: 1) there should be a setback from the crestline similar to the Ensign Downs developments, 2) the orientation of the homes should be to the existing streets, 3) the total coverage of the lot area was not clear, 4) too many of the lots were being proposed to be substandard in size, and 5) even though the two developments were separate, the issues were the same and the community needed to have something that would work as a unified whole.
Mr. Neilson stated that a planned development might be the best way for this particular site to be developed but added that he felt cuts and fills were the most critical issues. Mr. Neilson said he agreed that the homes should front 11th Avenue and “D" Street.
Mr. Howa stated that this matter would not be able to be brought back at the next meeting. Mr. Howa informed the developers that when this matter was presented for a decision, the Planning Commission would expect to hear that the developers had met with the community and that they would want to see a proposal with more agreement to it than had been presented tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING- Receive public comment on the Visionary Gateway Plan for the area between North Temple and 1 000 South and between 300 West and 1-15.
Mr. Howa explained that the Planning Commission would not be voting on this matter at this time, that this hearing was being held in order to obtain public input which would be evaluated prior to the Planning Commission taking any action on this matter.
Mr. Doug Dansie gave a brief history of the decision to create a "Visionary Gateway Plan" for the area between North Temple and 1 000 South and between 300 West and 1-15. Mr. Dansie explained that there was a difference between visionary plans and master plans. He stated that visionary plans were basically an attempt to get people to view particular areas in a different manner than had been done in years past. He added that this plan had gone through an extensive public review process.
Ms. Jan Striefel, representing Landmark Design, Inc., was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and outlined the "Visionary Gateway Plan" proposals using briefing boards. She explained that Centennial Engineering and Wikstrom Economic and Planning Consultants had assisted in the development of this visionary plan. Ms. Striefel outlined the history of the area, the existing land use, environmental concerns, transportation and traffic issues, employment, population and real estate values. She explained the various possibilities and the public process they had gone through during the structuring of this plan. Ms. Striefel explained the factors necessary to get from where we are today to where we want this area to be for the future. She stated that implementation would require major changes such as viaduct removal, railroad removal, restructuring 1-15 and the unanimous decision that a new viaduct located at 200 South would not be in the best interests of the City.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Louis Ulrich, a principal with FFKR Architects, stated that he liked the idea of removing the pressure of downtown growth from the east and shifting it to the west which this plan could accomplish. Mr. Ulrich stated that the suggestion to utilize tax increment financing was the key to being able to implement the plan in the near future rather than waiting 40 or 50 years to do so.
Mr. Phil Carroll, a concerned citizen, stated that he believed this was the most exciting thing that would happen to Salt Lake City in the next hundred years and he believed the City ought to invest every possible effort to make this visionary plan become a reality.
Mr. Norman Fulner, a property owner in the area, stated that the possibility of raising the property values would do nothing but hurt their business. Mr. Fulner stated that since they had no intention of selling their business, raising the value of it would only increase their overhead. He added that to plan to put residential uses on 800 South would create problems and stated that their former problems had stopped as soon as all of the residential uses left the area.
Mr. Jim McDonald, a property owner in the area, stated that he would like to see this area developed but added that safety issues needed to be dealt with before that could be successful. Mr. McDonald stated that today alone, there were more than 300 arrests in that area and he could not see a vision for this area if the crime elements were not cleaned up.
Ms. Vivian McDonald, a property owner in the area, pointed out that the Olympic bid would culminate in 28 days and added that one of the major gateways into the City was a slum. She asked the Planning Commission if this was the image the City wanted to portray to the world if Salt Lake City was successful at winning the Olympic bid.
Mr. Michael Place, a property owner in the area, stated that he applauded the idea of cleaning up this area. Mr. Place stated that he had walked the area of Pioneer Park earlier that day with representatives from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and had discussed their intentions to acquire property in the area for their plans for the freeway. He suggested the City work with the Utah Department of Transportation to ensure that both plans were going in the same direction.
Mr. Wright responded that the Mayor's Office had been working closely with UDOT and would continue to do so. Mr. Wright stated that the Mayor had proposed a $100,000 to help advance some engineering studies relative to the light rail and viaduct relocation issues and had requested UDOT to match that amount to complete those studies. Mr. Place stated that this was an opportunity for those in office at this time to leave a legacy to the City for the next 1 00 years. Mr. Place asked what would happen relative to the new zoning the City had just adopted if this plan were to be implemented.
Mr. Wright responded that this plan had been in the process at the time the City adopted the new Ordinance but added that it had not been at the point where it could be used to establish this area's zoning. Mr. Wright stated that a lot more work would need to be done and all of the pertinent issues needed very detailed analysis. Mr. Place stated that the property owners in the area did not know how to continue their operations and were not sure if they could trust the new zoning of the area to remain in place. Mr. Wright acknowledged the difficulties facing the property owners in this area and stated that another planning process would be needed that would address the issues of security of investment and security of zoning.
Mr. Place suggested the City move as quickly as possible on this planning process so that the property owners in the area would not have to wait in limbo, not knowing what would happen to their zoning, for a long period of time.
Mr. McDonald asked about the current zoning of the homeless shelters.
Mr. Doug Dansie responded that it was “D-3" which allowed for commercial warehousing and loft housing residential units.
Mr. McDonald asked if it made any sense to have commercial development surrounded by the homeless shelter facilities.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public. Mr. Howa explained that the Planning Commission would not make their decision at this time and stated that if anyone did not get a copy of the plan to leave their name and address with the Secretary who would make sure they received a copy by mail.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.