SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Diana Kirk and Vice-Chairperson Max Smith were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Craig Hinckley, Cheri Coffey, Bill Allayaud, Ray McCandless and Doug Wheelwright.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Steed moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, November 4, 1999 subject to a minor correction being made. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION AND FINAL DECISION – Petition No. 400-99-52 by Salt Lake City Planning Division to amend the Site Development Ordinance (Chapter 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Code) to establish standards for interpretation of 30% slope related to foothill development.
Mr. Craig Hinckley 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. Hinckley then stated that on October 21, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive input on amendments to the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance relating to slope interpretation. At the conclusion of the public hearing, a motion was made to table the petition and direct Staff to revise the slope interpretation standards in order to incorporate the Planning Commission's comments and suggestions and other input received at the hearing.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Hinckley relating to the changes that were made to the Site Development Ordinance. Following a brief discussion between Staff and the Planning Commissioners, a few more changes were made to further clarify the Site Development Ordinance.
Mr. Wright noted that a letter was received, and distributed to the Planning Commissioners, from Mr. Dale F. Gardiner. The letter states Romney Lumber Company's and the Robert W. Carson Family's opposition to the proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance establishing standards for interpretation of developable and undevelopable slopes. A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-52:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-99-52 to the City Council and recommend that the amendments made to the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance (Chapter 18.28, Salt Lake City Code) establishing standards for interpretation of developable (less than 30%) and undevelopable (over 30%) slopes be adopted subject to the changes being made as discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-34 by Moyle Petroleum Company requesting that the properties on the northeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road be rezoned from Single Family Residential "R-1/5,000" to Community Business "CB". The subject properties include six properties: 1690 West 700 North, 1654 West 700 North, 1652 West 700 North, 714 North Redwood Road, 726 North Redwood Road and 726 North (rear) Redwood Road. The proposal includes demolishing three existing single-family homes (726 North Redwood Road, 714 North Redwood Road and 1654 West 700 North) and constructing a convenience store with gas sales and a car wash. The proposal requires an amendment to the Northwest Community Master Plan Update. The proposed demolitions require the Planning Commission to also consider the adequacy of the Housing Loss Mitigation Plan that has been submitted by the applicant.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Coffey then stated that the location of some of the existing commercially zoned property in the Northwest is not necessarily conducive to providing viable commercial development. The intersection of 700 North and Redwood Road is more conducive to providing viable commercial land uses than viable low-density residential land uses. Ms. Coffey continued by stating that the issue is not whether convenience stores are
abundant in the area, but whether commercial development is appropriate on the subject property. The Rose Park, Jordan Meadows and Westpointe Community Councils support the proposal.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Coffey relating to the case.
Mr. Daniels asked why Staff believes that the proposed use will not increase adverse impacts to the area. Ms. Coffey stated that Staff believes that the proposed use has the potential to increase crime in the area. However, the proposed use can be designed in a way that crime will not increase (i.e. proper lighting and landscaping).
Mr. Russ Naylor and Mr. Wayne Petty were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Russ Naylor then briefly explained the proposal to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Funk spoke concerning the automatic car wash and the level of noise. Mr. Naylor stated that the nosiest component of the car wash are the blowers that dry the car as it leaves the tunnel.
Mr. Wright stated that Staff has reviewed other car washes that have been close to residential neighborhoods. There is some technology for how to muffle the sound of the blowers such as automatic door closures and retaining walls.
Ms. Barrows addressed the option of shortening the Staff's recommended hours of operation for the car wash which is currently 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Daniels spoke concerning the traffic impact the proposed use will have to the area.
Mr. Skip Hudson, traffic engineer, has completed a traffic study for the proposed use per Utah Department of Transportation's request. Mr. Hudson has also met with Barry Walsh, Engineer Associate for Salt Lake City's Transportation Division, and discussed if there is a need for a dedicated right turn lane on 700 North. At this point, the Transportation Division believes that a dedicated right turn lane is not necessary. Mr. Hudson briefly reviewed the traffic study with the Planning Commission and feels that the proposed use will not significantly impact the traffic in the area.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Hudson relating to the traffic study.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Kadee Nielson, representing the Westpointe Community Council, stated that she is concerned that the proposed use will greatly impact the traffic in the area. She recommends that a dedicated right turn lane be required on 700 North and that only right hand turns be allowed out of the business. Ms. Nielson stated that she is also
concerned about the noise that the car wash will make and feels that if it is louder than a car idling, it should not be allowed because of the abutting residential neighborhood.
Mr. Michael Gallegos, a concerned citizen, spoke concerning the negative impacts the proposed use will have on the area. Impacts such as traffic, noise, crime and loss of single-family homes. He then stated that he feels there are already too many convenience stores in the area. Mr. Gallegos continued by stating that he feels that the littering in the nearby park will increase due to the convenience store.
Mr. Richard Gowen, an abutting home owner directly to the east, spoke concerning safety issues because children are using the sidewalk surrounding the proposed site to get to school. If a convenience store is approved the sidewalks will not be as safe for the children. Mr. Gowen is also concerned about the noise that will come from the car wash and the hours of operation. He has to be to work at 4:00 a.m., therefore, running the car wash until 10:00 p.m. is unacceptable to him. Mr. Gowen is opposed to the convenience store because of the many negative impacts that it will bring to the area.
Ms. Bonnie Callister, an adjacent resident, stated that she is opposed to the proposed convenience store because she feels there are already too many in the area. She recommended the petitioner buy out all the residents and build a K-Mart. Ms. Callister also spoke concerning traffic impacts.
Ms. LaRue Lineberry, an adjacent resident, stated that she feels that she is being encircled entirely by commercial. She stated that if the Planning Commission rezones the corner, they should also rezone her property commercial. Ms. Lineberry then spoke concerning the proposed rezoning and wondered if her property taxes will increase if the rezoning is approved.
Ms. Anita Short, a resident at Centennial Park located at 625 North Redwood Road, stated that Centennial Park held a Homeowner's Association meeting to discuss the proposed project. The Homeowner's unanimously voted against the proposed project because of the various negative impacts it will bring to the neighborhood. Ms. Short then stated that she also works for Salt Lake City's Housing Division and she is very supportive of single-family homes. Therefore, she is opposed to the proposed demolition of the three single-family homes.
Ms. Short noted that the Planning Commissioners did receive the Centennial Park Homeowners Association's letter stating their opposition.
Mr. Jim Owen, owner of the corner property in question, stated that he is in favor of the proposed project because he feels that there is too much traffic on 700 North to put a single family home on the property. Mr. Owen then stated that he feels that a convenience store with wide turning areas will actually help the congestion in the area.
Mr. Ryan Oldaker, a home owner of one of the homes being proposed for demolition, spoke in favor of the project because he feels that the proposed site is best suited for
commercial not residential. Mr. Oldaker then stated that he feels that there will always be traffic and litter concerns even if the proposed convenience store is denied. He also feels that the convenience store will act as a buffer to the abutting neighborhood and will improve the area.
Mr. Petty responded to the comments that were made. He stated that the subject property is not a residential site because the volumes of traffic would make it impossible for someone to get in and out of a driveway for a single-family home. The proposed use is one that will take advantage of the existing traffic and not create additional traffic. Mr. Petty then spoke concerning the housing loss and stated that the loss is being mitigated by Salt Lake City's standards. A dedicated right turn lane will be included with the proposed project if it is determined to be necessary.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Steed stated that the subject property has always been an eyesore to the community. He feels that the proposed project will enhance the area. Mr. Steed then spoke concerning the traffic and noted that Redwood Road is a State Highway which is a major arterial designed to move traffic in and out of Salt Lake City. He feels that the proposed convenience store will not increase the traffic in the area because there is always going to be traffic. Mr. Steed the stated that he feels that the proposed use is a good step in the right direction for developing a pocket of the City that needs to be developed.
Ms. Funk spoke concerning the City's Housing Loss Mitigation Policy and stated that the Policy needs to be looked at and reconsidered because she feels that the mitigation standards are too low. Ms. Funk then stated that she is not suggesting that her concern about the Policy be changed for this particular case.
Ms. Funk and Mr. Mariger then spoke concerning the Mitigation Policy and feel that the ordinance has been misapplied. Mr. Mariger then stated that he will not support the dollar value of the mitigation ($10,386) because he does not think the ordinance is being interpreted correctly.
Ms. Funk then stated that she agrees with Mr. Steed that the subject property does need to be zoned commercial because it is not well suited for residential homes. Ms. Funk continued by stating that if she had her choice, she would not allow a convenience store for the location. However, the zoning laws do not allow the Planning Commission to choose what is built; it is the Planning Commission's purview to determine whether or not to zone the property commercial. Ms. Funk then addressed the hours of operation for the car wash. She feels that the hours should be reduced to respect the community's wishes to have some quiet time.
Ms. Coffey stated that there might be some flexibility with the applicant to look at another way to mitigate the housing if the Planning Commission wishes to have the mitigation loss report restudied.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-34:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-99-34 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation for the rezoning of the subject properties from Residential "R-1/5,000" to Commercial "CB" subject to the following conditions (underlined and strikethrough portions are Planning Commission changes):
1. Restudy the mitigation for the loss of housing by Salt Lake City's Community and Economic Development Department. The petitioner donate $10,386 to the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund for the mitigation of the loss of housing.
2. The site plan be approved only conceptually with the requirement that the applicant work with the Salt Lake City Police Department to incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into the design of the project.
3. The Planning Director be granted final design approval prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure CPTED principles have been incorporated into the design of the project.
4. The applicant submit a traffic study to the Transportation Division and show the provisions of a right turn lane on the site plan if the Transportation Division finds the need for such a lane.
5. The demolition of the housing not occur until a building permit has been issued and subject to mitigation of loss of housing.
6. The hours of operation of the car wash and delivery hours should be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
7. The Transportation Division review the appropriateness of prohibiting left turns out of the site.
8. The zoning not take effect until all conditions are met.
Mr. Steed further moved to recommend the Northwest Community Master Plan's future land use map be amended to reflect commercial land uses for the subject properties. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Nay". Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Steed then asked Planning Staff to look at the possibility of a commercial corridor extending north on Redwood Road from 700 North to the condominium development, and east to Riverside Drive and then report back to the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m. – Case No. 410-374 by Salt Lake City Corporation requesting planned development approval for an addition to the Sprague Branch Library at 2131 South 1100 East within the Sugar House Business District. The proposed library addition is located in both the Public Lands "PL" and Commercial Sugar House Business District "C-SHBD" zoning districts.
Mr. Mariger declared a conflict of interest for this proposal, recused himself from the Planning Commission and left the room.
Mr. Bill Allayaud 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. Myron Richardson, architect for the project, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Richardson used presentation boards to describe the proposed addition of the Sprague Branch Library to the Planning Commission. He stated that the most important factor in designing the addition was to make sure that the historical character of the building was not hurt.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Richardson relating to the case.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ty McCartney, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, spoke in favor of the expansion project.
Mr. Michael Timothy, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the expansion project. He then stated that he did have one concern about the impact the project would have on the existing building. He then stated that his concern has been addressed and he encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project.
Mr. Bradley Gygi, a concerned citizen, stated that he encourages the Planning Commission to approve the project because he feels that it will be a great addition to the community.
Mr. Jarod Maw, a concerned citizen, spoke in favor of the expansion project and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve it.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-374:
Mr. Snelgrove moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-374 for an expansion to the Sprague Library that permits encroachment into the required yard areas and approve as a conditional use, off-site parking on the adjacent commercial development subject to the following conditions (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission):
1. That the Planning Director provide final approval to the site and landscape plans.
2. Encourage the Boyer Company to provide a sidewalk between Guild Hall and the south side of the Sprague Library.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk and Mr. Snelgrove voted “Aye”. Mr. Steed abstained. Mr. Mariger was recused. Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Mariger returned to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-378 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 2000 West 700 North in a Single Family Residential "R-1/5,000" zoning district.
AND, Case No. 410-379 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 2040 South Richards Street in a Single Family Residential "R-1/5,000" zoning district.
AND, Case No. 410-380 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 532 North Redwood Road in a Low Density Multi-family Residential "RMF -30" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless stated that Case No. 410-378 has been withdrawn. Mr. McCandless then presented the staff report outlining the major issues pertaining to Case No. 410-379 and Case No. 410-380, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. McCandless then stated that TCI Cablevision of Utah and AT&T plans to install approximately 80 ground-mounted electrical cabinets that contain back-up power generators throughout the City. In subsequent Planning Commission meetings, 10 to 20 sites will be "packaged" for review. Each cabinet measures are 66" wide by 28" deep by 28" high and will be
mounted on a 3' x 5' concrete pad. Mr. McCandless then stated that the purpose of the generators is to provide back-up power in the event of a power failure. They will be tested once a month for a 15 minute period during the middle of the day.
Mr. McCandless continued by explaining that a home owner (Mr. Max Bangerter) near the proposed site for Case No. 410-379 (2040 Richards Street) has expressed his concern that the cabinet may be too close to his gate which provides access to the alley. Mr. Bangerter has asked that the cabinet be placed far enough away from the gate opening and also that it be placed away from the fence a little ways so that it does not interfere with the fence.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. McCandless relating to the case.
Ms. Funk spoke concerning the condition stating that the cabinets be removed within 90 days if they are not longer needed or used. She then asked if the cement pad would also be removed. Mr. McCandless responded in the affirmative. Ms. Funk then stated that the removal of the cement pad should be specifically stated in the recommendation. Ms. Funk then spoke concerning the easements that TCI would be obtaining from the property owners for the placement of the cabinets. She then asked if the easements could also be released if the cabinet and cement pad are removed. Mr. McCandless responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Larry Cox, representing AT&T, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He then stated that the easement agreement states that if a site becomes abandoned, the site will be restored back to its original condition.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Cox relating to the cabinets.
Ms. Barrows then asked when the cabinets will be checked. Mr. Cox stated that the cabinets will be tested during the day when they would be the least obtrusive. If it is found that there be reason to change the test times due to complaints in the area, the test times will be changed to accommodate the area.
Mr. Snelgrove asked if AT&T anticipates any additional equipment in the future as part of their efforts to use the cable lines for phone service. Mr. Cox stated that he does not anticipate any additional equipment. In fact, as the equipment being used becomes more efficient in the years to come, the size of the cabinets will probably get smaller if one needed to be replaced.
Mr. Mariger asked if the cabinets could be put underground. Mr. Cox stated that AT&T is in the process of trying to get the power supply portion of the cabinets put underground. If it becomes a reality to place the power supply portion of the cabinets underground, it will take about six to eight months. The generator portion is not an option, as this time, to be placed underground. Mr. Mariger then asked if there have
been any community's refuse to have the cabinets unless they could be placed underground. Mr. Cox responded in the negative. Mr. Mariger then stated that one of the purposes of the Planning Commission has been to place all wiring underground if it is possible.
Mr. Wright spoke concerning a letter received from the Central City Neighborhood Council, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The letter states that if there are any cabinets being proposed within the Central City district that the Planning Commission consider the following recommendations:
1. The units are not placed in the Historic Districts of Central City.
2. The units are placed near office building space, rather than in residential neighborhoods.
3. The units are located in an area out of the public line of sight.
4. The units (size, power source, noise level) will be improved as technology advances.
5. Aesthetic considerations: something other than green boxes (and/or with dimensions smaller than 26x26x44 inches) be used, and adequate landscaping to hide the boxes.
6. AT&T begins to reinvest in the community which it serves by financially contributing to public access television in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Wright then stated that public access television in Salt Lake City has been a concern with the community and asked the Planning Commission to consider asking the Administration to look into this issue.
Mr. Mariger asked someone to explain public access television. Mr. Cox responded by stating that it is a channel dedicated upon a cable system channel that is owned by the community and they can choose anything to put on the channel. As a result, there are certain communities that have had problems with public access television because the rules are not strict.
Mr. Daniels stated that he has a lot of difficulty believing that the proposed cabinets are the best technology that is available today. He does not see the cabinets as an asset and he believes that there has to be another way to provide the services that is smaller. Mr. Steed stated that he has the same concern as Mr. Daniels.
Mr. Cox stated that the proposed cabinet is the most efficient product, at this time, to provide back-up power in the event of a major power failure. Mr. Cox stated that the cabinets are not only for restoring cable television because the lines are also used to
restore services such as internet access for businesses and the lines will also be used for future services.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Max Bangerter, nearby property owner of the cabinet for Case No. 410-379, was present for this portion of the meeting. He was present to voice his concern, as stated earlier by Mr. McCandless, that his alley access will not be obstructed. Mr. Bangerter then stated that he is not opposed to having the cabinet near his gate, however, he wants to make sure that he is able to maintain his access to the alley.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows stated that she too does not like the idea of having the proposed cabinets placed throughout the City. However, she believes that the cabinets are where the technology has led to at this point. Ms. Barrows then stated that she is concerned about the landscaping and whether or not the landscaping will be adequate to properly screen the cabinets.
Mr. Mariger asked if it is possible that in the next five years that there will be another provider similar to TCI/AT&T who will also be asking to put in a network and to put in their own cabinets throughout the City? Mr. Cox stated that he cannot predict what will happen in the future. However, he stated that TCI has never found it financial feasible to overbuild another provider and be profitable.
Mr. Mariger then asked if the number of subscribers increase, does the need for cabinets increase? Mr. Cox responded by stating that TCI has considered the possible increase that could occur within the next three to five years with the placement of the proposed 80 cabinets.
Mr. Mariger then asked Staff to investigate whether it is feasible to put the cabinets underground rather than just accepting the applicant's contention. Mr. Mariger then stated that if Staff is convinced that the cabinets cannot be put underground at this time, he would probably support the request.
Mr. Wilde responded to Mr. Mariger's request by stating that Staff would look into the possibilities of putting the cabinets underground and then report back to the Planning Commission at their next scheduled meeting.
Mr. Cox stated that the cabinets are as small as they can be. He then stated that he understands Mr. Mariger's concern about placing the cabinets underground and reiterated TCI's goal to place the portion of the cabinets that will hold the power supplies and batteries underground. The generator will still need to be above ground
which would mean that only six inches of the cabinets would be visible. TCI is hoping to use the new cabinets in approximately six to seven months.
Mr. Snelgrove emphasized the Planning Commission's concern that if the cabinets are approved the visual impacts be mitigated. Mr. Snelgrove then stated that he believes in the current technology being proposed, therefore, he is inclined to support the request.
Motion for Case No. 410-379 and Case No. 410-380:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-379 and Case No. 410-380 to install ground mounted electrical cabinets that include back-up generators subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report (underlined portions added by the Planning Commission):
1. No propane tanks be used.
2. All City departmental requirements be met.
3. The cabinets and the cement pad be removed within 90 days if they are no longer needed or used, as well as a release of the easement on the property.
4. All utilities and cables be placed underground.
5. Where appropriate, the cabinets be landscaped and that the landscaping be up to the discretion of the Planning Director.
6. That Mr. Bangerter's gate (Case No. 410-379) be moved to allow him continued access from his property into the rear alley.
7. That the possibility of a bond for the enforcement of the removal of the cabinets be investigated and added to the request.
Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Discussion concerning the motion followed.
Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that the Planning Commission should wait for six months to see if the new technology will be available which will reduce the visible portion of the cabinets.
Mr. Snelgrove then stated that the technology to place a portion of the cabinets underground does not exist, only the design exists. Therefore, the new technology may or may not be available in six months.
Mr. Cox spoke concerning the new technology and stated that he guarantees that if TCI comes up with something better while they are still installing the proposed current cabinets, they will automatically switch to the better technology. TCI wants the least amount of impact to the City and to the surrounding communities.
Mr. Daniels reiterated his comment that he believes that there is something better that exists today and it is just not known to us. Mr. Daniels then stated that his vested interest is not to protect the dollar of TCI and AT&T; his vested interest is to protect the community from getting something that is not desirable.
Mr. Wilde reiterated Staff's intent to research installation options and have a response back to the Planning Commission at their next scheduled meeting.
Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels and Mr. Mariger voted "Nay". Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
"ISSUES ONLY" PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed 10-Year Master Plan for Westminster College. The College is asking the Planning Commission to review and comment on its new master plan that includes concepts for new buildings, new landscaped areas, and new parking structures. Westminster College is located between 1300 East and 1200 East, and south of 1700 South in Sugar House. The Planning Commission will accept public comment on this item, but will not be taking a formal vote.
Mr. Bill Allayaud stated that Westminster College' 10-Year Master Plan is before the Planning Commission on a voluntary basis. Unlike a City prepared master plan for a specific geographic area, there is no city ordinance or state law that requires the College to prepare a master plan and subsequently receive approval from the City. However, the College felt it was appropriate for the review to take place in order to apprise the community and the City about its plans. Mr. Allayaud then stated that the College will propose future physical improvements that will require separate approvals from the City, either in the form of building permits or conditional use approval. Mr. Allayaud then introduced the College representatives to discuss the purpose of the Plan and the key components.
Ms. Peggy Stock, President of Westminster College, thanked the Planning Commission for taking the time to hear about the College's 10-Year Master Plan. Ms. Stock then spoke briefly about the College and the success they have reached over the past several years. If Westminster is to continue to succeed it must improve its facilities because most of them are very, very old. The best campus master planners in the world have been chosen to facilitate the Plan. Westminster College wants to be a
college that everyone is proud of while being a responsible member of this community. Ms. Stock then made a commitment by saying that all of the changes made by the College will be done well.
Mr. Charles Craig, the architect for the 10-Year Master Plan, presented the highlights of the plan to the Planning Commission. He stated that the Plan has been developed over an 18 month period. Mr. Craig then stated that the Plan is not only to improve the Campus, but improve the canvas within the neighborhood, the aspect of the Campus that the neighbors see. The proposed master plan has three key components: new or remodeled buildings, new landscapes and new parking facilities.
Mr. Steve Morgan, Executive Vice-President for Westminster College, stated that he knows and understands that as a College there is an impact on the neighbors. Therefore, the College feels that it is very important that the Plan be presented to the community. Mr. Morgan then addressed the parking solutions for the College. He stated that several hours have been spent to place the parking structures sensitively throughout the College. The Plan focuses on having the entire campus, including the parking structures, beautiful – not just the front edge.
Mr. Allayaud then presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the master plan, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ty McCartney, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that Westminster College has been an integral part of the Sugar House Community for the past century because the College provides a great amenity to both Sugar House and the surrounding areas. The Sugar House Community Council voted in favor of the Plan under the condition that three documents are attached. Two of the documents are the minutes from subcommittee meetings which addressed some of the community's concerns and also ways in which the College could address them. The third document is a list of the residents concerns of the development. The two main concerns are the 12th East access and the southwest parking terrace.
Ms. Tilly Van Egmond, a resident bordering Westminster College, distributed some photographs showing some of the nice ambiance of the College. Ms. Van Egmond recognized the role that Westminster College plays in the Sugar House community and also acknowledge the positive impacts of the College. She then addressed her concerns about issues such as traffic, aesthetics, population densities, environmental and neighborhood impacts. These issues have been raised in multiple meetings but have yet to be resolved to the satisfaction of either Westminster and to ourselves. Therefore, she respectfully insists that the Plan not be approved until such issues be resolved in a better thought out plan.
Mr. Dan Hoffman, a resident bordering Westminster College, stated that he is concerned about issues such as traffic, aesthetics, population densities, environmental and neighborhood impacts. More specifically, the proposed parking structures and dormitory. Mr. Hoffman then stated that these issues need to be addressed in a way that that the Plan does not threaten the repairing habitat because he feels that the current Plan does threaten the habitat. Mr. Hoffman then requested that the Planning Commission not endorse the Plan until the issues can be resolved.
Ms. Funk excused herself from the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
Ms. Ruth Price, a concerned citizen, stated that she believes that Westminster College has a great Plan. She then spoke concerning the City's intentions to put a trail through the Allen Park Subdivision. Ms. Price asked how will the City integrate Wasatch Hollow Park with the Open Space Plan and coordinate it with the Westminster College's Master Plan without considering other options.
Mr. Allayaud responded by stating that the City could not do an integrated plan without an integrated plan. The Open Space Plan, adopted in 1992, does show the trail through Allen Park Subdivision and through the College. However, the execution of that Plan would require some detailed planning. For now, the City is asking the College if they could accommodate a trail if one was planned sometime in the future.
Mr. Ronald Weber, a concerned citizen, spoke concerning the trail issue. He stated that the only property that is available, without acquiring or condemning land, is the short portion of the trail that would go through Westminster College. Ms. Short stated that at this time, the City is asking Westminster to preserve the land for a future trail access. A trail is not being considered at this time.
Mr. Carl Triolo, a resident bordering Westminster College, stated that he is concerned about traffic congestion on 1700 South. He then spoke concerning the parking garage, which he feels is an eyesore. Mr. Triolo then stated that adding another tier to the parking garage is unconscionable. The Planning Commission's time, wisdom and sensitivity in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Ms. Leslie Hoodes, a resident bordering Westminster College, stated that she was present several years ago when the College was asking for approval of the first master plan. At that time, she disagreed with the College's idea of putting the parking terrace on 1200 East. Ms. Hoodes stated that she still disagrees with the location of the parking terrace and she feels that it should be placed underground. She also feels that the parking structure on the soccer field should be placed underground. Ms. Hoodes continued by stating that if the parking structures are not placed underground, she will have a parking structure in her front and rear yards. She has a unique piece of property and she believes that the value of the property would plummet greatly if she were bordered by parking structures. Ms. Hoodes then asked the Planning Commission to not endorse the Plan until all issues and concerns are worked out. She also presented a petition signed by several people in the community expressing their feelings that the Planning Commission should not endorse the College's Plan until the appropriate traffic, environmental, wildlife and neighborhood impact studies are conducted. A copy of the petition is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Adrian Charboux, a nearby resident of Westminster College, spoke concerning the creek that runs through the campus. She stated that the creek and the playing field have added to her quality of life. Ms. Charboux then stated that she supports the College's need to expand so that more students may have the opportunity to attend the College. She does feel that the College's expansion must be handled thoughtfully. Ms. Charboux continued by stating that she is concerned with what will happen to the creek and the lovely big trees that grow near the creek. She is also concerned with what will happen to the quality of the communities lives during and after the construction. She feels that it is important that communication between Westminster and their neighbors remains open and heartfelt on both sides.
Mr. Tom Ellison, a nearby resident of Westminster College and a member of the Board of Trustees for the College, stated that the Plan is very thoroughly researched and documented. The College has a residential campus. Putting residential dorms on campus will create a campus which, over time, will have far less impact on the bordering neighborhoods because fewer cars will be on the streets. Mr. Ellison then stated that the College believes that the parking structure and its transportation and visual impacts can be easily buffered at the proposed location better than any other location on the campus.
Mr. Pete Hoodes, a resident bordering Westminster College, spoke concerning the creek. He asked Mr. Craig to address if the southwest corner of the parking structure will encroach the creek. Mr. Craig stated that there would be no further encroachment to the creek. Mr. Hoodes then reiterated Mr. Craig's comments by stating that any new construction involved in the Master Plan would constitute no further encroachment to the creek. The design will be studied very carefully and the College will respond to the legal requirements for setbacks as well as the community's concerns. The parking structure where the field is could be truncated over the creek and would not go any further than the current radius of the old track.
Ms. Lynne Blackerby, a resident bordering Westminster College, spoke concerning the proposed parking structure on the southwest corner of the campus. She stated that if a parking structure is built, she would like there to be a guarantee that the structure is not built up over her backyard.
Ms. Paula Julander, a concerned citizen, stated that she lives near the University of Utah. She has lived through quite a few expansions at the University of Utah and sometimes there is the bitter with the sweet. Ms. Julander then stated that along with the concerns of the community comes several advantages. These advantages include having a wonderful library, arts & culture, lectures and a landscaped campus for nice walks.
Ms. Stock commented about campus security pertaining to an open trail. She stated that the Federal Government has imposed some onerous regulations on colleges and universities regarding security.
Mr. Morgan stated that the proposed master plan is a 50 million dollar plan all of which will need to be raised before construction begins. Mr. Morgan than stated that there is 10 million dollars worth of parking facilities in the Plan that will most likely have to be charged to the students through tuition. Placing the parking underground will increase the cost considerably which would be a very serious issue to the College. Mr. Morgan than asked the Planning Commission to support and endorse the Plan.
Mr. Rich Bennett, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that Westminster College has always done a beautiful job with the architecture. There were some subcommittee meetings held where both the community and the College addressed their concerns. Mr. Bennett then referred the Planning Commission to the minutes of those subcommittee meetings.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Steed spoke concerning the College incorporating a mass transit plan because he is concerned that the majority of the Plan seems to be all parking. Mr. Steed then stated that he is concerned that there are parking alternatives that have not been considered by the College.
Mr. Steve Meyer, representing the Sear Brown Group, stated that he did the transportation analysis for the College. He then stated that the College subsidizes bus passes as part of their transit program. Mr. Meyer also stated that the College is trying to accommodate their parking demand on campus.
The Planning Commission expressed their concerns with the amount of parking spaces being proposed and the fact that there has not been a formal acknowledgement of alternative transportation.
Mr. Steed feels that there is a significant impact on the neighborhood from the proposed parking structures and traffic. He also feels that a limited space college should have an alternative mass transit plan to help eliminate some of the cars. Mr. Steed then asked if a plan has been prepared and/or considered? Mr. Steed then stated that the City could require an alternative mass transit plan as a condition of the conditional use for the parking structures.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that he agrees with Mr. Steed and that he would like to see a formal acknowledgement that an alternative mass transit plan was considered. He then asked if the College has tried a bus pass system like the one that the University of Utah has. Mr. Snelgrove then stated that he is concerned because there is approximately a 25% increase in parking spaces proposed for a less than 10% increase in enrollment.
Mr. Meyer stated that he would prepare an alternative mass transit plan for the Planning Commission to review.
Mr. Mariger spoke concerning adding a third level to the northwest parking structure. He feels that some study should go into trying to make this parking structure more appealing and fitting in a neighborhood environment. He also feels that the College should construct the parking structure so that it does not look like a parking structure to the neighborhood.
Mr. Allayaud asked Mr. Morgan about the phases of the parking structures.
Mr. Morgan first spoke concerning Mr. Mariger's concerns by stating that the College has committed to architecturally "disguise" the northwest parking structure. He then stated that it will be a challenge, however, the College wants to meet the community's needs. Mr. Morgan then stated that the phasing of the parking structures has been thoughtfully considered so that the campus will be able to continually accommodate the parking needs. The phasing plan will keep the College's parking at the most optimal level through the ten year period so that there will not be 300-400 cars parking in the neighborhood while the project is being built.
Ms. Stock noted that the College has offered free bus passes to the students in which they did not take advantage of them. She then stated that she has checked with other places and has discovered that alternative methods of transportation does not seem to be working in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Meyer stated that if Westminster were to charge for parking on campus, which is what the University of Utah does to encourage transit use, the cars would park in the neighborhood. Therefore, the College's plan needs a phased approach by first meeting the parking need and then working with the neighborhood to calm traffic. At that point, the College can consider having residential permit parking around the campus. This would then force people to either park on campus or use alternative transit. At that point, the College could consider on campus parking fees.
Ms. Barrows stated that the College should look into considering creative solutions. For example, first-year on-campus students could be prohibited from having a car on campus. Westminster has a very limited amount of space. She stated that the College will eventually grow to the point that the parking structures will eventually need to be eliminated to accommodate for more buildings and classrooms.
Mr. Daniels stated that he feels that the entire Plan seems to have passed up on some creative ideas from the nearby community. He believes that the community has some good ideas and that the College needs to listen to them.
Mr. Wright encouraged the community and the College to work together regarding traffic calming issues and then submit an application to the City for their review.
Mr. Steed moved to recommend that Planning Staff work with Westminster College to address both the community's and the Planning Commission's concerns. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed. The Planning Commission did not take action on the proposed 10-Year Master Plan for Westminster College.
OTHER BUSINESS
Meeting schedule for December
Mr. Wright stated that there is a need for two meetings in December and then asked the Planning Commission to determine the date for the second meeting. It was decided that the meetings in December will be held on the 2nd and the 9th.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.