SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli was unable to attend.
Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna (Planning Director), Cheri Coffey (Deputy Planning Director), Douglas Wheelwright (Deputy Planning Director), Everett Joyce (Senior Planner), Doug Dansie (Principal Planner), Janice Lew (Principal Planner), Cindy Rockwood (Acting Planning Commission Secretary) and Deborah Martin (Senior Planning Secretary).
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Chairperson Laurie Noda, Tim Chambless, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig and Robert Forbis. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Dansie, Everett Joyce and Janice Lew.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005
(This item was heard at 5:46 P.M.)
Commissioner Scott moved to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion, all voted “Aye”; motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:46 P.M.)
Chairperson Noda introduced and welcomed Robert Forbis, Jr. as a new Planning Commission Member.
Chairperson Noda noted that neither the Chairperson nor the Vice Chairperson had anything to report at this time. They may not have anything to report until their first meeting with the City Council in 2006.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:46 P.M.)
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan - Planning Director Alex Ikefuna explained that the City Council appropriated $150,000 for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan study. The Planning Staff compiled the staging plan and the procedures for developing, phasing, and implementing the Plan. The text was reviewed with Mayor Anderson and he made some revisions. Staff is in the process of making the revisions which will be re submitted to him on December 1, 2005. Following the Mayor’s review, the information will be presented to the City Council and then the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Seelig recalled that during discussions with the RDA (Redevelopment Agency) Director regarding the Master Plan, it was suggested that the Planning Commission communicate with other City entities. The Planning Commission did consult with other entities and found the insight to be informative and helpful. Since then, communications have tapered and she suggested resuming them.
Mr. Ikefuna acknowledged the contribution that communications with other entities lend, and he made it clear that the framework of the Master Plan embraces vast participation of the Planning Commission during the immediate and long range planning process.
Commissioner Chambless suggested including this item as a topic of discussion for the retreat scheduled for December 13, 2005.
Mr. Ikefuna explained that Professor Deiman Eric Kelly has been asked to facilitate the retreat and he is renowned for his training of planning commissions. Mr. Ikefuna again invited the Commission Members to bring questions and discussions to the retreat.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(This item was heard at 5:50 P.M.)
a) Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Murray City conducting business in relation to the UTOPIA project – Murray City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits to allow telecommunication lines to cross the City owned property of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal, at two locations within the City of Murray, Utah. The locations are approximately 7200 South 500 East and 7500 South 500 East and the crossings are requested as part of the UTOPIA project and may be either underground or aerial in nature. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard utility permits as requested.
b) Draper City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Draper City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits allowing bridge structures over, and utilities under, the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal at two locations. The locations are located at 13600 South Dahle Way and 12400 South 111 West. Additional permits will be issued to each utility as separate entities. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the bridge crossing and standard utility permits as requested.
c) Wathen Construction and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – Wathen Construction is requesting the realignment of an existing waterline easement. The realignment of the waterline easement at 2400 East Oakcrest Lane is necessary to facilitate development of the property. The old easement will be vacated in exchange for a new easement alignment. This location is in Cottonwood Heights City. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the requested easement realignment.
Chairperson Noda noted that there were no comments or questions from Commission Members or the public regarding the items on the Public Notice Agenda; and therefore, the items were approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-04-52 – Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) are jointly working to connect the existing terminus of the light rail line at the Delta Center, located at approximately 350 West South Temple, to the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South 600 West. The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will function as the central transit transfer point for commuter rail, light rail, UTA bus, Greyhound bus, Amtrak, and transit support services. The light rail connection is planned to be constructed by the Spring of 2008 to coincide with the opening of commuter rail service at the Intermodal Hub. The route of the light rail extension will be along 400 West, 200 South, and 600 West. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the number and location of stations along that route with the intent of providing a recommendation to the City Council.
At 5:51 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition 400-04-52 and Staff, Doug Dansie. The members of the presentation committee included Doug Dansie, Principal Planner; DJ Baxter, Senior Advisor to the Mayor’s Office; Tim Harpst, Director of Transportation; and Ralph Jackson, Utah Transit Authority (UTA).
Mr. Baxter began the presentation with a discussion of the proposed light rail extension in relation to the existing University and Sandy light rail lines. The proposed new rail would travel south onto 400 West and turn west onto 200 South proceeding to 600 West and turning south to end at the SLC Intermodal Hub. Commuter rail will enter upon the west side of the Intermodal Hub. A cross platform transfer would connect the two rail lines creating a seamless transfer for riders.
Coordinating the TRAX line and the commuter rail project schedule together will create a more efficient and seamless transit offer. Salt Lake City’s goal is to support existing and future development in the Depot District and Downtown area while providing a smooth connection to Downtown from the Intermodal Hub. UTA’s goal is to link commuter rail to the TRAX system ensuring efficient service and continued successful ridership.
Meetings with community councils, property owners, businesses and public houses have been held to discuss the options of one vs. two possible stations
The recommended configuration is to have double tracks in the middle of the street to match the existing area. Traffic movements will be maintained with the exception of Rio Grande Street. None of the stakeholders on Rio Grande Street have requested the preservation of the present traffic movements. Drivers would not be able to cross the TRAX lines at Rio Grande Street. The overhead electric system, station design, streetscape design and landscaping will be consistent with the existing system on 400 South.
Four mid-block pedestrian crossings are being recommended along the route: 150 South across 400 West; 550 West across 200 South; Rio Grande Street across 200 South; and 350 West across South Temple. (The latter is currently a crosswalk, but will need to be signalized.)
Two stations are recommended at; 400 West and 100 South, and 200 South just west of the 500 West intersection. The purposes of this recommendation are to 1) optimize existing and future high density development in the Depot District; 2) increase ridership by preserving the pattern of existing stations and access points; 3) support future transit development in the Downtown area with a possible downtown circulator or loop. (Originally the light rail line had an airport line crossing at 400 South and turning up 400 West towards the airport. The City is still interested in having such an option and will consider a rail street car or a light rail line continuing south on 400 West. With this option in mind, a transfer station at this point will allow for such continuous options); 4) preservation of the 500 West park blocks.
Having the two stations with appropriate spacing provides 1600 linear feet of walking distance between stations. The following cities have the indicated distance between stations: Portland, 960 feet; Denver,1145 feet; and Seattle,1535 feet. Compared to other high density area transit system, 1600 linear feet is a large number.
The development potential in the Downtown area is tremendous. As much as 10-15,000 new residents are expected to reside in the area; given the prospective growth of the next 10-20 years. Businesses, employees, special event patrons and an increase of residents warrant the proposal of two stations.
If a single station is located in the midpoint between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub the possibility of adding a second station further on the line is eliminated. If two stations are not presently warranted, a consideration for a single station at one of the two designated options is recommended in order to preserve the option of building a second station on the line.
Leading and encouraging future development with transit infrastructure is an option; as is only meeting the current demand. A single station at the Gateway development near the theaters is the first choice of the Administration if a single station is the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Many citizens support the option of two TRAX stations. After 18 months of analysis and discussion with the public, the Administration suggests that the long-term interests of the city are best served by a two-station configuration. The neighborhood is prime for high density and residential development in the future and the intensity of the development warrants a two-station approval.
Mr. Jackson stated that much progress has occurred and an agreement has been reached on funding for the project. A fairly affirmative confirmation has been received from the Federal Transit Administration for one portion of this project. The preference of UTA is to have a single station. Noting the summary table on page 5 of the letter distributed from UTA, Mr. Jackson further discussed the reasons why one station is preferable. 1) Parking. On 200 South there are three locations for a station; 460 West, 475 West and 525 West. The smallest displacement of parking is located at the stations suggested at the 525 West or 460 West. 2) The intersection level of service. All of the proposed stations will operate with the same level of service, but the single station generates the lowest amount of delay at that intersection. On 400 West the southbound left turn lane is shortened because of the placement of the station. 3) The impact on public and private utilities. There are more utilities in the street on 400 West when compared to those situated on 200 South. Building a station on 400 West would prove more expensive. 4) The preservation of 500 West. The Master Plan suggests that 198 feet of the 500 West area is designated as a right-of-way. If the right-of-way is not preserved, the UTA recommends the station located at 475 West; if the right-of-way needs to be preserved, the recommendation for the 460 West station would be the second choice. If the preservation of the right-of-way is chosen by the City, the street will need to be widened and until widened, the platform would need to be extended to the existing crosswalk. An alternative to this is a design of the crosswalk at the middle of the platform rather than the end. The design of this station would differ because of the accommodating crosswalk needs. If crossing the street, a pedestrian would be required to go up and down a slope. The third choice for a single station is to place the station on the west side of the street (one of the solutions for the two station recommendation).
Upon considering the walking distance between the two alternatives, a balance is found because of the areas surrounding the stations. The differences in walking distances are not large enough to influence the potential ridership.
UTA supports transit-oriented development, but is unsure that increasing the transit traffic in this area warrants a two-station construction. Station capacity is not a concern, as the ridership statistics on the transfer point at the Gallivan Plaza station served 6,000 riders a day. As a transfer point, it is capable of handling such numbers and these purposed stations, even with full development, will not reach such a heightened capacity.
Capital cost is about one million dollars for the second station on 400 West. An additional annual operating cost of $150,000 a year is also a consideration.
Commuter rail passengers transferring at the Intermodal Hub to Downtown have already ridden a fairly circuitous route and UTA believes TRAX would serve the riders better with only one stop rather than two.
The Planning and Development Committee of UTA, having suggested its first preference, but they are willing to accept the recommendation to move forward with two stations with the condition that one station be built now and another built in the future. The conditions suggested with this recommendation are to build a WOW for the second station. The cost of the second station would be covered wholly by the City or the City and the developer and UTA and the City shall jointly agree on the threshold of development required before the second station construction.
Mr. Tim Harpst requested consideration of some of the transportation facts and figures presented. The following points are of concern: 1) The spacing of the station every two blocks. The City’s proposal of a two-station development does continue the spacing continuation. 2) The 400 West station provides flexibility for growth and development. By placing a station on 400 West and interlining routes from different communities, the opportunity for transfers is more feasible. UTA and the City have recently released a request for proposals for a major transportation and transit study in the Downtown area, requesting an in-depth evaluation of the long-term transit future. The two-station recommendation provides flexibility to tie into the studies for future Bus Rapid Transit from the north and south. 3) Parking along the street is a concern as most angle parking will need to be altered parallel parking. No exact number of “lost” parking stalls can be given because of the preliminary stage of design. 4) Level of service. A grade system is used with A being the best while F being a failure and a target level of service D. With a conservative projection of 20 years, every scenario returns with a grade of a lower D. The intersection of 200 South and 400 West is considered the control intersection and will be impacted first, regardless of which option chosen. 5) The commute time with an additional station adds approximately 30 seconds onto the TRAX route. 6) A left turn signal consideration has been requested to be considered by the Gateway Development as an entrance option to their Summer parking garage. This option is only available if a 400 West station is not selected. Signalized controlled crossing are a main safety consideration for TRAX and aggressively enforced. Several points were considered regarding the Gateway request and a traffic impact study was required. The study conducted took into account the parking restrictions imposed upon the existing Gateway parking facilities. In the analysis conducted by Salt Lake City Transportation for the light rail study, the access points for drivers to reach various points along the route were considered. The proposed left turn signal can be completed and maintain a level of service D for the future. A traffic study was provided by the Gateway. The consultants stated that a left-turn lane could be provided. Six vehicles would be limited in the left-turn lane if constructed as proposed. One of the impacts associated with this option is the widening of the street on the south half of the block. Six parking stalls on the east side of the Dakota Lofts will be eliminated, while the curb be moved 3 ½ feet towards the Dakota Lofts building; narrowing the sidewalk. The developer would be responsible for incremental additional expense not associated with the TRAX line. 7) The proposed station at 475 West 200 South does extend into the right-of-way for the 500 West park blocks. This location is not recommended because of the preclusion of the development of the park blocks. 8) The proposed station at 460 West 200 South is a concern for the pedestrians. The location of the crosswalk would create some confusion for TRAX riders because of the inconsistency of the station. This choice is very limiting because of the future train purchase options; only trains with a configuration fitting this specific station could be considered. With this station a pedestrian intersection in the middle of the street would be required. The left-turn lane from 200 South to 400 West would be shortened given this option. This intersection is the control intersection and would continue to serve as a level of service D, but the left-turn lane will be maximized more frequently than past years.
Mr. Dansie made numerous points regarding the neighborhood of the Gateway area. The areas of the Avenues, Capitol Hill, Central City, and the East Central have all been down zoned within the past years. It is necessary for cities to have a high-density, vibrant neighborhood. Through the Gateway Master Plan, this area has been designated as high density. Consolidating the railroad tracks and shortening the viaducts have created the physical environment to build high-density. The Gateway is an area of the city that is physically and politically capable of accommodating a high-density neighborhood.
One of the attractions to the area is the number of large land owners in the Gateway area. Any block of development that occurs near to these proposed stations will create an immediate impact in the area.
Travel time is a fine-scaled choice. With respect to commuters traveling through the area, the 30-second addition of time is not necessarily enough time to consider. The City views this area as the second densest potential area in the City, second only to Main Street.
Residents of The Dakota Lofts have shown great concern for the noise because of the location of the proposed stops. Noting the location on the map according to either the one- or two-station option, The Dakota Lofts will be close to a station in either scenario. There is potential for the noise to be lessened; for example, lubricant was used at the S-curve on 400 South to reduce the noise made as the train proceeds up the hill. The station positioned at 400 West has caused some confusion regarding which scenario would cause loss of parking for the Dakota Lofts. Construction of a 400 West station would cause a loss of on-street parking adjacent to the station but not parking adjacent to the Dakota Lofts. The left-turn lane option would eliminate all on-street parking adjacent to the Dakota Loft.
Chairperson Noda requested questions for the applicant from the Commissioners:
Commissioner De Lay related an experience with a member of the City staff who stated that the project would begin in March. She questioned the truth of the statement.
Ms. Guy-Sell was the individual who spoke with Commissioner De Lay and related that she was informing all business owners within the area that the coordination of construction process would begin in February/March 2006. The actual construction will begin approximately in June 2006.
Commissioner De Lay requested clarification of the location of the stations. Would the location of the stations be every other block; and if so, she asked how the area is considered as every other block.
Mr. Dansie clarified by illustrating the existing stations placements on the map; noting that each station is separated by one and one half block face. The spacing between the Delta Center and the 400 West station is exactly the same as the Temple Square and City Center stations. One argument against the distance factor is the density in the Main Street area is higher than the area of 400 West; however, the potential of high density is higher for the area of 400 West than any other location within the City. A second comparison, for the one station scenario, is the spacing between the Library station and the Courthouse.
Commissioner De Lay questioned the elimination of the trees in the area if the left-turn lane is pursued. In one of the reports it states 3 ½ feet of the sidewalk will be removed while vehicles will be within 5 feet of the doors. With the trees gone, the cars will be rather close to the doors. She also was concerned about the non-existing landscaping plans.
Mr. Harpst explained that the design presented does require the curb being moved 3 ½ feet closer to the building. Therefore, the trees could be impacted. The Northbound outside lane would be adjacent to the curb along that designated portion of the block.
Mr. Dansie explained that because of the stairs exiting from the Dakota Lofts, if the trees are replaced, a narrower, meandering sidewalk would be constructed. Although landscaping is important, the planning for the project has not reached the level to prepare landscape designs.
Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner De Lay discussed the width of the sidewalk on both the east and west sides of 400 West to determine if they are the same.
Mr. Harpst responded that a “best fit” scenario will be discussed during the final design stages.
Commissioner Seelig requested clarification about the spacing of the one- or two-station locations.
Mr. Baxter repeated the spacing of station locations in other high-density cities. Since the stations are lined up flush with the intersections, the station spacing is calculated by the length of the block and the width of the street. The Delta Center station to the 400 West station would be 2800 feet from east end to east end. Mr. Jackson also stated that the distance from the Delta Center to the 465 West station was 2740 feet, while from the Hub to the west end of the 465 station is slightly over 2000 feet.
Commissioner Seelig requested to know if any noise complaints or issues have been raised by property owners regarding existing TRAX stations in the same proximity as the proposed stations. She also requested to know if such issues have been raised how they had been mitigated and how the proposed models relate to existing stations.
Mr. Jackson responded with remarks about the environmental commitment UTA carries with each TRAX line. The same mitigation that was considered for the University and the Medical Center line will be used for the proposed project.
Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner De Lay discussed the noise from the possible TRAX stations. It was pointed out that the Library station bell was heard prior to the beginning of the meeting, although the station is across the street.
Mr. Dansie related that most of the existing TRAX line is on commercial frontage. Adjacent to the University station, there are homes near and noise is a concern, but Staff has no immediate documentation on noise complaints. The closest relationship of residential to an immediate station is the 900 South station. There is a difference, because that station is placed on a straight line and doesn’t have the noise from the curve.
Commissioner Seelig clarified her question to include the line located at Main Street and 400 South. Residential units are on upper floors of the New Grand hotel. She questioned if any complaints had been received relating to the noise from the trains as they turn from one street to the other.
Mr. Baxter has received some complaints regarding the S-curve noise further east. The UTA rail operations team has done their best to lubricate the trains to reduce the noise.
Mr. Jackson informed the commissioners that a unit called the “click-o-matic” has been installed on the S-curve resulting in a decrease in noise complaints. If the noise was a problem with the proposed rail, the same process would be initiated.
Commissioner Seelig requested if it was common practice to reduce the noise at night on existing rail lines or if this instance would be the first.
Mr. Jackson confirmed that the proposed area might be the first place for such practice.
Commissioner Chambless requested demographic projections for the immediate downtown area.
Mr. Dansie responded that in the Gateway area the zoning is mixed resulting in more opportunities for residential and commercial. The requirement for residential is not as great as in East Downtown, but according to the land size and zoning, the accommodation of 10,000 -15,000 people would be a logical consideration.
Commissioner Chambless and Commissioner De Lay discussed the areas of development just beyond the area of 200 South and 400 West for residential dwellers. The location of the stations on 200 South will determine where the developments are. The area could become a magnet for significant residential development.
Mr. Dansie re-stated that large land owners have expressed interest in development, including three developers who are in the fact gathering stage of potential development.
Commissioner Chambless asked if UTA could supplement the area with bus shuttle service.
Mr. Jackson stated that the option could be considered; although, operating costs would be a factor.
Commissioner Chambless questioned the expense of the two-station construction and the difference between the one- or two-station options.
Mr. Baxter stated that many factors are considered with construction costs. Inflation of future construction of a new TRAX station situated between two active stations could cause conflict. Originally the estimate of the 900 South station construction cost was $500,000, but the inflation and difficulty of construction between active rail lines cost was between $1 to $1.2 million dollars.
Regarding the left-turn lane, Commissioner Scott requested to know how many other entrances were available to the Summer parking garage.
Mr. Baxter stated that two other entrances are available; one on each the North and South ends.
Commissioner Scott, noting the transit study by Fehr & Peers, asked if many modifications would need to be made in order to create the left-turn lane and who would bear the expense.
Mr. Harpst stated that the incremental cost would be imposed upon the developer. As a requirement, the private property must have enough space to receive the vehicles that passed through the traffic signal. Preliminary information states the private property can hold up to nine cars. Six vehicles would be the maximum allowed in the left-turn lane at one time. Any modifications to the private property and the cost of the left-turn lane are the responsibility of the developer.
Hearing no further questions, Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing and asked if anyone representing the Community Councils was present.
(7:15 P.M.)
Peter Von Sievers, Chair of Capitol Hill Community Council expressed concern regarding the traffic distribution towards 400 and 300 West. Given the proposed TRAX line, the arterial traffic routes will become more congested. The Capitol Hill Community Council opposes the option for two stations and supports the concept of one station.
Commissioner Scott requested information about the Community meetings held regarding the area of 400 South and the TRAX line and any complaints resulting from the implementation of that TRAX line.
Mr. Von Sievers stated that the main difference is that 400 West north of Gateway doesn’t have many businesses while 400 South does.
Commissioner Chambless requested quantifiable data regarding the impact of automobiles in the Capitol Hill area.
Mr. Von Sievers stated that data is being collected by Tim Harpst and the Transportation Division. The community is meeting with Transportation due to the high amount of traffic cutting through the residential areas to reach the eastern portions of the City.
Mr. Harpst agreed that the traffic impacts in the Capitol Hill Community have been reviewed for the last two decades and traffic control changes have been initiated. With the proposed design of TRAX there will be no loss of north/south through lanes and should not cause much impact on the traffic.
Mr. Von Sievers suggested updating the traffic studies that have been conducted because of the new stoplight on 300 North and Main Street.
Hearing no further comments, Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing to comments from the public.
(7:26 P.M.)
Mr. Richard Thomas, an owner of a business at 549 West 200 South, stated that too much money was being placed in a walking circumference of twelve minutes. The two-station plan will place a station directly in front of the Bridges building, creating a noise impact for the residents. For the one-station plan, the noise will be reduced because of the placement. Any of these options are going to cost the taxpayers money and reduce the existing walkable community.
Mr. Kelly Favero, a business owner on 400 West, opposes any loss of parking at the Dakota Lofts because of the potential effect it could have on his business.
Ms. Chamonix Larsen, President of the Home Owners Association of the Dakota Lofts, represents the 30 plus families and 4 locally owned and operated businesses located with the Dakota Loft building. There has been much expressed regarding the trees, noise and the parking that could be lost. Because of the historic nature of the building noise is problematic. As a TRAX rider it seems that the Downtown stops can result in slower travel through the area. Ms. Larson has no opinion of whether or not there should be two stations or one, as the building will be affected either way, but requests a critical consideration of the walkable sense of the community.
Mr. Jake Boyer, The Boyer Company, is in favor of the TRAX line and strongly encourages development in the area. Much of the development outlined for the future is directly related to the existing development. An independent traffic engineer has conducted a study regarding the one- vs. two-station matter and concluded that the one-station option is superior. With approximately 915 vehicles per day a left-hand traffic signal could facilitate 450 vehicles per hour into the Summer garage. As the Gateway Mixed Use zone varies from the Downtown zone in terms of intensity of use, it seems unnecessary to continue the same pattern of stations when the density cannot be reached in the Gateway Mixed Use zone to the same extent as the Central Business District.
Commissioner De Lay mentioned that the developer would be responsible for the cost of changes and modifications made if a left-turn lane was implemented. She requested that Mr. Boyer consider that perhaps the public could be re-trained to enter at different areas of the parking garage.
Mr. Boyer agreed and recognized the cost as the developers’ responsibility and would be willing to pay the expense at the cost of continued business success. Mr. Boyer stated that the 400 West entrance/exit is the largest and most often used.
Commissioner Muir stated that the left-hand turn lane was an independent issue in regards to the one- vs. two-station proposal. He asked Mr. Boyer if the allowance of a phased station construction was proposed if the Boyer Company had an opinion of the location of the station.
Mr. Boyer stated that the location is not necessarily the core concern of the Boyer Company. Providing a left-hand turn lane only to remove it upon an increase in traffic would be the least desired option of the Boyer Company.
Commissioner Muir stated that the future location and accessibility of the TRAX station might offset the disadvantage of people who drive.
Mr. Boyer agreed that a large source of traffic within the Gateway is those who come into the city from the south. TRAX is supported by the Gateway, but there is hesitancy to place the success of the development on only transit and possible density.
Commissioner Diamond referred to the subcommittee meetings that at one time discussed the option of connecting underground parking at 200 South to the Gateway development. While studying this option, there should be some consideration in creating a new entrance on 200 South.
Mr. Richard Thomas had a question regarding the support for the two-station alignment.
Mr. Baxter stated that members of the Rio Grande Community Council and 74% of business owners support two stations while 14% supported one station and another 14% were neutral. Many of the businesses stated that with two stations the employees would have easier access to the companies.
Commissioner De Lay noted the presence of the Dakota Lofts, the Gateway, and the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council as opposed, as well as many other businesses within the area. She asked who was in favor.
Mr. Baxter listed the names of several specific businesses and organizations who had expressed support for the two station scenario.
Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Baxter if the left-hand turn lane issue was required to be connected to the decision of the one vs. two station petition or if the two-station petition is passed and phased through time would the option of the left-hand turn lane be further explored.
Mr. Baxter stated that if a station is built on 400 West the option of a left-hand turn lane is eliminated. If the two station position is a phased approach the City would require UTA to place a WOW in the tracks to accommodate for future construction. The WOW in the tracks would make it difficult to impossible to accommodate the left-turn lane during the Interim.
Ms. Coffey stated that the left-hand turn lane is not for the Planning Commission to decide, as the final decision rests with the Transportation division.
Mr. Harpst stated that the left-hand turn lane is an Administrative decision, but the input of the Planning Commission and the City Council would be advisable.
Chairperson Noda read the following letters into the record:
Mary Guy-Sell, Mayor’s Office; Seth Jarvis, Clark Planetarium; Larry Blunk; Julie Steinmetz, Urban Utah Homes and Estates; Shaneanewman (email); Katie Fehr, The Dodo Restaurant; Travis Worthen, Humphrey Yogart; Richard Thomas, Thomas Electric Company; Dave Goeres, Ryan Hales & David Thompson, Fehr & Peers.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and the Commission went into executive session.
Commissioner Muir questioned the cost of returning to the location of the prospective station site to build the station without the WOW in the tracks; therefore, allowing the present capability of a left-hand turn lane.
Ms. Guy-Sell stated that significant utility cost is necessary to return to the location and build a station. By WOWing the property now, the surrounding street would not need to be uprooted and provide fewer disturbances to the surrounding businesses upon construction.
Commissioner Seelig requested clarification on the impact of the width of the sidewalk if a TRAX station was built or if left-turn lane was constructed. She wondered if the impact would be heightened with one option or the other.
Mr. Harpst stated that the difference is 3 ½ feet for a left-turn signal, resulting in the removal of on-street parking and the shifting of northbound lanes to a location of five feet from The Dakota Loft building.
Returning to a prior question from Commission Muir regarding the cost to return and construct a station without a WOW system, Mr. Jackson stated that the service would need to be temporarily terminated to accommodate for the construction of the station and reconfiguration of the rails. The cost for a TRAX station newly built is between $500,000-750,000. The cost of construction for the 900 South station where the WOW was already placed was a little over one million dollars. It would be less expensive to build both stations at one time rather then return to the site and begin construction again.
Commissioner De Lay relayed personal experience and questioned those in need of two TRAX stations on 400 West. Stating that emergency vehicles, event traffic and Delta Center traffic use 400 West and 200 South as an artery for transportation and either location will cause damage to the quality of life for residents and businesses.
Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Scott discussed the noises associated with the TRAX stations. The one- vs. two-station noise does make a difference because of the associated buffers surrounding the area.
Commissioner Muir stated concerns regarding the solutions presented. The support for future potential of the 500 West parkway is a major priority. It is an uncomfortable thought to forever preclude the option of the second station. If one station is approved with the option of allowing TRAX to build a second station without the WOW at 400 West, there will be a burdening cost to UTA to build another station.
Chairperson Noda noted that transit oriented development could increase the density within the designated area. The development of the land is a futuristic thought and extremely important for planning. By constructing a 400 West station, ease of access to the Gateway would be achieved. Although the left-turn lane option would be eliminated, it could be mitigated by the ridership resulting from TRAX.
Commissioner Chambless agreed with Chairperson Noda, anticipating residential and mixed use growth. With the anticipation of the certainty of growth, it is the duty of the Planning Commission to plan for the future.
Commissioner Seelig concurred with Commissioner Chambless, and agreed that other entrances to the Summer parking garage can be used.
Commissioner McDonough agreed with the current discussion. According to the previous discussions about the 500 West parkway, the one-stop proposal is difficult. It seems favorable to leave the sequence of the two-station construction to demand, the furthest west station being built first.
Commissioner Diamond stated that the situation with building the station beyond 500 West now would be rarely used. The study concludes that the station should be situated between 400 West and 500 West; with that in mind the Rio Grand crosswalk is not a favorable option. The crosswalk at 500 West would allow the potential of the Boulevard to come through in the north/south direction. One station between 400 West and 500 West seems the most logical option for TRAX.
Motion on Petition 400-04-52
Commissioner Muir moved that regarding Petition #400-04-52, based upon the analysis and findings in the Staff report, the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council supporting a two-station alignment with a recommendation that the two stations be phased based upon demand following the recommendation of UTA. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner McDonough voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner De Lay were opposed. Commissioner Galli was not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed.
The Commission took a 5-minute recess.
Chairperson Noda made a clarification regarding the motion (accepted by Chairperson Muir), to include the recommendation of UTA and the City as the deciding bodies to determine when the second station is warranted.
Commissioner Scott stated that since there was extensive discussion on the left-hand turn lane, the Planning Commission might consider sending a recommendation regarding the left-turn lane.
Motion for Clarification on Petition 400-04-52
Commissioner Scott moved to offer a recommendation to the Transportation Division and City Council to consider the left-hand turn lane disallowed; therefore, making any modifications to the streetscape to accommodate the left-hand turn unnecessary. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner McDonough voted “Aye”. Commissioner Muir opposed. Commissioner Galli was not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda abstained. The motion passed.
Petition No. 400-05-06 – A request by Richard Astle for approval to rezone the properties located at approximately 516-524 South 500 East Street and 517-533 South Denver Street from a Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential (RMF 45) zoning district to a High Density Multifamily (RMF-75) zoning district. The applicant is also requesting approval to rezone approximately twenty-five feet (25’) of the rear portion of the property located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street from a Residential/Office (RO) zoning district to the same zoning district as the Planning Commission recommends for the 516-524 South 500 East and 517-533 South Denver Street properties; preferably RMF-75. The request also includes an amendment to the future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as High Density Residential rather than Medium High Density Residential. The purpose of this request is to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential development.
Petition No. 410-748 – A request by Richard Astle for planned development approval for a 43 unit multi-family housing development located at approximately 516-524 East and 517-533 South Denver Street. Included is a request to modify provisions of the zoning ordinance including but not limited to:
a. Allowing grade changes in excess of two feet (2’) to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure;
b. Allowing multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot;
c. Modifying minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure; and
d. Modifying minimum yard standards such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development etc.
The parcels are currently zoned RMF-45.
(Items heard at 8:26 P.M.)
At 8:26 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petitions 400-05-06 and 410-748 and Staff, Janice Lew. Richard Astle (Developer) and Kent Walker (Architect with WPA Architecture) were present.
Ms. Lew explained that Theas Webb (property owner and applicant for Petition 490-05-23) is requesting preliminary minor subdivision approval to reconfigure multiple parcels in the area of 500 South and 500 East into three lots. Lot 1 (466 East 500 South) of the proposed subdivision is currently developed as an office building with access and frontage on 500 South. Richard Astle, the Developer, has the undeveloped portion of the Webb property (Proposed Lots 2 and 3) under contract, and he is proposing to rezone the subject property to accommodate a 43 unit residential project. The bulk of the property to be rezoned is vacant with the exception of a residential structure (524 South 500 East) that will be demolished. The office building is not part of the residential development proposal. Ms. Lew then explained that the rear portion of Lot 1 is zoned Residential Office (RO) and the remainder parcels are zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF) 45. The RMF 45 Zone limits building heights to 45 feet and establishes a residential density of 43 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a RMF 75 zoning district which allows a maximum building height of 75 feet and establishes a residential density of 85 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Lew further explained that the rezoning from RMF 45 to RMF 75 also requires an amendment to the future land use map for the Central Community Master Plan. The proposed rezone is located in a neighborhood designated for medium/high density residential, and the proposed RMF 75 would require a designation of high density residential.
Ms. Lew explained that the Planning Commission Subcommittee reviewed the proposal on September 8, 2005 and discussed alternative zoning designations for the subject property. The Subcommittee also expressed concerns about the compatibility of the proposed project with the low density residential character of the existing development along Denver Street. The Central City Neighborhood Council indicated their support of the rezone; however, they requested that the height of the project be limited to that of which is permitted in the RMF 45 zoning district. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council as the rezoning would facilitate the construction of a new multi unit residential development. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the land use map for the Central Community Master Plan. Ms. Lew noted that the favorable recommendations are contingent upon the property owner signing a development agreement to be recorded on the property that would set a maximum building height of 45 feet consistent with adjacent zoning and land uses.
Referring to elevation and site plans, Ms. Lew reviewed the planned development request (Petition 410-748) explaining that the applicant is proposing a four story structure with a subterranean parking structure. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission allow grade changes in excess of two feet to accommodate driveway entrances to the underground parking and to allow multiple buildings with shared common area over the underground parking on a single lot. In addition, the applicant is requesting modifications to the minimum yard requirements to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking lot, and modifications to the RMF 75 yard requirements to be consistent with the RMF 45 standards. Ms. Lew summarized that the project would be more consistent with RMF 45 standards, but simply allowing an increase in density. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the planned development with the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Muir noted the Subcommittee determined that the RO zoning designation would be more appropriate for the project. The RO designation would allow the density that Mr. Astle requested and would still be consistent with the adjacent zoning designation (RO) to the north and west. The Subcommittee concluded that rezoning to RMF 75 suggested spot zoning, and Mr. Muir questioned why Staff did not consider their recommendation.
Ms. Lew explained that the RO zoning district requires a commercial component and Staff found that the RMF 75 zoning district would more appropriately accommodate the residential development.
Ms. Coffey acknowledged that the RO zoning district allows a limited commercial component and if the property were rezoned RO the commercial component could be built mid block adjacent to low density residential uses. In addition, Staff did not view the request as spot zoning in that the Housing Plan calls for higher density residential development near light rail stations. The project is within one block of a TRAX station. Mr. Ikefuna added that the RO zoning district does not have density limitations.
Mr. Astle, representing the proposed Huntington Downtown Condominiums, explained that the development does not need more than the allowances of the RMF 45 zoning district, but they needed a slightly higher density to make the project economically feasible. The RMF 45 zoning district would limit them to 32 units, and the RMF 75 would allow 43 units based on their lot area of 0.82 acres. It has been their idea from the beginning to produce a project that would enhance the concept of a walkable community in that area. Mr. Astle acknowledged that the RO zoning district was discussed at the Subcommittee meeting, but he was not under the impression that the RO zoning district would be the final decision. He said that he believes the RMF 75 rezoning accomplishes their goal and meets the spirit and general plan to create more residential neighborhoods in the Downtown area. Mr. Astle noted the single story home adjacent to the subject property explaining that they were sensitive to surrounding development and the design reflects the residential character of the neighborhood. The condo units would be moderately priced from $165,000 to $185,000.
Commissioner Diamond noted that the Subcommittee discussed, along with density issues, blending the project with the scale of Denver Street. It appeared to him that none of their concerns and suggestions relating to scale were taken into account and the plan presented to the Commission as a whole is the same plan that was presented to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Walker explained that they have visited the neighborhood several times and they submitted a streetscape plan that they thought would mitigate the scale impact on Denver Street. Noting the streetscape rendition accompanying the Staff Report, Mr. Walker explained that the parking lot has been proposed to be located on the north side of the property and the fourth story of the building on the south end has been stepped back.
Ms. Lew added that the building has been shifted farther away from Denver Street and a seven foot buffer and additional landscaping will be provided on the north side of the parking. Ms. Lew noted that the buffer is not required in that area. The applicants have also added cornices at different levels and changing materials which would interrupt any monolithic appearance of the façade. Flower boxes and porch elements on the Denver Street frontage have also been added which would further reduce the mass and scale of the building.
Ricky Manchego, 537 South Denver Street, explained that he and his relatives, including his parents, grew up in the neighborhood and they are opposed to the project for several reasons. Denver Street is narrow and does not adequately handle the traffic that already exists on it and the parking situation for the neighborhood is a problem with every available stall on commercial properties filled throughout the entire day. Most of the dwellings in the immediate area are older, some historic, one story homes with sandstone foundations. He and his family believe that the project is too massive overshadowing and blocking light to the smaller homes. Mr. Manchego explained that he has seen several homes demolished for massive structures and he feels the multi unit apartments are chasing out real families who want to live in a home in the City. Mr. Manchego then noted that no one from his neighborhood was present at the meeting and he expressed concerns that the poor may be manipulated into oppression. The controversial TRAX issue came before this issue crushing any hope for anyone to speak out against massive projects in the neighborhood. Mr. Manchego added that he works with Building Craft Construction and he specializes in restoring historic homes. The remaining homes could be fixed preserving the quaint nature of the neighborhood which would be a pleasing presence in the downtown area.
Rocky Manchego, 539 South Denver Street, also noted that their families have lived in the neighborhood all their lives and he too is concerned about the proposed building blocking sunlight to his home. He is also concerned that the older sandstone foundations of the homes immediately adjacent to the property may be undermined by heavy excavation and construction. Mr. Manchego agreed that traffic is a problem and he sees no solution unless the residents of the proposed building use 500 East and 500 South staying completely away from Denver Street.
Steve Alder, owner of the office building located at 466 East 500 South, said that it is important the Planning Commission realizes that parking in the neighborhood is a problem and Denver Street is extremely narrow. The street may need to be widened or perhaps condemned because it will not be able to accommodate additional traffic. Mr. Alder then said that he believes increasing the density is not the intent of the Central Community Master Plan and sets an unfavorable precedence. Adding 11 more units seems to be an incremental step in changing the nature of the neighborhood and the direction of the intent. He explained patrons who come to his office building express their attractiveness to the relatively low density neighborhood surrounding their office space. Mr. Alder said that he agrees the neighborhood needs to be improved and housing needs to be provided in the downtown area, but he does not agree that it should be super high density.
Cindy Cromer noted that the Planning Commission declined discussing compatible infill housing in multiple unit zoning districts during discussions relating to the new Transit Corridor zoning designation, and she believes that now more then ever the issue needs to be discussed. Ms. Cromer explained that adjacent to this area is the Bryant Neighborhood which is a national registered historic district and most buildings along the Transit Corridor are one and two story buildings. Just north of the Corridor are several homes that have been lovingly restored by owners who occupy them. She urged the Planning Commission to consider infill housing impact issues in these areas. Ms. Cromer noted that the City Council will vote on the Transit Corridor zoning designation on December 6, and it was forwarded to the Council without any compatibility components.
Mr. Astle concluded by saying that the project is a collaborated effort with the City and they strived to find the best way to make the project work for the neighborhood.
Ms. Lew added that the project has frontage on both 500 East and Denver Street and the Transportation Engineer recommended approval with the condition that no parking be allowed on Denver Street.
Receiving no further comments, Chairperson Noda closed the meeting to public comment and the Commission went into executive order.
The Commissioners questioned and talked through design elements. Two on site parking stalls will be provided for each unit, and enforcement of no parking on Denver Street would be achieved through a signed agreement, street signs and ticketing. Eliminating access from Denver Street would cause a dead end situation for the underground parking. Some Commissioners still found that the request is for spot zoning and sets an unfavorable precedence.
Motion for Petition 400-05-06
Based upon analyses and findings in the Staff Report, Commissioner Muir moved for the Planning Commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property to an RMF 75 zoning district to facilitate the construction of a new multi unit residential development with the recommendation that the future land use map of the 2005 Center Community Master Plan be amended to reflect the property as high density residential.
Condition of Approval:
1. The Property Owner must sign a development agreement to be recorded on the property that the maximum building height with the rezone may not exceed 45 feet.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”; Commissioner Forbis and Commissioner Seelig were opposed; and Commissioner De Lay abstained from voting. Commissioner Galli was not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for Petition 410-748
Based upon analyses and findings in the Staff Report, Commissioner Muir moved for the Planning Commission to recommend approval for the proposed planned development subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Commission allows grade changes in excess of two feet (2’) to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure.
2. The Planning Commission allows multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot.
3. The Planning Commission allows a modification to the minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure.
4. The Planning Commission allows a modification to the minimum yard standards of the RMF-75 zoning district such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development.
5. Conditioned upon compliance with departmental comments as outlined in the Staff report.
6. Subdivision approval shall be obtained in conformance with Salt Lake City and State of Utah laws, ordinances and policies.
7. If individual transfer of ownership of the residential units is desired, condominium approval must be obtained in conformance with Salt Lake City and State of Utah laws, ordinances and policies.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Chambless, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Forbis and Commissioner Seelig were opposed. Commissioner De Lay abstained from voting. Chairperson Noda broke the tie by voting “Aye”. The motion passed.
At 8:42 p.m., Commissioner McDonough was excused from the meeting.
Petition No. 490-05-23 – Theas Webb requesting preliminary subdivision approval to reconfigure several existing parcels located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street, 516-520 South 500 East Street, and 517-533 South Denver Street into three parcels to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential structure. The parcels are currently within the RO and RMF-45 zoning districts.
At 9:18 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition 490-05-23 and Staff, Janice Lew. Ms. Lew explained that the Webb property consists of several parcels with frontage on 500 South, Denver Street and 500 East. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcels into three lots which would create a property line that would be consistent with the zoning line. Ms. Lew noted that Staff recommended approval with the findings and conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Mr. Webb explained that they owned the office building and the ground behind it. They sold the office building, which is zoned RO, and would like to include the rear 25 feet of the office building parcel into the adjoining parcels, and then rezone it the same as the new development.
Lincoln Hobbs explained that he is a co owner of the office building on Lot 1. His co owners and he purchased the property in April or May 2005. Prior to closing, they discovered the boundary issue that Mr. Webb is addressing. They entered into an easement agreement with Mr. Webb; whereby, they would own Lot 1 and Mr. Webb would own the easement should the City approve the new lot line. They are not concerned about the new boundary line itself, but they are concerned about losing two parking stalls and causing the existing parking lot to become non-complying. Mr. Hobbs further explained that the memorandum dated October 27, includes a condition of approval that would cause a dead end approach that is required to be removed. The approach provides another parking stall at the front of their building. Mr. Hobbs said that the mere boundary change is being conditioned to the point that it eliminates three parking stalls which they purchased with the property. He is requesting that the City allow the subdivision with the existing two stalls. He believes that all adjoining property owners would not be opposed because parking is a premium in the neighborhood. He also does not see any justification for the Planning Commission to take the position that the dead end drive approach must be removed as a condition for the change in the back of the property.
Responding to Mr. Hobbs’ concerns, Ms. Lew explained that Planning Staff ensures that parking requirements would be met upon review of subdivision requests. The parking lot provides 15 spaces and exceeds the minimum parking requirement. The landscape buffer is a requirement of the subdivision approval. Based on review of the plans, she found that the lot could accommodate those requirements and Staff is recommending approval based on meeting code requirements whether or not excess parking spaces would be lost. Loss of parking spaces, in this case, would need to be resolved between the two owners.
The Commissioners and Mr. Hobbs discussed the situation and options. Mr. Hobbs explained that they assessed their needs and purchased the property based on their assessments. He was aware of the boundary change, but he was not aware of the conditions of approval that would cause loss of parking, and losing three parking stalls would greatly impact his office building and the neighborhood. Since the condition of a landscaped buffer actually eliminates the two stalls, Mr. Hobbs explained that the residential development provides a seven foot buffer between the properties which is not required. A buffer would exist, but on the other side of the property line. Mr. Hobbs added that he had the lot re striped as part of the remodeling and the great irony is that upon obtaining the building permit, he was required to provide ADA accommodations which eliminated another stall.
Commissioner Diamond questioned whether or not the landscaping requirement could be satisfied if provided on the abutting property. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the buffer is required to be on the subject lot. One of the requirements for subdivision approval is that lots created must comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff would insist on compliance or they could not recommend approval.
Mr. Webb added that the existing parking spaces are very much needed, and he noted that the abutting commercial properties do not provide buffers.
Receiving no further comments, Chairperson Noda closed the hearing to public comment.
The Planning Commission discussed whether or not the request should be tabled to give the Property Owners an opportunity to resolve the parking stall issue. They further discussed denying the request based on the lot becoming non conforming with the approval of the subdivision.
Ms. Lew explained that the buffer can be provided as well as required parking, even with the loss of two parking stalls.
Motion for Petition 490-05-23
Based on the analyses and findings outlined in the Staff Report, Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to grant preliminary approval for the requested subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with departmental comments as outlined in the staff report.
2. Any future development activity associated with the properties will require that all substandard or absent public improvements be installed in accordance with the departmental comments noted in the Staff report. Additionally, any future redevelopment will be subject to the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
3. Installation of public way improvements (curb, gutter and driveway approaches) as required by Salt Lake City Engineering.
4. Final subdivision approval and final plat recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Commissioner Muir seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Forbis voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless was opposed. Commissioner De Lay abstained from voting. Commissioner Galli and Commissioner McDonough were not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed.
At 9:48 p.m., Commissioner Seelig was excused from the meeting.
Petition No. 400-05-08 and Petition No. 400-05-09 – Rowland Hall, St Mark’s School requesting to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map to designate the property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue as Institutional rather than Open Space and to rezone the property from an Open Space to an Institutional zoning classification. This is a 13-acre portion of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property.
At 9:49 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 and recognized Staff, Everett Joyce.
Commissioner Muir disclosed a potential conflict of interest with regards to the petition, as his wife is a teacher at the school. His comments will be objective, but he is prepared to disqualify himself if the Commission suggests, as he recognizes the will of the Planning Commission. No problem was found.
Mr. Joyce stated the proposed Master Plan amendment and zoning changes are the first steps to a lengthy process. An existing federal reversionary clause enforces the property to be used for cemetery purposes only. Prior to further action of a subdivision application and approval of the parcel itself this clause would need to be removed. Subdivision approval is not presently required because the parcel does not exist.
In analysis and findings, Staff reviewed the historical and land use designations for cemeteries within the city. Two key cemetery properties exist in the East Bench Master Plan; Mt. Olivet property and the 1300 South property owned by Sunset Larkin Mortuary. The Master Plan and Future Land Use Map was approved in 1987 indicating both cemeteries as Institutional land use.
In 1995, a city-wide zoning ordinance was adopted for Open Space Zoning Districts. The property at Mt. Olivet, prior to the Open Space ordinance was in an R-2 zone. The East Bench Master Plan was amended in 1995 to adopt the Open Space Master Plan policies in conformance with the Zoning Rewrite Project
The northwest corner of the Mt. Olivet property is presently zoned RMF-75. This is considered a mapping error and Staff recommends the Planning Commission initiate action to have the property considered as a map amendment in the fine tuning petition.
Uses other than a cemetery for Mt. Olivet are allowable, under City Zoning, but deed restrictions are given by the Federal Government on types of Land Use.
The Land Use designations in Master Plans identify the City’s policy for future land uses. The amendment of the East Bench Master Plan Land Use designation is to include the Mt. Olivet property as Open Space zoning.
The Land Use policy for the East Bench Master Plan and the Open Space Master Plan are the plans associated with Mt. Olivet. The Salt Lake City Master Plan designates active cemeteries as Open Space and the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the plan. Modification of Open Space zoning boundaries for a portion of the Mt. Olivet cemetery property would set precedence for removal of additional properties with the cemetery not actively used. The unused areas and the portion leased to the East High Football practice field are considered inactive uses of the cemetery.
The proposed development is harmonious with the existing character development in the surrounding area. The Institutional zoning classification does allow potential development intensification which would not be harmonious to existing character.
The rezoning of Mt. Olivet to Institutional would permit more intensive development than allowed in an Open Space district by potentially increasing traffic levels and impacting adjacent properties. The Transportation Division of Salt Lake City evaluated phase one of the proposed petition. The analysis provided by the applicant concluded that traffic generated by the proposed use would not adversely affect adjacent properties.
The East Bench Fault Line and the Primary Aquifer Recharge area overlay do impact the future construction of the area, as trenching would be required for future development. The County Health Department handles the requirements for construction in an aquifer recharge area.
The public facilities services and utilities are in place to serve the 13-acre parcel being considered. If actual development occurred, potential problems with water and sewer utilities could occur; if so, the developer would assume responsibility for any changes required.
The Staff recommends that the proposed Master Plan amendment and rezoning of the Mt. Olivet property not be recommended for approval, as it is inconsistent with the East Bench Community Master Plan. Rezoning the Open Space for Institutional usage is not consistent with the Open Space zoning district. Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the request. Staff also recommends the Planning Commission initiate a petition to rezone the RMF-75 portion of the Mt. Olivet property in the mapping fine tuning petition.
Commissioner Muir requested the inclusion of Community Council interest to the Staff report, but requested the Staff summarize the thoughts of the Community Council in their own words. It was recommended that if an advisory board prepares their own transcripts to attach the information to the Staff report, but not include it within the report itself.
Commissioner De Lay questioned the potential of the future property in relation to the guidelines given by the government upon presentation of the property. As a reversionary clause exists, it seems illogical to consider the proposed petition.
Mr. Joyce confirmed that a reversionary clause exists for the south portion to revert to the use of a cemetery. The applicant is prepared to address the reversionary clause with the federal government upon approval of this petition by City Council. If the reversionary clause is not removed, the rezoning attempts would be unsuccessful.
Commissioner Chambless requested confirmation of the lessee regarding the southern parcel of the property, presently converted to a football/soccer field and its future use upon expiration of the lease.
Mr. Joyce confirmed the lessee as Salt Lake City School District and clarified the use of the property as educational purposes for the time period of 70 years. Upon expiration of the lease, the property must be reverted back to cemetery status.
Commissioner Diamond requested information about Open Space limitations.
Mr. Joyce stated that a park is considered Open Space and a community recreation center could be built on Open Space zoned property. Structures can be built on the property, but what prevents the proposed development is the reversionary clause of the federal government. There are limits under the zoning controls. A school would not be allowed in an Open Space zone and must be built in an area zoned Institutional. A recreational center could be built in an Open Space zone.
Mr. Joyce confirmed the reversionary clause situation with the property as a negotiated lease between the lessee and the Federal Government. When built upon, the property was in an R-2 zoning district allowing educational uses.
Chairperson Noda requested comments from the applicants.
Mr. Bill Adams, President of Mt. Olivet Cemetery, provided a short history of the financial status of the association stating the association has been unable to accumulate sufficient funds to provide for perpetual care. There is a 70-year lease with the Salt Lake City School district with a 30-year option to renew, based on congressional approval of that extension. Since the split of the property, Mt. Olivet has explored possibilities to lease other areas but has not received any significant financial opportunities. Mr. Adams requested approval for the rezoning on the property in order to provide continued financial support of the existing cemetery.
Mr. Alan Sparrow, Head of Rowland Hall School, presented a history of Rowland Hall St. Mark’s, stating demographic and statistical information. Mr. Sparrow continued by citing the mission of Rowland Hall and its students’ success as contributing citizens. Although the neighborhood is opposing the change, the community does believe Rowland Hall will be a good neighbor. The relationship with the surrounding schools has been excellent and will continue upon relocation. A soccer field is part of the proposed plan to enhance the green space in the area and to allow public use of the property.
Mr. Bob Steiner presented a proposed plan for the property coinciding with the Open Space Master Plan of 1995, including green space, sidewalk, and a widened corridor. The buildings proposed would take up 14% of the subject property. Rowland Hall is presenting a proposal to decrease the financial needs of Mt. Olivet and enhance the community at no cost to the City. In order to ensure a mechanism that would allow the continuance of open space on the property, Mr. Steiner requested assistance from the Planning Commission and the City.
Chairperson Noda requested questions for the applicant from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Diamond requested confirmation about the footprint for the upper school area being placed at the north end of the property.
Mr. Steiner confirmed the footprint of the suggested buildings, but also mentioned the possibility of “breaking up” the school into a smaller campus feel. If a campus of separated buildings occurred, the footprint could be larger because of the lack of common walls. Mr. Steiner also confirmed that there are no plans to build the school now, as the finances still need to be raised.
Commissioner De Lay stated her support for private schools in the community and agreed that Rowland Hall needs more space. As commissioners there is a strong support for education within the City.
Commissioner Forbis commented on the Open Space description regarding the traditional understating that Open Space includes creeks and canyons. He requested confirmation that the aquifer could also be considered in the definition.
Mr. Steiner confirmed the traditional understanding and agreed that the Open Space Master Plan maintained a focus on the unique gifts in the valley area.
Mr. Joyce stated that the recharge area covers nearly two-thirds of the City, with the East Bench being the primary recharge area.
Ms. Coffey stated that the coverage is continued eastward from Beck Street and is referred to as an underground aquifer recharge area.
Commissioner De Lay remarked about Institutional zoning for the area in the East Bench Master Plan.
Mr. Joyce confirmed that the zoning in 1987 was R-2, but the term Institutional zoning was from the Land Use policy. The zoning was changed in 1995 with the Open Space Master Plan, including amendments to all Master Plans conflicting with the new zoning ordinance that created a specific Open Space zoning classification.
Hearing no further questions for the applicants, Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing requesting comments from the Community Council Chairs.
Peter Von Sievers, Capitol Hill Community Council, stated concerns about the potential inconsistencies of the Open Space policies within the City, specifically with the City’s position on the North Bench to preserve Open Space and this parcel. Capitol Hill Community Council is opposed to the proposed rezoning.
Steve Blackham, Sunnyside Community Council, expressed concern with a potential increase of traffic. The capability of Sunnyside Avenue to handle the additional traffic is available, but the surrounding neighborhoods are becoming devalued.
Steve Alder, Trustee of Sunnyside East Community Council, stated that the alteration of the zoning is premature and further planning options should be examined. Indirect effects on Each High School should be considered. Sunnyside Community Council is opposed to the proposed rezoning.
Dennis Guy-Sell, East Central Community Council, stated that Rowland Hall has been a pleasant neighbor, but the preference of the Board is that they remain at their current location. East Central Community Council is opposed to the proposed rezoning.
Marion Florence, Bennion Neighborhood, stated that Rowland Hall has been an enjoyable neighbor, but concerns remain regarding the area left behind. The future of the historic district, future of the current green space and the economic impact of the 900 East and 900 South areas are three main concerns; as the futuristic impact on the land is not protected. A proposal was placed for the property on 900 East and 900 South to be used for expansion and soccer fields if needed.
Jim Webster, Yalecrest Community Council, made reference to Ione Davis, a charter member of the City Council, who struggled for years to use the suggested property for community use but consistently failed. The vote of this community does not reflect the reputation of Rowland Hall; rather the subject is Open Space. The concept of stewardship is important to consider as it is a role defined as working together instead of domination. Yalecrest Community Council is opposed to the proposed rezoning and map amendment.
MaryDelle Gunn, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, stated opposition to the proposed rezoning of Mt. Olivet.
Ellen Reddick, Bonneville Hills Community Council; Chair, requested support of Planning Staff recommendation and oppose the proposed rezoning.
Seeing no further comments from Community Councils, Chairperson Noda opened the meeting for public comment.
Due to the amount of public interest regarding the proposed petition, the general public comments have been summarized. The following individuals spoke in favor of approval of the petition:
Carol Frymire, Robert Sanders; Trustee of Rowland Hall, Cary Jones; Rowland Hall Board Member, Guy Kroesche; Trustee of Rowland Hall, Paula Sargetakis; Board Chair of Rowland Hall St. Mark’s, Robyn Matheson, Phil Carrol, Leslie Stone, Wayne Adams, Don Biselle, Ryan Hoaglund, Kathy Kennedy, Margaret McGann, Jim MacIntyre, Jordan Kimball, Kevin Bischoft, Robert Tokita, John Ashton, Ken Johnson, Angelina Hyde, Dave & Becky Hall, Kathy Kennedy and Joe Perrin.
Those in support of the petition stated the following reasons:
• Open Space should be defined as a livable area, rather than a field with trash and a barbed wire fence.
• Care of the land would be maintained in a manner to make the City proud, as Rowland Hall has previously proved itself in the Avenues area.
• The desire of Rowland Hall for the proposed petition is not to ask for an increase in school population, but rather a request for more space.
• An assurance for the land to be maintained as a mechanism for public use will be considered in a deed restriction.
• Many other options could be considered by the Mt. Olivet Association to sell the property for financial gain, including federal or state government who are exempt from specific zoning requirements; while Rowland Hall is proposing a petition to enhance the City within the guidelines.
• Only four of thirteen acres will be used for buildings, lending the remainder to the community.
• Open Space is a rhetorical term in Utah; given the many options for a specific definition and should consider the terms of being a usable and livable place for the public.
• The present lease on Mt. Olivet has more impervious area than the proposed petition.
• Traffic will be decreased as the proposed plan will create a unified school area.
Due to the amount of public interest regarding the proposed petition, the public comments have been summarized. The following individuals spoke in favor of denial of the petition:
Barbara Cook, Mark Maxfield; East High School Community Council; Chair, Robin Carbaugh, Cindy Cromer, Helen Peters; Former Chair of Mayor’s Open Space Committee, Diane Barlow, Father John Norman, Mary Lou Barker, Michael Behrens, and Tim Payne.
Those in opposition of the petition stated the following reasons:
• Open Space is a natural area of land and should be preserved as a legacy.
• Traffic in the area will increase–reducing the safety of the surrounding area.
• Mt. Olivet Association has not found enough resources to financially sustain itself, and more time should be allowed for tools to be provided to the association and for the preservation of Open Space.
• The value of an area of land for the earth to recharge itself is immeasurable and should be considered a premium space for the community.
• Open Space is found less often as city growth continues.
• Tools for rating the degree of importance of Open Space are being researched, and given time, will be considered as possible trading options.
• The land is irreplaceable.
Public Comment read into the record:
Gleed Toombes; The schools proposed development can be accomplished by other means. If Mt. Olivet really needs some money to handle management of the cemetery they should coordinate with the City and work out a plan with them. The property was designated to be preserved as a cemetery and nothing else. Once is it sold, regardless of immediate plans, it become a part of the commercial free enterprise system. Its future is unknown. Not what our country fathers had in mind.
Jonathan Hermance: My wife and I own a rental property across Sunnyside from the field RHSM has interest in. We feel RHSM is potentially a good neighbor and are certainly better than a shopping mall or other commercial use. They are Institutional and have shown they are responsible in the use of the lands they currently occupy. The soccer fields proposed are practical if they are available to local leagues. Developed open space would be more to my liking, but it seems Mt. Olivet needs money and will get it from somewhere. Better RHSM than a U of U parking lot or whatever.
Jan Bennet: We strongly encourage Mt. Olivet cemetery to retain the open space that currently enhances our neighborhood. We believe the additional buildings and traffic would have a negative impact on the entire surrounding area.
Steve Belson (Beckham): My wife Jane and I are opposed to the rezoning proposal.
Alice Andersen: Living as I do immediately opposite the land in question, I am greatly opposed to this rezoning.
Robin Puri: Support the sell of the property to the school. Financial needs of Mt. Olivet will be met, open space will be maintained with the school only using 4 of the 13 acres.
Steve Mason: Keep this open space, uphold the master plan. We need cemetery and open space; we need the deer and other small animals. Please keep it open.
Susan Koles: Responsible planning would allow RHSM to rezone a piece of the property that is inaccessible/unsightly/unsafe and use a portion for construction and a portion for green space.
Leslie Stone: I am strongly in favor of Rowland Hall, St. Mark’s Proposal.
Peggy McDonough’s comments read into the record: Despite my respect for the school and its mission, from my analysis of the Staff report and familiarity with the area, I concur with Staff to forward a negative recommendation to City Council. It is a very dangerous precedent to establish, placing our city’s open space areas at risk for the convenience of development.
The Planning Commission had received several written comments. Chairperson Noda entered the written comments into the record.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing and went into executive order with the Commission.
Commissioner Scott noted the number of citizens who stayed late to state their desire and thanked them. She stated that spending time in cemeteries can allow the children of society to learn about responsibility and the irreplaceability of open space.
Commissioner De Lay noted the passion of the individuals who remained for the conclusion of the meeting. Rowland Hall is a good neighbor, and would be a good steward of the land, but the fact remains that the property be reverted to the federal government if it is not used as a cemetery.
Commissioner Muir requested further tools to assess the area of Open Space. Given the topic of cemeteries, the Planning Commission has opposed and defended them. The Community Council Chairs have alluded to the difficult position Commissioners are placed in with regards to Open Space. Without tools to determine the net loss of Open Space by supporting the petition, the City is at a loss. A suggestion for Rowland Hall to locate four acres of valuable Open Space, purchase it, and trade it to the City for the removal of the Mt. Olivet four acres is not feasible under the existing requirements. A trade option is not presently available to the City, but should be considered by the Open Space committee as a potentially feasible.
Commissioner Diamond confirmed the lack of zoning requirements by the federal and state government. He requested to know how much land was currently being used by Rowland Hall for the school for the purpose to determine if a land trade for the potential of Open Space could possibly be agreed upon.
Mr. Steiner stated that less than half of the footprint is used.
Mr. Ikefuna discussed the studies the City is doing regarding the inventory of critical lands and preservation easements and stated that upon conclusion of the studies, the lands will be classified and the criteria for protection will be assessed and developed. Staff is also evaluating the bylaws of the Open Space & Lands Advisory Board to determine if it can be amended to include some provisions which have been mentioned. The topic will be brought up in further discussion.
Commissioner Muir suggested tabling the petition to allow the City some time to assess the options available to the applicant and the City.
Chairperson Noda agreed with Commissioner Muir in the sense of unavailable tools for dealing with Open Space and requested tabling the petition in order to provide the applicant with more time to research further options. The consistency of identifying the importance of Open Space has been provided by decisions made by the Planning Commission. Open Space is valued by the City and should not be altered. The amount of Open Space within the City is small and if more is given away for development the less of a legacy we have for the future.
Commissioner Chambless noted the lack of Open Space in large, high density cities and recommended the Open Space be left, as it is irreplaceable.
Commissioner Muir clarified the rezoning in North Salt Lake as a rezone from an Open Space to a Natural Open Space zone, precluding the opportunity for a cemetery. To remain consistent, this space would also be rezoned as a Natural Open Space.
Mr. Steiner stated that in the North Salt Lake situation there were different circumstances under which the decision was made. Having a large institution nearby or possible federal buyers, the likelihood of the disappearance of open space is greater. Tabling the petition would be an option for the applicants, in order to determine if further alternatives are available.
Discussion of tabling the petition and returning to the Planning Commission with the City Attorney led to a motion to table.
Motion for Petition #400-05-08 & 400-05-09
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission table Petition 400-05-08 & 400-05-09 in order to request the attendance of the City Attorney to a meeting. No second.
Commissioner Scott disagreed with the idea to table and requested the commissioners determine the purpose of Open Space. As a Planning Commission, a strong statement should be made regarding the importance of Open Space. Public Utilities should consider cemetery space.
Commissioner De Lay removed the motion for tabling the petition.
Motion for Petition #400-05-08 & 400-05-09
Based on the findings of fact, Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests to amend the East Bench Master Plan and the request to rezone the 13 acre portion of Mt. Olivet Cemetery property from Open Space to Institutional Land Use and zoning classifications. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner Scott, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner Chambless voted “Aye”. Commissioner Muir was opposed. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Galli were not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(12:02 A.M. December 1, 2005)
Motion for Initiating a Petition
Commissioner De Lay made a motion for the Planning Commission to initiate action to have the RMF-75 portion of the Mt. Olivet property included in a petition considered for a map amendment as part of a planning division zoning map fine tuning petition. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Muir voted “Aye”. None opposed. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Galli were not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed.
The Planning Commission was adjourned by Chairperson Noda at 12:03 A.M.