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 meeting were Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Peggy McDonough (Chairperson), Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Matthew Wirthlin (Vice Chairperson) and Mary Woodhead.
Present from the Planning Division were Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Janice Lew, Principal Planner; Joel Patterson, Principal Planner, and Tami Hansen Planning Commission Senior Secretary.
Present from the Traffic Division were Randy Dixon and Joe Perrin.
Community Development Director; Louis Zunguze was present.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson McDonough called the meeting to order at 5:47p.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 Staff Office for an indefinite period of time.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were, Tim Chambless, Peggy McDonough, Kathy Scott, and Mary Woodhead. Salt Lake City Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director and Kevin Young, Transportation Division Assistant Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, October 25, 2006.
(This item was heard at 5:48 p.m.).
Commissioner De Lay moved to approve the October 25, 2006 minutes, Vice Chair Wirthlin seconded the motion. All voted “Aye”. The motion passed with change noted.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
Mr. Alex Ikefuna was presented with a plaque for his diligent service as the Planning Director from August 2005 to October 2006.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA
(This item was heard at 5:50p.m.)
a. 1500 South SLC LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—The LLC is requesting the elimination or relocation of four existing easements of record which are controlled by SLC Public Utilities, as noted in the attachment. This is a large industrial site with existing buildings and site improvements located at between 1500 South and 1700 South on Swaner Road in the Industrial M-1 Zoning District. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the easement adjustment/eliminations as requested.
b. Four Square Properties and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Four Square is requesting a property trade with SLC Public Utilities to make adjustments between the two properties located at approximately 487 East Vine Street in Murray City, Utah. SLC Public Utilities owned property is used by lease agreement as part of the Mick Riley Golf Course. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the requested property trade as proposed.
c. Sandy City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—Sandy City is requesting that Public Utilities grant standard utility permits to allow various utility, bridging, and the installation of a new public street crossing of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal at approximately 11200 South Auto Mall Drive. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the request.
d. Utah Transit Authority and Salt Lake City Property Management—UTA is requesting various encroachments into the City owned right of way for 600 West Street at approximately 300 South 600 West and 617 West 600 South in Salt Lake City. These encroachments consists of certain existing improvements at the Intermodal Transit Hub facility, involving building canopies and other surface improvements, constructed as part of the Intermodal Hub facility and the temporary Amtrak station. The granting of these encroachments is a necessary addendum to the transfer agreement for the Intermodal Hub facilities to UTA for long term operations, which was previously approved by the City Council.
Chairperson McDonough noted that there were no comments or questions from the public or Commissioners, and the matters were approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(This item was heard at 5:51 p.m.)
Petition No. 400-06-20 – a request by Vectra Management Group, represented by Cooper Roberts Simonsen Architects, to place the Walker Bank Building, located at approximately 175 South Main Street on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. This property is in the D-1 zone.
Chairperson McDonough recognized Janice Lew as staff representative.
Ms. Lew gave a brief overview of the project. She noted that the applicant is pursuing listing on the Salt Lake City register of cultural resources as a landmark site; concurrently with a request for additional signage. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the signage in its historic configuration and install a new sixty-four foot frame tower, which would include individual neon letters spelling out ‘Walker’ on each of the four sides of the tower. She noted that the height of the sign, as outlined in the zoning ordinance for a roof mounted sign, cannot exceed twenty percent of the height of the building or ten feet, whichever is less. Ms. Lew noted that it is the Landmark Site designation that provides the means to exceed the general requirements of the zoning ordinance, with respect to signs. She noted that the signage goes through a review process with the Board of Adjustment. The City Council is the approval body for this type of request with recommendations from the Historic Landmark Commission, as well as the Planning Commission.
Chairperson McDonough inquired if there were any questions from the Commissioners.
Vice Chair Wirthlin inquired about the significance of a building and/or property being placed on the register as a landmark site.
Staff Lew noted that if the Walker building were to be placed on the register, then any improvements to the exterior of the building would have to be reviewed through the Landmark Commission; there would also be an additional review process for any future demolition as well.
Commissioner Chambless inquired if there would be colorful, electric lighting associated with the new sign.
Staff Lew noted that the historic signage, which had various colors indicating the weather forecast, would also be restored.
Commissioner De Lay inquired why the Walker Bank Building process was being passed to the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council, and was not just an administrative decision.
Staff Lew noted because it is a zoning map amendment.
Chairperson McDonough invited the applicant, Vectra Management group to the table, represented by Wally Cooper and Susie Petheram.
Mr. Cooper noted that the owner of the Walker Bank Building was seeking this designation, to be able to put a replica of the original sign back on the building tower.
Ms. Petheram gave a short presentation including the following points:
• The Walker Building was constructed in 1911-1912; for the Walker Brothers’ Bank, which was founded in 1859.
• The Walker Bank continued in that location until 1983, when the building was sold and the historic sign tower was torn down.
• The building is in excellent shape and carries historical integrity.
• It was listed on the Nation Register of Historic Places at the beginning of October, 2006.
• The original architects were Eames and Young out of St. Louis, Missouri.
• Construction began in the fall of 1911. It is a steel frame skyscraper, the building of which was well documented by the Shippler Commercial Photography Company, which took a photo of the building every one to two weeks as the building was being constructed.
• The exterior is clad in a combination of granite, brick, and terra-cotta with a granite foundation.
• This was the tallest building in Salt Lake City at the time, and showed the City’s progress in becoming a large City in the West, as well as within the United Sates.
• The Walker Building is considered as a three part vertical block building, using stylistic components of the Chicago School skyscrapers. Most of the ornamental detail is in the top two stories, and was constructed so all the offices had natural light and operable windows.
• The building still contains modern, gearless, elevators which are still presently functioning.
Ms. Petheram noted that the Walker Building had gone through very few changes, including the removal of the sign tower which was constructed in 1953, which was originally built for the radio and television station KDYL. The Walker Brothers decided that they could use it to display the name of the building by placing ‘Walker’ on all four sides of the tower. She noted the signage was also used as a weather beacon: Constant Blue color indicated sunny skies, flashing blue meant cloudy skies on the horizon, a red color indicated rain in the forecast, and flashing red color meant that their was expected snow. Ms. Petheram noted that people from all over the Salt Lake valley could look to the Walker Building for their weather prediction.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about who was in charge of keeping the color of the sign lighting accurate to the weather forecast.
Ms. Petheram noted that presently it would be partially computerized; however, the building manager of twenty-five years would make sure the lighting was accurate.
Ms. Petheram also noted that the Walker Building was no longer the tallest building in the City, but it still had a prominence along the skyline.
Mr. Cooper noted that two floors had been added to the building on the east wing, making the current number there four floors, where originally there had been two floors.
Ms. Petheram noted that the floors were added in 1939, but the material used, including the hardware on the windows, matched the first two floors and were a very compatible addition. She noted that in 1960, a parking garage to the East of the building was also constructed for the Walker Center building.
Ms. Petheram noted that the building, considering its age, was in excellent condition. She also noted that when the tower was removed, it was under the condition that the same weather beacon configuration would be used for the signage.
Commissioner Muir inquired about what was in the base of the tower.
Ms. Petheram noted that the base included mechanical systems for the building.
She noted that the interior had gone through several changes over the years, but there were a few historical elements that remained, including; a section of ornate plaster ceiling in the main lobby, as well as the original stairway and marble tread.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about the design of the signage being proposed.
Ms. Petheram and Mr. Cooper showed visuals of the signage, which would include only the word ‘Walker’ rather than ‘Walker Bank’.
Commissioner De Lay commented that it looked like the original.
Ms. Petheram noted that it was meant to look like the original, and bring back that element of the building, as well as Downtown.
Commissioner Chambless noted that television came to Salt Lake City in 1952, and the Walker Building was the first “skyscraper” in the City.
Mr. Cooper noted that roof signs in the 1950’s were a standard way to advertise, and that this sign one of the earlier roof signs.
Commissioner Chambless inquired if the approval of the tower would bring the possibility that other businesses might try and elevate signs of their own; and would the Walker Building come back to the Commission in the future and ask for additional height for their tower.
Mr. Cooper noted that they would not, and what approval was sought at the moment was a designation to be on the Historical Register. He noted that the only way to restore the sign was through the approved designation of that process. He also noted that in order for surrounding buildings to have signs of this nature, they would have to be on the Historic Register and have historic precedence.
Staff Cheri Coffey noted that future sign inquiries for the Walker Building would be an issue for the Landmarks Commission and the Board of Adjustment. It had been heard by the Landmarks Commission, who sent a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment and they approved the sign, if it gets placed on the register.
Mr. Cooper noted that the original sign was approximately sixty-four-feet tall. The proposed new sign would match that.
Commissioner Scott inquired about the visual displays the applicant had brought as being the current state of the lobby area, or the proposed.
Mr. Cooper noted that it was the proposed plan, and that the owner was doing a substantial restoration/rehabilitation to the building, including; mechanical and electrical system, elevator upgrades, lobby upgrades. The signage would be part of the package of work that is being put into the building.
Commissioner Scott inquired about the use of the building after the reconstruction is completed.
Mr. Cooper noted it would be used as office spaces.
Chairperson McDonough inquired if the Commissioners had any more questions, and then opened the Public Hearing portion of the meeting.
Cindy Cromer (former Planning Commissioner) noted positively, that the Salt Lake Tribune had an article about the awards made by the Downtown Alliance discussing the recent activity done with historic properties Downtown. She noted that this project would be worthy of such recognition when it was completed. She noted that it had reminiscent qualities for her and she was thrilled about the project.
Kirk Huffaker (represented the Utah Heritage Foundation) noted he supported the project, and that it was a fabulous example of rehab in the Downtown area. He noted that by talking to Cooper Roberts Simonsen architects about the rehab of the building, he found that they had taken a tough project and solved a lot of issues to turn the project into a preservation success.
Commissioner De Lay inquired if there were any Community Council members present at the meeting.
Chairperson McDonough noted that there were not. She closed the public portion of the hearing and asked the applicant Mr. Cooper if he had any concluding remarks.
Commissioner Scott noted that it was refreshing to review a project that was such a credit to Salt Lake City and to improve upon it.
Regarding Petition 400-06-20 Commissioner De Lay made a motion based on the comments, presentation, analysis, and findings; which were presented in the Staff Report and again that evening; as well as a positive recommendation submitted by the Historical Landmark Commission, she moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to designate the Walker Building on the Salt Lake Resister of Cultural resources, and amend the zoning map accordingly.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
All in favor voted, “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Issues Only Hearing
(This item heard at 6:16 p.m.)
Property Reserve Inc. and The Taubman Company requesting approval for the City Creek Center, an approximately twenty-five acre mixed use development generally located between West Temple and 200 East, from South Temple to 100 South. The specific request will include:
1. Petition 410-06-38 –A planned development/conditional use request for:
a. Planned Development approval for more than one principal building per lot;
b. Conditional Use approval to exceed the height regulations of 100 feet for mid-block buildings in the Central Business (D-1) District;
c. Conditional Use approval to waive the requirement that retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front property line on Social Hall Avenue; and
d. Conditional Use approval to waive the minimum glass requirement on Social Hall Avenue.
2. Petition 400-06-37 – Master Plan Amendment to the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan (1995) and the Urban Design Element (1990) relating to view corridors and vistas along Main Street to allow the construction of a skybridge.
3. Petition 400-06-38 – A request for the following partial street closures on:
a. Main Street to allow the sale of air-rights over a portion of Main Street to allow the construction of a skybridge;
b. Social Hall Avenue to allow the sale of subsurface rights to allow an extension of the underground Social Hall Avenue pedestrian corridor; and
c. West Temple and 100 South to allow expansion of the existing median parking ramps providing access to existing subsurface parking structures.
Chairperson McDonough recognized Joel Paterson as staff representative.
Mr. Paterson noted that following the Issues Only portion of the hearing held on October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission had asked that the applicant return with a more detailed description of the project. He noted that at the meeting the applicant was prepared to present additional details concerning traffic circulation around the project; ingress and egress from the proposed City Creek Center, and proposed median parking ramps. He noted that there would be discussion about the design of pedestrian circulation within the project and how it would support the rebuilding of Main Street. There would also be discussion about the proposed Master Plan Amendments and the Urban Design element in relationship to the proposed skybridge that would link Block 75 and Block 76. The applicants would also present alternatives that have been analyzed for the project, and why they believe those alternatives do not work for this project.
He noted that the applicant would also present the plan for the eastern extension of the underground walkway under Social Hall Avenue, and modifications to the D-1 Urban Design standard for the minimum forty-percent glass and retail or restaurant uses to front the ground floor of all buildings.
Mr. Paterson noted that the Planning Commissioners had reviewed the applicant’s proposed language amendments for the Downtown Master Plan; which would allow consideration of skybridges when certain extenuating circumstances were found.
He also noted that a proposal by the Planning Division had been included for alternate language that the Planning Commission might consider for the allowance of skybridges; when its construction would provide a successful link to the developments on either side of the street which reads, “all other alternatives for creating a successful link between major development on both sides of the street had been evaluated and conclusively found not feasible or effective”. He noted that this would include the consideration that, the design of a skywalk would not negatively impair or impact a view corridor, and that a skywalk would not detract from pedestrian and commercial activity at the street level. Also, that the view corridor had already been significantly changed, altered, or impacted by prior development, such that the designations of the view corridor had become obsolete.
Mr. Paterson introduced Mark Gibbons, President of Property Reserve Inc. (PRI).
Chairperson McDonough noted that two members from the Transportation Advisory Board; Joe Perrin, and Randy Dixon, were present and would be commenting on the presentations relating to traffic circulation throughout the project.
Mr. Gibbons introduced guests of the applicant present at the meeting that would be involved in the presentation including: Allan Sullivan, from the Law firm of Snell & Wilmer; Bill Williams, Director of Architecture; Kerry Neilson, Director of Technical Services; Dave Giles, FFKR Architects; Dave Goeres, from Fehr and Peers Transportation Engineers; Andrew Fineberg; from ZGF Architects; and Dean Peterson, President of Harmon’s grocery stores.
Mr. Bruce Heckman, Vice President of Development for the Taubman Company; introduced Ron Locke, Vice President of Planning and Design for the Taubman Company; and representatives from both Macey’s and Nordstom department stores, who had been working on aspects of putting the project together. He noted that David Lindsay, Vice President of Store Planning for Nordstrom, Brooke White, Vice President of Communications for Nordstrom; and Debbie Cotter, General Manager of the Nordstrom Store in Salt Lake City were also present. He also introduced Carl Gordemiller, Operating Vice President of Real Estate for Macy’s and Harry Kohler, Vice President for site planning for Macy’s.
Mr. Gibbons noted that he was appreciative of the outline sent to the applicant that outlined the areas that the Planning Commission wished to be addressed at the meeting. He noted that they were prepared to address those particular issues and answer questions the Planning Commission and the public might have.
Mr. Bill Williams introduced Kerry Nielsen from PRI, Vice President of Technical Services; and Dave Goeres from Fehr and Peers.
He noted that the presentation would cover Blocks; 76, 75, and 74 in regards to access points and circulation issues. He noted the first proposal was on West Temple, to enlarge the existing ramp that currently is within the street, to accommodate both ingress and egress traffic. He proposed the elimination of some of the present curb cuts on West Temple to accommodate one egress from the first level under Nordstrom’s.
Mr. Williams proposed on South Temple to have an ingress and egress adjacent to the Temple View Center (an existing office building housing Utah Woolen Mills), which would be the only curb cut on that street. He proposed a break in the existing median at 100 South to have east and west bound ingress into the parking garage.
On Block 75 (ZCMI Block), Mr. Williams proposed that there would be no parking access from Main Street, all of the curb cuts on South Temple would be eliminated, and an in-street ramp would be introduced to serve both ingress and egress traffic, which would also accommodate U-turns. He noted that one of the benefits of the new structure would be to eliminate the curb cut that exists presently next to the Joseph Smith Memorial building.
Mr. Williams proposed that on State Street there would be ingress and egress flow onto a proposed, new private street, though it would only accommodate one way flow toward the east. He noted that on South Temple the base of the in-street ramp would be reconstructed to allow space for a pedestrian drop-off area, as well as access into the parking garage.
On Block 74 (Social Hall Avenue), Mr. Williams proposed that the northbound access onto State Street would be maintained, but that ingress and egress access to the rebuilt parking garage would be added. He noted that ingress and egress from 100 South would be added for access to the proposed Harmon’s Grocery store’s parking structure.
Mr. Williams visually showed how all of the parking levels would be connected. Noting that underground parking on Block 75 would intersect under the Joseph Smith Memorial building to compensate for the removal of the curb cut on street level. A series of ramps would provide different underground accesses, including access to lower levels for service trucks.
Vice Chair Wirthlin inquired how the curb cuts would affect the number of current lanes on the streets.
Mr. Goeres noted that the only modifications would be on South Temple between State Street and Main Street, and on West Temple. He stated that currently on South Temple there were three lanes that carried traffic flow in each direction, including a turn lane, making it essentially a seven lane cross-section. He noted that this provides a significantly higher capacity then what is required in that area. He noted that there would be two lanes on either side of the ramp system, which would occupy the middle lanes—resulting in a loss of an outside travel lane. However, the on-street parking and the loading zones would not be modified along Blocks; 76, 75, and 74.
He also noted that currently on West Temple, there were two lanes that were southbound, which would remain and the southbound ramp would become the third lane. Northbound there are currently three lanes, the outside lane serves as access to the Marriot Hotel and also as ingress and egress from the parking garages; which would be narrowed down to two lanes. In front of the Marriot Hotel there would still be three lanes. As they narrow down to two lanes there would not be any problems because of the proposed curb cuts.
Mr. Goeres noted that there would be no modifications to the lanes on Main Street, State Street, or 100 South, except to shift them on 100 South.
Commissioner Muir inquired about changes to existing curb lines and sidewalks and if delivery trucks on all three blocks would go into the parking structures and not be backing in from the public right of way.
Mr. Goeres noted there would be no changes to sidewalks and that service/delivery trucks would stay out of the public right-of-way, definitely on Blocks 75, and 76, however, the developers are still working through the loading issues on Block 74 and how to best accommodate the Harmon’s grocery store.
Vice Chair Wirthlin inquired about how the South Temple ingress and egress will facilitate U-turns.
Mr. Goeres noted that this is already an existing condition on 100 South, with U-turns made prior to the intersection. This condition will be installed on Main Street, so that vehicles exiting from the parking structure would be able to make a U-turn.
Mr. Perrin inquired if the same restrictions would be created on South Temple which exists currently on Main Street; that of not being able to make a left turn to go westbound.
Mr. Goeres noted that traffic coming from the parking garage on Block 75 (ZCMI Block) would be able to make a left turn on Main Street, but South Temple traffic would not be able to turn left onto Main Street.
Mr. Perrin noted that that would be an elimination of movement which is currently available. He also inquired if the developer had carefully thought through the issue of 100 South carrying far less traffic than South Temple for making U-turns, and he inquired if that would be an issue because U-turns currently are notoriously inefficient.
Mr. Goeres noted that the efficiency of this plan is that the U-turn occurs before the intersection, so if the stop light is red, a U-turn would be permitted.
Mr. Perrin inquired about reducing the size of the median island on site C to make a left turn possible.
Mr. Goeres noted that there is a raised divided landscape median, a section of which will be eliminated to create a protected left turn lane.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about truck delivery parking, due to increased residential areas within the project; which could create additional, unpleasant, noise. She inquired if there would be additional street parking, and yellow areas, and also noted that on Block 75 (ZCMI Block) late night truck deliveries might be tempted to use that entrance as access to some of the stores that might be in that area.
Mr. Williams noted that the curb lines and all of the existing loading zones would generally remain the same as they currently exist.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about truck parking on the internal road on Block 75.
Mr. Goeres noted that the intent was a pedestrian vehicular access for the Block and would not be dedicated to loading. He also noted that adjacent to that area was the loading access on the street, but preferably all the trucks would deliver below street level.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the parking areas were self-contained by block.
Mr. Goeres noted that they were and there is an existing parking structure bellow Main Street, but it contains slopes which would make easy navigation impossible. He noted that possible connections to get into the Main Street garage from adjoining parking garage would be possible, but it would not be encouraged to pass from one garage to another.
Commissioner Muir inquired if the developers’ traffic analysis of the area, and the increased demand it would bring would put pressure to have to bury the light rail system line in the future.
Mr. Williams noted that the analysis of the system, suggested that it would function well, therefore modifications to the TRAX system Downtown have not been included in this plan.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the total number of spaces between the two Blocks 75 and 76; totaled 2,300 stalls.
Mr. Williams noted it was 5,300 stalls; which would be replacing 4,200 existing parking spaces.
Commissioner Chambless inquired about the anticipated posted speed limit in the area, and if there would be any one- way streets added into the area.
Mr. Williams noted that the posted speed limits would remain as they are currently today, and there would be an additional street added between the Qwest building and the new project, which would be a one-way street.
Mr. Goeres noted that it would be easy to navigate the drop off areas and then move onto State Street to easily access the underground ramps; providing easy circulation and access to parking, minimizing conflicts on the street.
Mr. Dixon inquired how the project will affect Area C on 100 South and Area D on South Temple, relating to pedestrian mid-block crossings.
Mr. Williams noted that the projects intent was to enhance the mid-block crossings, easing the pedestrian connection. He noted that the success of Downtown was dependent upon the pedestrian quality and accessibility. And that the finished areas would be similar to mid-block crossings that currently exist between the City Creek project, Abravanel Hall, and the Salt Palace. The ramp would be at grade and would contain a pedestrian safety refuge in the center.
Commissioner Muir noted that he hoped that there would be improvements, because the designs near the Gallivan Center make pedestrians virtually invisible due to the cement guard railing being very high.
Chairperson McDonough inquired how the developers had worked with the Transportation Master Plan that is currently being developed. She noted that the amount of parking being provided seems high, though there is a huge regional draw expected to the area, there seems to be a lack of understanding for the future encouragement and use of public transportation.
Mr. Goeres noted that they had been in contact with the team that is devising the Downtown Transportation Master Plan, and were doing studies to try and mesh both plans in the best way possible. He noted that there is an optimal shared parking concept, which would be used for Abravanel Hall and other after hour activities. He noted that it would also serve as public parking for the retail areas.
Mr. Williams noted that the parking areas for residential uses did need to be separated and enclosed for privacy reasons; this being one piece of the project that does drive the number of stalls higher.
Mr. Louis Zunguze noted that this was an important point to rise, and he asked Mr. Tim Harpst, Transportation Division Director, to share the City’s perspective on the issue, since it had been a major undertaking that had been dealt with in the last several months.
Mr. Harpst noted that there had been great communication and sharing of information amongst the City’s consulting team and the developers. He noted that from the collaborated information, no fatal flaws had been discovered in terms of the preparation of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan. He noted that the shared parking use is critical within the City; but it is important to have separate parking for residential uses. This block currently and in the future will provide parking for other areas, such as Abravanel Hall and the Salt Palace.
Mr. Goeres noted that there has not been in-depth discussion with the developers in considering use of the parking in the area, but it could be assumed so. The concept would be similar to the way that it has been in the past few years.
Mr. Williams noted that with the exclusion of the residential parking; the parking is open to the public as paid parking.
Mr. Bruce Heckman introduced Ron Locke and noted that the presentation tonight would give an expanding view of the project, and an idea of circulation throughout the City Creek Center project, including ties to the pedestrian connector.
Mr. Locke noted that the developers thought it would be important to identify the stakeholders involved in the project including: PRI, Taubman, Nordstrom, Macey’s, Salt Lake community, central business district and the adjacencies. He noted that another piece of the project to understand was the retail design principles. Since department stores created a regional draw to the area, then two to three are necessary to create a critical mass. He noted the project would need to contain the following pieces to be successful:
• Great sight lines, from the street level, as well as throughout both levels of the project.
• Comfortable walking distances.
• Convenient vertical circulation.
• The ability to bring as many customers past all retail locations multiple times during a visit to the City Creek Center.
Mr. Locke noted that these were basic guiding principles for all contemporary retail design, whether it was urban or suburban. He noted that an understanding of retail evolution and history was important; to grasp the layout of the current project plan, and that because of the magnitude of consumers that this would produce, it would allow other retailers in the area to succeed by proximity.
Mr. Locke noted that consumer circulation throughout the contemporary project is the key to its success. He noted that by creating two levels to the original suburban shopping layout, consumers were circulating throughout the structure more efficiently seeing all of the retail in half of the walking time. He noted that without the skybridge, “dead ends” would be created in the synergy of circulation, preventing easy movement for the consumer and forcing them to back track to find alternative crossing between the two blocks.
Mr. Locke noted that the City Creek Center project would eliminate a dominate flow and create better pedestrian synergy from all directions, by making the area very porous. He noted that customers would be able to approach any area of the project from a variety of directions using the pedestrian connector, and always have easy access back to Main Street. Without the pedestrian connector there would be no encouragement to be on Main Street. Not only is it a goal to enliven Main Street and existing surrounding areas, but also open up the city blocks and create new vistas and new sight lines throughout the project.
It is important to create:
• Smaller blocks.
• Shorter walking distances for residents and office workers.
• Easy access to Main Street and adjacent streets.
• Strengthed connectively.
• Remove any physical barriers that currently exist throughout the project.
Mr. Locke noted that currently Main Street is a secondary movement; the project would allow it to become a primary movement area for pedestrians.
Mr. Locke showed that entries to the galleria area would be opened on both ends, but the galleria would be covered overhead, which would enable a weather protected area to draw in the flow of pedestrian traffic coming from Block 74 to Main Street, and continuing to West Temple; demonstrating a strong east/west movement toward Main Street.
Mr. Locke showed a photograph that had been taken between 100 and 200 South that demonstrated how a skybridge would still retain the view corridor looking north towards Ensign Peak and the Daughters of Utah Pioneers museum. He noted that this corridor could also be used to frame the view of Ensign Peak.
A number of studies were performed to generate ideas for the project layout. Some of the alternatives for the City Creek Project included:
• Closing Main Street
• One-Level retail throughout the project.
• Remodeling only Block 76 (Crossroads Mall Block).
• Underground tunnel connection in place of a skybridge, which would replicate the current situation.
• Not having retail other than the two department stores on Main Street, which would not generate a connection or critical mass.
• Retail only on one block to make use of open spaces and gardens. He noted that the proposed City Creek Project in two levels created a better use of open and retail spaces.
• Architecturally the ideas for the project included:
o Local architecture; contemporary, classic, beautiful proportions, and very high quality.
Other elements the developers wanted to express throughout the project include:
• A world-class shopping experience
• Natural light throughout the gallerias will clear views of the city’s presence.
• Weather protection with use of awnings and canopies.
• Landscape gardens
• The expression of City Creek
• The creation of the unexpected; nice surprises.
• Urban Park environment.
• Street-side dining on Main Street.
• Twenty-four/seven activity; packed streets.
• Quiet spaces.
• Children’s play area.
• Active night life
• Upscale Food Court
Mr. Heckman noted that the amount of retail being proposed is less than what exists currently at 1.2 million square feet (about 850,000 square feet). This is the smallest critical mass that the City Creek Project can viably function at, and is all compacted onto Main Street.
Chairperson McDonough inquired about the vertical circulation philosophy on Main Street, besides the elevators that would be on either side of the skybridge.
Mr. Heckman noted that alternatives had been looked at including: stairs, which would be at an eighteen foot grade, which could be intimidating and hard to navigate for pedestrians. However, because of building codes stairs were required to be built, but they would not be a large, grand staircase. Escalators were also discussed, the problem being they have long runs and there were no open areas to put them without ruining access and views to the storefronts.
Chairperson McDonough inquired about the placement of the food court.
Mr. Locke noted that the food court would be on the street level on the east end of Block 75 (ZCMI Block).
Commissioner Muir inquired if the mall would be enclosed or open.
Mr. Locke noted that the galleria would serve more as a glass canopy, open at the base to allow the flow of natural air throughout. He also noted that studies were currently being conducted to test if heating and cooling methods could be used throughout the space, to make it more comfortable during seasonal weather changes.
Commissioner Muir noted that in cold weather pedestrians would most likely be walking around adjoining blocks and have their coats with them; so why would the skybridge need to be enclosed. He noted that no matter how much transparency the developers proposed for the skybridge, the view would still be impacted.
Mr. Locke noted that the goal was to keep the area as comfortable as possible 365 days a year. The cover would allow an element of protection. By leaving the connecting bridge without any cover would be the only place in the project where pedestrians would be exposed—which the developers felt would be a mistake.
Mr. Heckman noted that by leaving the pedestrian connector uncovered the basic purpose of continuity would be defeated.
Commissioner Muir noted that there would not be coverage over the focus of the project; up and down the Main Street level. He noted that the alternatives that had been reviewed and dismissed by the developers did not include any discussion about north/south movement throughout the project, and inquired if the pedestrian connector could be placed across 100 South as opposed to Main Street.
Mr. Gibbons noted that the ability to connect the skybridge to the south was contingent upon property ownership, those already owned and those that can reasonably be acquired. He noted that those issues have been reviewed and worked with for the past three years, and had the developers been able to acquire sites, it would simplify many issues.
Commissioner Muir inquired about the Main Street alignment being solved by a street level crosswalk where it interfaces with TRAX.
Mr. Heckman noted that the placement of the station relates to the length of trains that have to queue there.
Commissioner Muir inquired if the developers had considered whether it would be possible to create a convex curve instead of a concave curve, to straighten out the alignments.
Mr. Heckman stated that in order to have the layout of the galleria, with retail on either side, there is not much room; therefore a skybridge would solve that issue. He noted that the developers had tried a layout plans which moved the anchor stores in different locations; however, there was not enough room.
Commissioner Chambless inquired about the desire for openness and the utilization for water treatments. He inquired if the fountains the developers were considering were like those that currently exist at Abravanel Hall and those in Centennial Park in Chicago.
Mr. Heckman noted that the fountains were not yet designed; however, there would be input from the SWA Group who would help with designs of water features on Block 76 (Crossroads Mall Block), also water features in the courtyards in front of Nordstrom, and in front of the food court.
Commissioner Chambless noted that he would like to see more families and children coming into the downtown area, where time could be utilized in a relaxing manor.
Commissioner Woodhead inquired if the shopping galleria and the pedestrian connector would be open, even when the retail was closed, and access to the restaurants would be available.
Mr. Heckman commented that currently that was the plan, but that might be changed due to the leases with retail stores. Regardless, it would be navigable at anytime.
Commissioner Woodhead also inquired if the developers had planned where the elevators would be placed, and where they would lead within the retail areas.
Mr. Locke noted that there would be escalators going down into the parking areas, which would be located by Nordstom and Macey’s. Those department stores would have inner elevators that would lead into the parking structures. There would be other locations not determined yet, but most likely mid-block or closer to Main Street. He noted the developers would like to also have natural light flowing into the parking structures along with other means of illumination.
Commissioner Woodhead inquired if parts of the presentation shown would be available to be publicly viewed and commented on via the web.
Mr. Heckman noted that because the plan is still in design evolution, only as much information that had been approved would be put on the web to view.
Commissioner Scott inquired if the actual City Creek expression of the project would be treated water.
Mr. Heckman noted that it would be.
Commissioner De Lay inquired again, why the bridge needed to be enclosed. She noted that an incredible view corridor exists looking north on Main Street. She also noted that she would like to see the possibility of closing Main Street down at night and allowing the restaurant seating to flow out onto the street, maybe even making that a condition in the approval of the project. She also noted that she would like to see play areas, such as playgrounds, other than just water areas, and inquired about how environmentally sound the idea is for heating and cooling elements throughout the galleria.
Mr. Heckman commented that local architecture would be incorporated, including the materials used to construct existing buildings. He noted also, that finalizations are still in the works, because the department stores will be designing and building their own stores and therefore need to have a chance to work out appropriate designs for their needs.
Vice Chair Wirthlin inquired if there were alternatives to covering the pedestrian connector, besides glass enclosures, which would still allow the natural flow of air throughout.
Mr. Heckman noted that the pedestrian connector was currently in the design process, so there would be other considerations and alternatives to consider in the future. He noted, however, that because the pedestrian corridor is in the air it would most likely become a wind tunnel if not covered, and pedestrians would be more vulnerable to the elements.
Chairperson McDonough moved the meeting to discuss the change of language in the text amendment, and asked that the Planning Commissioners summarize what the developers should come prepared to present at the next Planning Commission meeting. She also noted that the portion of the presentation for the proposed Social Hall Avenue would be moved to the next meeting.
Mr. Sullivan noted that he had sent a letter to the Planning Commissioners, and the Planning Staff, which was addressed to Mr. Louis Zunguze indicating the developers proposed text amendment. He noted that the proposition was general enough to allow the legislative body of the City discretion to act according to circumstances. He noted that their proposed language read, “Except in extenuating circumstances, as determined by the City Council, skywalks or other obstructions that would block view corridors are prohibited on Main Street, State Street, South Temple, 200 South and 300 South and are discouraged on other streets, Circumstances that may justify an exception should be based on such compelling public policies as the need for economic development, pedestrian safety and convenience, or excellence in urban design”.
He noted that one of the important things to notice about that suggestion was the determination of whether an extenuating circumstance exists.
He also noted that the other proposal that were prepared by The Planning Staff was more specific, and that the developers found it acceptable with one exception. He read, The City Council may consider circumstances that justify an exception to the policy prohibiting and discouraging skywalks or other obstructions, when a finding that a compelling public interest exists through substantial demonstration that either:
a. All other alternatives for creating a successful link between major development on both sides of a street have been evaluated and conclusively found not to be feasible or effective: and
b. The design of a skywalk is such that it would not negatively impair or impact a view corridor; and
c. A skywalk would not detract from pedestrian and commercial actively at the street level; or
2. The view corridor has been significantly changed or impacted by prior development such that the designation of “view corridor” has become obsolete.
Mr. Sullivan noted that the only problem they had was with the word ‘negatively’ found in 1 b. He proposed that instead of the using the word ‘negatively’, to substitute the word ‘unreasonably’ in its place. The reason for this suggestion is arguably that any skybridge no matter now carefully designed, or how respectful the structure is of the view corridor, may still have a negative impact on the view corridor. He noted that there needs to be a balancing of interest in having the skybridge, and conceiving its design will be an impediment to the view.
Commissioner De Lay inquired why Mr. Sullivan was not reading item number 2.
Mr. Sullivan noted that they agreed with number 2. He noted that his understanding of it was that it was a basis for allowing a skybridge that would be alternative to 1a, b, and c.
Vice Chair Wirthlin noted that he also did not agree with the use of the word ‘negatively’ and had talked with staff about alternatives. He noted that he also had considered the word ‘substantially’, so it would read, “The design of a skywalk is such that it would not substantially impair or impact a view corridor”.
Mr. Sullivan commented that ‘substantially’ had also been considered, and either would be appropriate.
He also noted that it was important for the Planning Commission to understand what the Developers were expecting from them at this point. He noted that a series of decisions have been presented to the Planning Commission, and the Developers are asking for a positive recommendation for the adoption of the text amendment that would change the Downtown Plan of 1995 and the Urban Design Element. He noted that the second thing the Commissioners needed to provide the applicant with was a positive recommendation that the skybridge project presented was an extenuating circumstance that would qualify, under the exception that a recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council to adopt; subject to the review of the design in the future.
Mr. Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, agreed with the text amendment modifications. He noted that it was important for the Planning Commissioners to let the Developers know whether the Commission was satisfied from an argumentative standpoint, whether there was sufficient cause to consider sending some recommendation to the City Council, with respect to the Master Plan itself. He noted that regarding the design of the skybridge, the recommendation to the City Council would be dependent upon the Planning Commission approving the final design of the skybridge. He also noted to the applicant that as Staff, there would need to be time to review the design and how it would impact the rest of the issues, with respect to the workability of the project and City as a whole.
Chairperson McDonough inquired if the Developers expected that if the Commissioners forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council, in relation to the proposed text changes to the Master plan, would it be assumed that the skybridge portion of the project was approved as well.
Mr. Sullivan noted the Developers were asking for conceptual approval of the skybridge, subject to the Planning Commissions later review of the design.
Commissioner Woodhead inquired if the Planning Commission had the authority to make conceptual approval prior to the amendment being adopted, noting that they would be acting contingent upon the possibility that in the future the Planning Commission would have authority.
Chairperson McDonough noted that the decision would be contingent on the adoption, and would become effective when approval occured.
Mr. Zunguze noted to the Planning Commissioners that if a positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council, then the Planning Commission would be consenting that they agreed with the language for the text amendment; if certain conditions were proven to be correct. Following, would be the consideration for a skybridge to be installed; however, the actual approval of the designs were being withheld at this time.
Commissioner Muir inquired about item number 2 in the Staff’s proposed language. He was concerned if the Planning Commission approved that portion of the language, it would be opening the possibility for additional bridges up and down Main Street.
Mr. Zunguze noted that there would need to be substantial demonstration from a future applicant, or within any existing or future projects in the community, which would have to meet the threshold of substantial circumstances that the view corridor had already been altered, as noted in item 2. He noted that this would be a stipulation for other fundamental guidelines, and that whoever would propose construction of future skybridges would still need to go through the approval process to determine if their project worked with the same criteria.
Commissioner Muir inquired if the proposed text amendment, number 1 a, b, and c would be sufficient enough without part 2.
Mr. Zunguze noted that it would be possible not to include the second number, but that realistically Salt Lake City is a growing community, and therefore there needs to be reason in the future to ask Developers to provide proof of adherence to the text amendment.
Commissioner Muir noted that with recent State interpretations of conditional uses, the Planning Commission had found that unless there was insurmountable, mitigating circumstances, these types of projects tended to move forward. He noted that the power of the Planning Commission to be able to diminish or resist certain circumstances, which in the past have been entitled by precedent, was a tough measure.
Mr. Zunguze noted that in respect to conditional uses, he suspected that a different interpretation for State Law was being perceived by the City’s attorneys office; therefore it would definitely be something that could be discussed in the future, however, he noted that by including item 2 in the text amendment, it would help in preventing future projects having to revisit the Master Plan. It was realistic to put language in the amendment that could potentially be used as a review, instead of going through the horrendous process of revisiting the structure of the State. He also noted that for him that was exactly what a Master Plan was.
Vice Chair Wirthlin agreed that by leaving item 2 in place, it would make it impossible to go back and amend the Master Plan in the future. He noted that the criteria set forth in item 1 seemed solid enough to stand in the future, and that he was not clear on what benefits item 2 would bring as far as future flexibility.
Mr. Zunguze noted that it could be proven that the reason why item 2 was added, was because there are possibly structures already in place that are impacting the ‘view corridor’, which circumstances would not be covered by item 1.
Commissioner Chambless noted that the reason this ordinance was created in the first place was because of the view of the mountains, which is what makes Salt Lake City such a jewel compared to other cities around the country. He inquired if by positively recommending the proposed Master Plan Amendment if the Commissioners would be allowing negative precedence that could later be regretted.
Chairperson McDonough announced a ten minute break before the public comment portion of the meeting.
Vice Chair Wirthlin called the meeting back to order, announcing that Chairperson McDonough had left for personal reasons, and he would finish conducting the last portion of the meeting. He then opened the Public Hearing portion of the meeting.
Steve Winters noted he was concerned about construction of a telegraph monument on Main Street. He proposed that the skybridge should be covered only in the wintertime, and shared his idea of removable pods over the bridge. He also inquired about saving the façade from The Inn on Temple Square.
Shane Carlson (Avenues Community Housing Committee Chair) noted that changes to the Master Plan should be done with the consideration that no additional bridges would be allowed in the area; especially across State Street. He proposed that the language asking to amend the plan should be denied.
Vice Chair Wirthlin read comments by Margaret Miller stating she was concerned about changes to the Master Plan, demolition to the First Security Building, and the lack of details for the new structures in the project. She inquired if the buildings would be architecturally compatible. Also, how would snow be removed from the glass ceilings, and how are they cleaned.
Rob White (Utah Heritage Foundation) inquired about the ZCMI façade being removed and then replaced. He encouraged that it be used in such a way that would highlight it as a dignified feature by itself and not replaced on a new building.
Ms. Coffey noted that the façade is an issue of the Historic Landmark Commission and not the Planning Commission.
Kirk Huffaker (Utah Heritage Foundation) noted that the granting of taller mid-block building heights should be linked to historic preservation. He noted that it is important for the community to know that the First Security Bank Building has been carefully analyzed for the right preservation options. He commented that a sincere attempt to save this building would include details of how PRI had analyzed building issues and what studies have concluded about its viability for continued use. He noted he would like to see the Public comment portion of this project be extended to allow more time for ideas and input.
Mr. Zunguze commented that the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Developers, have committed to the most extensive process possible, and there is no attempt in any way to short circuit the process at all. He noted this project would be on the agenda for every Planning Commission Meeting until the Commission felt that they had received enough input from the public.
Vice Chair Wirthlin read comments from Cindy Cromer that stated she wanted to express her concern that the demolition is preceding before the Commission has even given conceptual approval to the complete project.
Jim Tozer commented that he was happy to see the Planning Commission unanimously support the tower on the Walker Center. He commented concerning the views from Main Street should not be blocked, with respect to the skybridge, he noted that it should not be covered. He noted that a bridge with an airy look would provide a physical connection. He would like to see it have heated floors, or courtesy umbrellas that could be used for advertising as well.
Ralph Evans (architect; Avenues resident) noted that he would like to see the ambience of Temple Square magnified through the City Creek Project. He noted that the design of the parking garage tunnels, feels inadequate. He would like to see an option of direct access as well as underground parking. He would like to see the State Street and Social Hall Avenue be one the main anchors of the project, and that the image of City Creek should be at a grander scale, possibly flowing down State Street. He also noted that instead of a skybridge he would like to see a more sturdy “real” bridge that looked down Main Street and up toward Ensign Peak, which is not a very active view in town and one of the least important views in his opinion.
Dave Richards (architect) noted that this project seemed very reclusive and inward looking, and did not address the community at large.
Earl Miller noted that he was glad to see that something was being done with the space. It is long over due. He noted that no visual were displays at the open house on November 1. He also noted that he wanted to keep the First Security Building and would like to see the older buildings protected.
Vice Chair Wirthlin invited the applicant back up and closed the public hearing portion of the meeting for the evening.
Mr. Gibbons expressed appreciation for the opportunity to hear public perspective through the Planning Commission meetings, open houses, and Community Council presentations.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about the number of public open houses that have been available for the public to attend.
Mr. Paterson commented that a model of the proposed City Creek Center would be displayed at libraries throughout the community and noted that there were approximately thirty people that attended the November 1st open house. Three people submitted written comments at the meeting. Those comments were included in the mailed packets along with the Staff Reports. He noted that there is encouragement for more public input and as comments are submitted on the website, they will be summarized and given to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner De Lay commented that she would like more advertising in regards to Planning Commission meetings and open houses. She inquired if the newspapers had been alerted and noted that she does not think that the word is getting out to the community.
Mr. Paterson noted that the press had been notified of meetings and agenda’s were sent to newspapers and local libraries for the public to view.
Commissioner Chambless noted that he attended the Open House on November 1st and that there were many empty chairs.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about outreach efforts to minority newspapers and communities.
Mr. Paterson noted that approximately 30 peopled attended open house. He noted that there have been efforts to get the word out to the public.
Mr. Zunguze noted that efforts to get information out to the public would be re-doubled.
Vice Chair Wirthlin noted that the word has gone out to the public and he does not understand what more could be done to get people involved with the decision making process.
Commissioner Woodhead noted that she was surprised that the small business community was not at the Planning Commission meeting to comment. She was worried that the existing small businesses on Main Street would suffer.
Commissioner Muir noted that he is sure the Downtown Alliance and Retail Merchants Association knows about this project.
Mr. Gibbons noted the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Alliance have been involved in an enormous way with the entire process. He noted that they were supportive in their efforts of involvement by the business community.
Commissioner De Lay requested the applicant submit letters of support by those groups to the Commission.
Mr. Gibbons noted that the applicants would be happy to document anything they have received.
Commissioner Muir noted that prior to making a decision about Social Hall Avenue, a public hearing would be held.
Vice Chair Wirthlin noted that the Planning Commission was ready to move forward, and that at the Planning Commission Meeting on November 29, 2006, the Commission will be prepared to make decisions concerning petitions discussed at the meeting.
Mr. Gibbons noted that if the public hearing portion and decision were made at the November 29th meeting, that would be acceptable.
Mr. Zunguze noted that for the November 29th meeting the Commission will not be looking at the design aspects, but rather the subsurface and air rights and the expansion of the median parking ramps, and detailed information needed to be given to the Planning Commissioners to review before a decision could be made.
Vice Chair Wirthlin noted that at the next meeting after the presentations the Planning Commission would be making decisions of items 1 and 2 on the agenda, which are petitions 400-06-37, and 400-06-38.
Mr. Sullivan noted that is what the understanding of the applicant is and noted that if there are additional pieces of information the Planning Commission needs, it will certainly be provided as quickly as possible.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.