SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (berger)
Arnold, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Aria Funk, Craig Mariger and Judi Short. Andrea Barrows and Mary McDonald were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy
Planning Director Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Joel Paterson,
Wayne Mills and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5: 10 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Short moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, October 5, 2000 subject to the discussed corrections being made. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Ms. McDonald and Ms. Barrows were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-00-56 by the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee
(SLOC) requesting that the Planning Commission consider making recommendations to the City Council to accommodate Olympic signage alternatives by creating a temporary Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District. The district will generally cover the Downtown area (from 200 East to 1-15 and North Temple to 900 South [street and off ramp)) and a corridor, extending 50 feet on each side of the street right-of-way, along North Temple (from the Airport to Downtown), 300 West (from 600 North to Downtown) and 400 South/500 South/Foothill Boulevard/Guardsman Way (from Downtown to the University of Utah/Steiner Aquatic Center).
Doug Dansie presented the Staff report. He explained that Salt Lake City first had a sign ordinance in 1955, which was completely revised in 1974. First Amendment concerns come into play whenever the City deals with signage issues. Therefore the City mostly regulates commercial signage on private property. The existing ordinance contains a specific sign table and code for every zone in the city that delineates the size and shape, etc., of commercial signage in that zone. There is a section that allows for localized alternative sign overlays for those special conditions that make it inappropriate to use the base zoning. This section has been used for signage at Franklin Quest Field and the Delta Center - both of which were about commercial signage on private property.
A Delta Center request last March necessitated a modification of the sign ordinance to add downtown zones to the list of zones allowing sign overlays. A definition of "Community-wide Special Event" was created at that time, in anticipation of something like the Olympics coming in the future. The first thing the Commission needs to do to accommodate SLOC's request is to adjust what was done last March to include more zones than already listed. The staff
recommends the ordinance to say that sign overlays for Community-wide Special
Events would apply to all zoning districts. This would allow the City to authorize creating the special signage district for large special events.
SLOC has asked for a special signage district that includes both public and private property. Their sign request doesn't fit well with the typical sign table format that the City has used in the past.
Mr. Dansie then introduced Mr. Boyd Ferguson from the City Attorney's Office.
Mr. Ferguson discussed with the Commission the ordinance he and Mr. Dansie had drafted. The First Amendment aspects involved in this ordinance make it a complicated matter. SLOC originally requested signage that related strictly to the Games. The problem with that is that it raises the issue of content based regulation, which is subject to great restrictions under the law. To avoid litigation, the ordinance is drafted to say that the signage is not to contain any commercial message, with the exception that SLOC could put its logo or name on up to 2% of the signs. No messages would be allowed from Coke or McDonalds or any of the Olympics' commercial sponsors. The City Attorney's Office believes it is very likely that the City will get sued over this ordinance. Mr. Ferguson has asked SLOC's legal staff to suggest some alternative legal methods to
handle this situation which would be constitutionally sound. Mr. Ferguson directed the Commission's attention to Exhibit B of the staff report that shows the kind of signs SLOC has asked for. The Zoning Administrator would be given
the right to decide which signs were permissible, with some guidelines to help set limitations such as safety, not blocking off the view of adjacent property, etc.
Mr. Dansie brought out a section in Exhibit B which says "signs or decorations". He said there was some discussion about when decorations cease to be decorations and become signs. He gave the skater on the American Stores building as an example of something that technically doesn't have any commercial content and doesn't meet the definition of a mural as defined in the ordinance, so it is more of a decoration. The 20/0 logo was written in the ordinance to be like a "signature block" on a decoration that is not necessarily a commercial sign.
Mr. Ferguson stated that since the City could almost guarantee a lawsuit, there would be legal costs for litigation. The City Attorney's Office will recommend to the Administration that it ask SLOC to indemnify the City for court costs, liability and legal fees.
Mr. Smith asked if the Commission had any questions for the Staff. Mr. Jonas said he would like to hear from SLOC before asking any questions. The rest of the Commission members agreed.
Mr. Roger Black, Director of City Services for SLOC, was present for this portion of the meeting. He showed the Commission several renditions of images for the streetscape SLOC would like to use during the Games. He also had samples of the materials that would be used for the buildings and shrink wraps. SLOC feels the building sized graphics will present stunning images for the cameras.
Mr. Black then discussed the street level presence and passed around a color rendition of several proposed banners, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. It is SLOC's hope that the sponsor presence permitted would allow them to have banners with dominate images of the event and a tastefully presented sponsor. SLOC would like to decorate a fairly large area of the city with this kind of imagery, and is willing to work with the City in figuring out the percentages allowed for sponsor images, whether 2% or 20%. The intent of this imagery is to decorate the city. One banner showed a sponsor image of more than 2%), although it didn't exceed 5 square feet. SLOC is suggesting the lesser of twenty percent or 5 square feet for sponsor imagery.
Mr. Daniels asked if Mr. Black meant the Olympic circles when he talked about
commercial imagery. Mr. Black said no, he was talking about VISA, Coke, GM, etc.
SLOC does not propose that the sponsors be on every banner.
Mr. Jonas asked if the intent was to start this signage in December of this year.
Mr. Black said that once permission was given to start they would still need to work with building owners to get permission, and that there is a design process and a licensing and insurance process. The likelihood is that the building sign imagery would not begin to appear until the spring of 2001. The street level imagery would not appear until December 2001 or January 2002 because it wears out.
Mr. Goldsmith asked if SLOC could work with the Planning Commission on setting very specific scales or sizes for the double and single banner sets. Mr. Black said yes.
Mr. Smith clarified then that the Commission needed to categorically define what the threshold size of the banners could be.
Mr. Jonas asked what a scaffold structure is. Mr. Black referred to the Arts Festival with an entryway created by putting up scaffolding and decorating it with ribbons and banners. It is a temporary entryway.
Mr. Jonas expressed concern about the appropriate nature of street level signage for a year and a half. Mr. Black said that was why SLOC has proposed that the Commission bifurcate between street level and building size imagery. Each kind of imagery should be treated differently. The scaffolding would be streetscape imagery.
Mr. Jonas then asked about proposal number 6 that states that any property owner
could appeal to the Board of Adjustment. He asked if that was really necessary to be in the proposal.
Mr. Wilde said the Zoning Administrator will be making administrative judgment on the size and location of the signs using the guidelines outlined in the
proposal. Although the Zoning Administrator will do the best job possible to not interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners, there needs to be an appeal process for that administrative decision. That established appeal process would go to the Board of Adjustments.
Mr. Jonas asked who made the decision to stop on Guardsman way at the Steiner
Center.
Mr. Dansie said that south of Steiner started getting into the residential neighborhoods and Steiner itself is an event area. The intent is to create a trail from downtown to the events at the stadium and Steiner. Mr. Jonas said it would make sense to continue the signage to Sunnyside.
Mr. Goldsmith asked Mr. Black if SLOC would know what signs would be projected to be released and at what time down to months and weeks. Mr. Black said yes, SLOC was planning to present the proposed signage as a package rather than one at a time.
Mr. Goldsmith said this would give the Commission the latitude to work directly with SLOC.
Mr. Daniels stated that many constituents would rather not see the signage go up as early as December 2000, and asked what would happen with the planning process if the signs went up the following April. Mr. Black said that for the streetscape that would be no problem. For the building signs SLOC believes it will take at least that long to get arrangements n1ade with building owners. Therefore it would not be an issue with SLOC to start the imagery in April.
Mr. Mariger asked where the time limitation is on the proposal and if it was limited from December of 2000 to April of 2002.
Mr. Ferguson referred to number 5 on Exhibit B of the proposal stating that all signs/decorations must be removed within 10 days of the termination of the community-wide special event.
Mr. Goldsmith said he would like to be able to tie this directly to SLOC's critical path management on their signs.
Melissa Raymond, from SLOC's legal division, responded that this ordinance would not only apply to the Olympics, but to any community-wide event special events happening in the future. As such, she questioned whether the Commission could set a specific date for sign removal.
Mr. Mariger said the Staff report made the ordinance sound Olympic specific, but in fact, as Ms. Raymond stated, the ordinance made it possible for anything defined as a community-wide event to put up signs all the way up to the Steiner Center.
Mr. Goldsmith agreed. Ms. Raymond said what future event sponsors could do is apply for an overlay, with simply the geographical area amended.
Mr. Mariger said perhaps if the Commission made the ordinance time based instead of content based there would not be the problems with First Amendment rights.
Mr. Jonas then asked about the geographic issues, and if it was possible to tie the ordinance for each person or event to create its own geographic area.
Mr. Ferguson said that is how the ordinance is drafted - there has to be a community-wide event and the geographic boundaries defined.
Mr. Smith then opened the meeting to the public. There being no response, he closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission.
Ms. Arnold expressed concern for the apartment houses around the Steiner Center
being wrapped in imagery.
Mr. Jonas liked the idea of the large geographic area and thought it should be extended to include parts of 1-80. There are areas around 1-80 that generate a lot of traffic, especially from Park City to downtown.
Ms. Arnold asked if the Commission could say that the ordinance expires in April 2002.
Mr. Mariger explained that the ordinance limited the geographical area and did not extend to 1-80 or Foothill Drive. Mr. Wilde said the intent was to limit it to Guardsman Way.
Mr. Ferguson said the Commission could put a termination date on the Guardsman Way district after the Olympics. However, a precedent would have been set and the Commission could expect someone to come in later and argue for the same rights.
Ms. Arnold asked about the American Stores building. Mr. Ferguson said that wrapping was done as a film permit. Mr. Jonas asked if the Delta Center was already approved as well.
Mr. Smith said yes, the Commission had approved that.
Ms. Funk asked why the ordinance could not be written to just create a sign overlay district, and when a special event comes in, it comes in for a timeframe and an area, rather than to make the ordinance so specific.
Mr. Mariger asked if Ms. Funk was suggesting that the Commission approve legislation that would allow any district to have signage.
Ms. Funk said she was suggesting the Commission create a general sign overlay
district for the whole city, based on having a national or international event. Then when there is an event, it comes in for an area and a timeframe.
Mr. Mariger said if the Commission made it for the whole city, then anyone through an administrative process could get a wrap on a building. Mr. Goldsmith said there might be times when that was appropriate, depending on the location of the event.
Ms. Funk said the Commission could also say there are some districts and areas where signage is not allowed, like R-5 or R2, for instance, so that those are never under consideration.
Mr. Mariger then expressed his dislike for signs in general, saying it is an imposition on his life to have to look at a huge sign. The concept of allowing people to put huge signs anywhere in the city whenever they wanted if they go through a zoning administrator concerned him. He appreciated the idea of limiting the ordinance to what is necessary and not giving broad discretion to allow signs everywhere.
Mr. Jonas said what Ms. Funk was suggesting is more of an overlay ordinance rather than an overlay district. The ordinance would require the petitioner to come in with exhibits that set locations and time frames and can look at all the different issues related to that specific event. The Commission would just do a generic ordinance at this point.
Mr. Daniels wanted to see if the Commission could come up with something that would satisfy both Ms. Funk and Mr. Mariger.
Mr. Mariger simply wants the ordinance to be time limited, which would eliminate the content base arguments. He said that before the Commission makes a motion it needed to deal with the issue of 2% or 5 square feet sponsor images.
Mr. Goldsmith said the Commission needed to be working directly with SLOC's signage package in determining the square footage per type of banner. The Commission would need to be very specific per sign on what would be allowed for the commercial piece of it.
Mr. Mariger asked if Mr. Goldsmith proposed that SLOC come back to the Commission
with signage sizes and mode of application, tell the Commission how big the
commercial message SLOC would like, and let the Commission review it for approval.
Mr. Goldsmith said yes. Mr. Smith noted that the City and SLOC were pretty much on the same wavelength in this regard.
Mr. Mariger then asked if this needed to be part of the ordinance or in the approval process.
Mr. Goldsmith said perhaps the Planning Division needed to go back and revisit the proposal in its entirety and present it again the Commission with a more specific ordinance to the event.
Ms. Short suggested that the Commission table the petition.
Ms. Raymond said she believed it would serve both the City and SLOC's needs if the ordinance bifurcates between the building wraps and streetscape. She understands the Commission's concerns to be largely aesthetic and said that SLOC's creative department felt the same way. SLOC is willing to go to zero percent commercial content on the building wraps, and as little as possible on the banners. She also wanted to clarify that the Olympic name and Olympic rings are not considered commercial content.
Mr. Smith asked if the Commission would like to approve in concept the ordinance, specifying those areas that need to be further looked at and then continue the petition, not to be brought back as a public hearing. The Commission members agreed.
Mr. Smith asked the Commission to clarify the issues needing additional information.
Mr. Goldsmith said the Planning Division would work with SLOC's creative people to come up with a clear definition of all the proposed signage, bifurcate between the building wraps and streetscape, and come back with very specific timing and limitations on commercial content. Mr. Wilde said an installation timeframe could be attached for each of the sign types.
Mr. Jonas said he was fine with small commercial messages on banners, since the
sponsors were paying a lot of money for that privilege.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-56:
Ms. Short made the motion that the Commission continue discussion of Petition No. 400-00-56, until such time as the petitioner and the Planning Division can come back with a clarified ordinance including:
1. Clear definitions of all proposed signage.
2. Bifurcate between building wraps and streetscape signage.
3. Timings and limitations on commercial content.
4. An installation timeframe for each of the sign types.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Barrows and Ms. McDonald were not present.
The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-00-55 by Salt Lake City Corporation requesting
the Planning Commission to review the Intermodal Hub Site Plan. The development
site is located generally between 200 South and 400 South from 600 West to the
Western Pacific main rail line.
Joel Paterson presented the Staff report. Mr. Paterson brought to the Commission two conceptual site plans for the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub. The City Administration has asked that the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment to the design team. Mr. Paterson introduced Steve Meyer, Project Manager with Sear -Brown, and Mary Guy-Sell, with the City Community Economic Development Department.
The plans for the Intermodal Hub are still at the conceptual stage. The Staff is looking for Planning Commission feedback and asks that the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Meyer presented the two options to the Commission. He directed the Commission's attention to the two site plans on the wall, which are also included in the Staff report. The site is located between 600 West and 1-15 from 200 South and 500 South. The train tracks were removed between 400 and 500 West, so it was necessary to relocate Amtrak to the selected site. Amtrak, Greyhound, UTA, Salt Lake City's Planning and Transportation Staff and City Engineers were consulted to try to define uses and direction to take with the Hub site. A warehouse evaluation study was completed. Three existing warehouses on the site were evaluated for the economic feasibility of renovating them. Option 1 tried to preserve as much of warehouses 1 and 2 as possible, because they are a historical part of the area. Option 2 was developed as an "optimized" site for the various users. For both options, the design team tried to anticipate the needs of bus service, commuter and light rail, view corridors, and facilitating bicycles and pedestrian usage. The design team would like an activity center
and the potential for retail activity. Several workshops were conducted with the users. Open houses with the public and presentation to community councils were conducted as well. All of the opinions generated at those meetings went into the two options presented with the petition. Option 1 maximizes the use of the existing warehouses, with a potential for future pedestrian bridges to cross the tracks and make a connection to the west side of the Hub. Mr. Meyers pointed out accommodations for bicycles, flex car facilities (short term rental cars), and parking. (Mr. Goldsmith commented that Fannie Mae is now offering a new mortgage based on a flex car program. It helps to reduce the transportation requirements for a residential area.) Option 2 optimized the use of the site for the users. A significant portion of warehouse 1 is maintained. Warehouses 2 and 3 are removed. A retail face on 200 South is included, and warehouse 1 would include a retail presence on 600 West.
Mr. Meyers discussed parking along 600 West. Amtrack, UTA and Greyhound are centered with a rotunda on the terminus of 300 South. The Greyhound concourse on this option is more towards the tracks. Room for future expansion of Greyhound is provided in Option 2. The design team prefers Option 2. Greyhound is seeing significant increases in business and will need the room for expansion.
Mr. Goldsmith mentioned that the commercial space is designed to function as retail, but may end up being commercial or office.
Ms. Funk asked about ownership and maintenance. Bus depots are often associated
with very poor maintenance. Option 2 shows that Greyhound has a significant part of the rotunda and Ms. Funk expressed concern that "trashy" maintenance will be a problem.
Ms. Guy-Sell explained that the City would contract services for the entire facility to be managed and maintained.
Mr. Jonas asked for clarification about the area along the tracks on Option 2.
Mr. Meyers said it was a backside access including a food service area provided by Greyhound, access to fueling and some parking. In both options there is a backside access.
Mr. Smith asked why the Commission is looking at this petition now, citing the situation when the Planning Commission reviewed designs for a block to the east and everything in the design was eventually thrown out for something else. He asked why it was important to be looking at this now before the facility was even designed.
Mr. Goldsmith replied that there are certain deadlines that have to be met with Amtrak and that direction is needed from the Planning Commission to continue that process.
Ms. Guy-Sell said the design team was also seeking money from the City to move
forward on the project. She said the footprint could change significantly, but there are several factors that cannot change, such as UTA's portion of their bus pick-up and drop off, the Greyhound portion, and the fact that the warehouses and tracks are fixed.
Mr. Goldsmith said there were deadlines for funding obligations tied to federal grants and grants being administered by the UTA. If it cannot be demonstrated that the City can accommodate multi-modal facilities on this site, certain funding can be lost. The station for Amtrak needs to be completed by November 2002. What the Staff is presenting to the Commission is the result of inherited obligations. The Planning Division has also been requested to get the Greyhound facility built before the Olympics.
Mr. Smith said his sense was to deal with this petition in a very general way.
Ms. Short said that is all the petitioners are asking for.
Mr. Jonas asked about the traffic flow, saying it looked like a lot of Greyhound buses coming and going. He asked what the projected flow of Greyhound buses are off of 1- 15.
Mr. Meyers said 40 to 50 buses a day were expected, spread throughout the day between 6 a.m. and midnight. Ms. Guy-Sell explained that the traffic would not be significantly increased. Ms. Funk noted that there was a lot of space designated for buses. Mr. Meyer said there was a lot more space designated than originally planned because Greyhound's business is increasing.
Ms. Funk asked if the design team has analyzed whether Greyhound needs 20 bus
bays for an operation operating 15 hours a day.
Mr. Meyers said Greyhound had looked at it and is going to pay rent for all the space provided. The architects working with Greyhound on the space issue also felt comfortable with the information provided by Greyhound for space requirements.
Mr. Meyers then showed the route the Greyhound buses would be taking off the
freeway to the facility and from the facility back to the freeway. He feels that the buses would not be traveling on streets that are tremendously overburdened at this point. UTA bus layovers could potentially be accommodated elsewhere.
Mr. Daniels asked what the possibility is that the project may not be fully funded, and if it would end up being a tax burden to the City.
Ms. Guy-Sell said with the federal funding coming in there is enough money to complete the project. The City has expended approximately $11 million on the first phase. $5.7 million has already been received in federal funding and a portion of the project does have to be a local match with the City. An additional $2-3 million a year is anticipated from federal funding.
Mr. Meyers said
there was a full funding grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration based on annual appropriations.
Mr. Daniels asked if the federal grant was 80% of the project and 20%) was to be paid by the City. Mr. Meyers said the City and other sources would pay 20%.
Mr. Daniels asked if there would be any retail or commercial activity controlled by the City in the UTA or Amtrak building. Ms. Guy-Sell said there is the food service. It hasn't been decided whether Greyhound or the City would operate that.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public. There being no response from the public,
Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and brought the matter back to the
Commission.
Mr. Smith noted that Hal Johnson from UTA was present at the meeting, and asked
Mr. Johnson if the UTA element assumed a light rail connection on the project. Mr. Johnson said UTA has had some discussions with Ms. Guy-Sell on the light rail connection. It is his hope that the light rail would tie in with the Airport link of the Airport to University line.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-55:
Mr. Jonas made the motion to forward a recommendation for Option 2 to the City
Council. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Barrows and Ms. McDonald were not present.
The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-99-31 by Utah Transit Authority requesting that 200 West be closed generally between 1300 South and Lucy Avenue (1210 South) and that the property be declared surplus. The subject property is adjacent to the railroad track and is included within the Ballpark Light Rail Station.
Joel Paterson presented the Staff report. The Memorandum of Understanding between the City and UTA for the north/south TRAX line included language that indicated the City would consider closing this section of 200 West for the development of the Ballpark Station. An application was submitted to the City last May, with no check. The City Attorney advised the Staff not to proceed with the petition until a check had been received from UTA. 200 West has never been developed as a street. The right-of-way is there on paper only and no improvements were ever put in place. There have been railroad tracks there for some time as part of an earlier rail corridor. The City has no need to develop the street in the future. The Administration has the right to sell property, and the City Council has the obligation to actually close the street. Two recommendations are needed, one for the surplus property that will be forwarded to the Mayor, and the other recommendation to close the street which goes on to the City Council. The Staff recommends that the Commission declare the property surplus and make a recommendation to the City Council that the Council adopt an ordinance to close the street.
Mr. Smith asked for any questions from the Commission to the Staff. There being no response, he opened the meeting to the public. There being no response from the public, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and brought the matter back to the Commission.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-31:
Ms. Funk made the motion that the Commission make a recommendation to the City
Council to adopt Petition No. 400-99-31 to close the 200 West right-of-way between Lucy Avenue and 1300 South, and in that in addition, the excess right-of-way be declared surplus property. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Barrows and Ms. McDonald were not present. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Westminster Planning - Westminster College will present the traffic calming design solution for Blaine Avenue. The Planning Commission requested this action as part of the approval of Petition 410-453 for the parking structure addition at the northwest corner of the campus.
Wayne Mills presented the Staff report. On April 20, 2000 the Planning Commission approved Petition 410-453 for a conditional use to add a third parking level to an existing two level parking structure at the northwest corner of the campus. As a condition of that, the Planning Commission asked that the college and Blaine Avenue residents come up with a traffic calming solution to Blaine Avenue. Since the Planning Commission hearing there was a one month test closure. After the test closure, Steve Graham, a resident and property owner on Blaine Avenue, conducted a survey. He distributed surveys to 31 residents and two rental property owners. He received 20 responses back. The results of that survey were 17 people in favor of a cul-de-sac, 2 in favor of the pork chop island and 1 in favor of keeping Blaine Avenue as is.
Kevin Young, of the Transportation Division, then did another City sponsored survey. Out of 30 survey cards sent, 17 were returned. The results of that survey were 13 people in favor of the cul-de-sac, 1 in favor of the pork chop island, and 3 in favor of leaving the street alone.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the traffic
calming solution proposed by the majority of Blaine Avenue residents and property owners and Westminster College to close off Blaine Avenue and create a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Blaine Avenue and 1200 East.
Ms. Arnold asked about existing alleys on 1200 East for some of the residents of Blaine Avenue, and if anything had changed on 1200 East. Mr. Mills said nothing would be changed on 1200 East. The street is privately owned by the college. The two properties on the east end of Blaine Avenue are also owned by Westminster College.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone had a concern about the peak hour volumes on page 4, table 2 of the Staff report and table 3 on the level of service.
Mr. Mills said is was his understanding that the level of service did actually decrease, however the traffic along 1700 South would not be affected. The cars exiting 1200 East on to 1700 South would be affected, and they would be the Westminster students. The traffic flow on 1200 East is a private drive.
Mr. Smith recommended the Commission go directly to action.
Motion for Petition No. 410-453:
Ms. Funk made the motion that the Commission accept the traffic calming solution of the closure of Blaine Avenue by creating a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Blaine Avenue and 1200 East. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Barrows and Ms. McDonald were not present. The motion passed.
On behalf of the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith recognized Steve Graham and his
efforts for the Blaine Avenue residents.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED
Mr. Smith then recused himself from the hearing and left the room. Ms. Funk, as Vice Chair, presided over the remainder of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-458 by Woodbury Corporation requesting
preliminary condominium approval, planned development approval, and subdivision
approval for the renovation and expansion of the Redman building, located at 1240 East 2100 South in the Sugar House Business District zone, to residential condominium ownership.
Margaret Pahl presented the Staff report. This is a complicated project. Ms. Pahl handed out an amended recommendation to the Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. This amended recommendation specifically adds authorization of the existing non-conforming roof sign. The Redman building is a Sugar House landmark, and has been considered for conversion to condominiums for the last several years. Having this residential component incorporated into Sugar House Commons area has been a community goal for a long time. The proposal includes doubling the size of the existing building, as well as adding a penthouse/loft area on the top of the existing structure. Also included in the proposal is the addition of balconies and vacating a city alley to the east of the building and developing that alley as the eastern most pedestrian access to the Hidden Hollow Nature Preserve. There is an existing 10-foot wide access that was incorporated into the McIntyre project just east of the Old Navy building. The community has raised some issues about the adequacy, as far as being a pedestrian friendly or particularly inviting entrance. There is no signage over the archway into that access to Hidden Hollow. The alley vacation requires approval by the City Council. The Staff noted that as part of the recommended conditions of approval that the alley vacation be subsequently approved by the City Council. Any project in the Sugar House area requires planned development consideration, which will allow for a further review of the compatibility of the project with the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Commission go forward with this project based upon its compatibility with the existing Master Plans. The proposal includes 35 residential units, although that could change and the number reduced significantly in the final plan. The petitioner has been approached by people interested in making the units larger. The applicant has designed a project that can accommodate that kind of interest. The ground floor will be commercial. The access to the building is significantly improved by the addition of the option to exit to 1300 East directly, as well as to 2100 South. This improves internal circulation.
Ms. Pahl then focused on the pedestrian element of the project. The City has asked the petitioner to open up the proposed pedestrian entrance on the east side of the building. To do this, the petitioner has acquired property fron1 Chevron to create an inviting opening to the pedestrian corridor. The corridor is proposed to be between 10 and 15 feet wide. The corridor does end at a parking lot, so a bridge across the parking lot has been discussed to get the pedestrians over to Hidden Hollow. Because of cost considerations, however, the petitioner asks for a handicap ramp instead of the bridge over the parking lot driveway. Roof signs are not allowed in the current zoning ordinance, and the Redman roof sign is, therefore, a non-conforming sign. It is, however, an important landmark for the Sugar House community, and the developer asks that the sign be allowed to remain. In addition, the petitioner asks for the Planning Commission's consideration to modify the requirement that prohibits tandem parking. A family should be able to negotiate around their own vehicles. The Commission is being asked to allow 13 tandem parking stalls underneath the building on the ground floor, which is not public parking but will be assigned to the residential units. The subdivision is shifting a few of the existing property lines, including revising the parking lot that is currently built. It was a part of the Homestead Village project. A portion of it will be incorporated into the Redman parcel and the rest will be left as a stand-alone lot open to the public that cannot be built on in the future. The Staff does not anticipate a lot of traffic problems, but does see some potential conflict with pedestrians as traffic tries to get through the parking lots from 1300 East to 2100 South. Speed bumps could be added to reduce speed in the parking lot. Part of the approval is for the condominium approval. The Redman building was processed through the new construction process because the building will be gutted. It will be processed through the building permit review and approval counter with full building plans. The petitioners do not intend to record the final condo plat until the building is nearly ready to occupy.
Mr. Mariger asked if notice had been given for the sign approval.
Mr. Wheelwright said it was part of the planned development approval request and was not a separate approval process.
Ms. Arnold asked if the original sign broke, could a replica be made.
Mr. Wheelwright said that could very well happen. The new sign would look the same and maintain the same orientation and location on the building. The approval recommendations can be modified to reflect that.
Ms. Arnold then asked if it was normal procedure to record the condo plat when it was nearly finished. Mr. Wheelwright said that was the normal procedure. Sometimes banks will require a certain amount of sales progress before they will finance, which requires recording well ahead of final construction.
Ms. Funk then asked if the petitioner would like to comment.
Mr. Lynn Woodbury, Vice President of Development, Woodbury Corporation, and associate architect on the Redman project, said he was here to answer any questions and was delighted to present the project to the Commission. The process has been going on for over two years, and his company believes this project will be pleasing to the residents of the community.
Ms. Funk asked about the possibility of a bridge rather than a pedestrian ramp, because she believes the bridge is more desirable from a safety and appearance standpoint.
Mr. Woodbury said there was some difficulty because of the shape and arrangement of the property and maintaining the slopes that ADA requires. His company believes the conflict that could exist with traffic is questionable and does not justify the additional expense of bridging over the driveway. His company is not opposed to raising the walkway as a traffic calming measure.
Mr. Jonas said he preferred the walkway in terms of aesthetics. He asked about all the complex easements and shifting property lines and if that was all put together.
Mr. Woodbury said yes and explained the properties his company had acquired from Chevron, or otherwise controls.
Ms. Funk then opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone fron1 community councils wished to comment.
Ms. Su Armitage, of the Sugar House Community Council, addressed the Commission next. She read a letter to the Commission from the Sugar House Community Council stating their approval of the conceptual design of the Redman building as presented to them by Mr. Woodbury and others at their April Community Council meeting. Ms. Armitage then read an email from Scott Kisling, Trustee of the Sugar House Community Council, who opposed the current proposal for access to Hidden Hollow because of safety concerns. Pedestrians will be required to cross traffic in two areas, and the walkways end in parking lots. He wanted a bridge. Ms. Armitage then explained by way of the maps on the walls how traffic would be using the parking lots of the Redman building to cut through to 1300 East and 2100 South.
Ms. Pahl agreed that this was a legitimate concern, but that a bridge doesn't solve that particular problem.
Ms. Lynne Olson, an officer with the Sugar House Community Council, spoke next. She addressed many of the same issues. She said that what was being proposed for the Redman building would make it lose its contributing historical value to the community. The public is losing what would have been a potential historic landmark site and is giving up public land on the side of the building. Also, landscaping for the building is being waived because the builders are assuming that the tenants will use Hidden Hollow as their back yard. Ms. Olson liked the idea of adding more of a residential component to the area, however. The pedestrian access from 2100 South into Hidden Hollow needs to be n1ade safe, warm and inviting, and that is not addressed in the proposal. Ms. Olson asked for a pedestrian bridge and signage at the north end of the walkway.
Mr. Vic Ayers, owner of the Redman building, addressed the Commission next. He is planning to live in the renovated Redman building. He believes the potential problems with traffic cutting through the parking lots could be alleviated with speed bumps and signage. The building is beginning to be an eyesore and needs to be upgraded.
Mr. Robert Ayres, Manager of the Redman building, spoke next. He is in favor of the project. He also stated that the building is obsolete, with bathrooms on the main floor only, old elevators, concrete breakdown and water damage on the fifth floor. Based on the traffic flow he has observed over the last 10 years, he sees no need for a pedestrian bridge. The Redman sign was just redone by Redman Movies recently. The letters can be pulled down and modified. The sign will maintain the original appearance.
Mr. Woodbury said the pathway from 2100 South is 20 feet wide with landscaping to help make it a pleasant area. The entryway is flared out for another 20 feet of width. His company intends to create some sort of trellis structure at that entry, and they have no objection to putting signage for Hidden Hollow there. His company is willing to pursue other alternatives to the pedestrian access part of the project, but does not want to be put on hold for final resolution of that issue.
There being no further response from the public, Ms. Funk closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jonas believes this project would make a wonderful addition to Sugar House. He does not like the idea of bridging over the parking lots.
Ms. Funk believes a bridge could be designed to facilitate the Hidden Hollow entrance. She wants the walkway to be continuous, not to end in a parking lot, into Hidden Hollow.
Mr. Jonas also would like to see something done to prevent the traffic from cutting through the parking lots, for instance to make it like a one way street entering on 1300 East.
Ms. Short suggested that benches and other decorations could be placed in the parking lot to walk the pedestrians out to Hidden Hollow. Mr. Woodbury said he could give up a couple of parking stalls to landscaping to create a clearer pathway to Hidden Hollow.
Motion for Petition No. 410-458:
Mr. Jonas made the motion that the Commission grant preliminary approval to the
subdivision amendment and the proposed condominium conversion, and approve the
planned development, including the modification to parking design standards to
accommodate 13 tandem parking stalls, and a modification to the sign regulations to allow the existing roof sign to remain (or a replica sign to be installed) with the following conditions (1-3) as listed by the Staff, and four more conditions added by the Planning Commission (underlined portions indicate Planning Commission additions):
1. Final subdivision amendment of the View city and the Homestead Village
Subdivision Plats approval is delegated to the Planning Director, subject to
compliance with standard departmental requirements.
2. Final approval of the Condominium Plat, Covenants and Restrictions is
delegated to the Planning Director.
3. Alley vacation approval by the City Council.
4. That some kind of traffic calming be placed in the lower parking to discourage
traffic cut through from the Mecham building to be approved by the Planning
Director.
5. That an inviting access from 2100 South to Hidden Hollow be created.
including signage. the final designation of which is to be approved by the
Planning Director.
6. That traffic calming of some sort. such as a one way street, be created, to
discourage cut through traffic from 2100 South to 1300 East. to be approved
by the Planning Director.
7. To explore the possibility with adjoining landowners to create connecting
bridges to the Hidden Hollow area, to be approved by the Planning Director.
Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Smith, and Ms. McDonald were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning Commission Meetings in December.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright proposed that the Planning Commission meet only once during
the month of December on Thursday the 14th. The Commission members agreed.
Discussion on the design of TCI boxes.
Ray McCandless addressed the Commission next. A couple of weeks ago the Staff had the opportunity to go out and take a look at one of TCI's boxes and hear it operate. At the request of the Planning Commission, one of the representatives from AT&T was present at the meeting to answer questions about gas meters on the sides of the boxes.
Mr. Brad Groves, AT&T representative, spoke next. Ms. Arnold asked about a
protective mechanism in front of the meter. Mr. Groves said the protection is at the discretion of Questar.
Ms. Arnold believes it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to tell Questar they have to put bollards in front of the meters.
Mr. Groves said there was a liability issue with the bollards. Questar puts in a smaller bollard, about 2 feet tall, a 2 inch pipe and painted gray. If Questar feels that the meter is in a place where traffic could hit it, they will put bollards in and charge AT&T for it.
Ms. Short asked about not putting a meter in at all. Mr. Groves said he had met with Questar to see if the gas could be just be piped in, meter ten of them, take an average gas bill of those ten and then charge AT&T for however many they have hooked up.
Questar said no.
Ms. Arnold asked why the meters cannot be on the sidewalk side of the box. Mr.
Groves said they wanted to keep it on the ends of the box because access doors open on both sides of the box. There is equipment in the box that needs to be accessed.
Ms. Arnold said the Commission could ask Questar to put in a bigger pipe (bollard).
Mr. Wheelwright said there have been some cases in the past where the Commission
has made it a stipulation to put in bollards and it has been done. He wondered if the gas meters could be put in a vault like the water meter vaults.
Mr. Groves said he would call Questar to see if that was an option.
Ms. Funk is for less regulation and letting Questar take responsibility for their own liability. Questar is not anxious for cars to hit their meters.
Mr. Mariger noted that most of the boxes are placed in areas where they are not subject to being hit by automobiles, and bollards should not be required in every instance.
Mr. Wheelwright asked if there was a concern about the electric meters. Mr. Groves said electric meters were now being moved to the utility pole.
Mr. Mariger suggested that the Commission ask AT&T to investigate with Questar
whether it is feasible to put meters in the ground in those instances where they are likely to be impacted by automobiles. The action the Commission should take is to request protection in those cases. The Staff can identify those situations for the Commission.
The Commission members agreed.
The Commission members asked Mr. Wheelwright to proceed with Mr. Mariger's
suggestion and report back at a later date.
There being no further business for the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.