SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Kimball
Young, Jim McRea, Judi Short, Aria Funk, Max Smith and Fred Fife. Diana Kirk and Gilbert Iker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Doug Dansie, Cheri Coffey, Elizabeth Egleston and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Young, acting as Chair in Mr. Becker's absence during the first portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Funk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 15, 1996 as
presented. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr.
Smith and Mr. McRea voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not
present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING- Request by Millo and Bradley for preliminary approval of the Tire Town Condominiums. Phase One. a residential mixed use development located at 308 West 300 South in a Downtown ''D-3" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Ken Millo, one of the petitioners, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and briefly described the project and the time frame for the planned improvements. Mr. Millo stated that the project would have commercial uses on the main floor and residential uses on the second floor. He said they were hoping to have the ground floor occupied during the evening hours.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Smith moved to approve the Tire Town, Phase 1 Condominium application and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith and Mr. McRea voted “Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Iker and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wright stated that he and Mr. McRea needed to leave the Planning Commission meeting to attend the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the Eastland Regency conditional use request at 2800 East Parleys Way. Mr. Wright said they would only be gone for a short time and explained that since the next item was not an action item, a quorum would not be necessary during their absence.
PLANNING ISSUES
Briefing on east/west Light Rail Alignment.
Mr. Doug Hattery, representing the Wasatch Front Regional Council, and Mr. Ralph Jackson, representing their consulting firm, De Leuw, Cather & Company, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. They handed out copies of the “university-Downtown-Airport Transportation Corridor" news letter outlining the open house they will hold on this issue in order to educate the public and accept public input. Mr. Hattery explained that the open house would be held September 26, 1996, from 5:00-9:00 p.m. in the Rose Park Elementary School located at 11 30 Sterling Drive ( 1130 West 925 North). He invited those interested in this matter to attend the open house. Mr. Hattery stated that they were in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and hoped to have a draft copy available by the end of this year. Mr. Hattery said they also hoped a decision would be made by the City on a preferred alternative by that time.
Mr. Ralph Jackson used briefing boards to outline the various alternatives, the project time frame, the process involved, the issues that needed to be studied, and the projected costs of the project. Mr. Jackson said they would be happy to address any concerns the Planning Commission might have and would keep them updated on this project. No action was taken by the Planning Commission.
CONDITIONAL USE PETITIONS
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-232 by Ernest Hughes requesting a conditional use for a Class 11B" private club license located at 659 North 300 West in a Commercial IICB" zoning district.
Ms. Elizabeth Egleston presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Sharon Mackey, representing the Utah State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, explained the differences between the operations allowed under the private club and restaurant liquor licenses. Ms. Mackey stated that enforcement of State laws for private clubs occurred twice as often as enforcement in restaurants with liquor licenses. Ms. Funk asked if it was stricter for private clubs because they expected more problems or because they found more violations. Ms. Mackey stated that they found more violations, possibly in part, because they enforced on private clubs more often.
Mr. Fife asked what kinds of violations were common.
Ms. Mackey stated that they included drinks being served to nonmembers and underage patrons.
Mr. McRea asked if minors were allowed in private clubs.
Ms. Mackey stated that minors were not excluded from private clubs under State law, and added State law prohibited minors only in taverns. She explained that some local ordinances were more restrictive than State law.
Mr. McRea asked if Mr. Hughes could operate his business as a restaurant for part of the day and as a private club during another part of the day.
Ms. Mackey responded that if he wanted to be a private club during any portion of the day, he would need to be licensed as a private club at all times.
Mr. McRea asked if they could have private parties under the private club licensing.
Ms. Mackey said they would be allowed as long as no liquor was sold and the event was not open to the public.
Mr. McRea asked how often licenses were revoked. She stated that she had worked in this position for more than six years and had never seen a license revoked. She explained that the reason for that was that most establishments accepted the option to voluntarily surrender their license and that most, if not all, of those situations had occurred with taverns. Mr. McRea asked if the State enforced on any issues such as behavioral problems.
Ms. Mackey said they were interested in issues such as gambling but their actions were mostly associated with liquor control.
Mr. McRea asked Ms. Egleston to expound on her statement that changes would occur in the community if this business were to go from a restaurant with a liquor license to a private club.
Ms. Egleston stated that her perception and the perception of the Planning Staff, was that someone could go to the existing restaurant as they could go to any other restaurant. Ms. Egleston stated that as a private club, there was not a public openness and as a private club it would become less of a restaurant, less open, and had the potential to become more like a place that simply sold liquor.
Mr. Wilde stated that a restaurant whose main focus was food would have a peak hour around the dinner hour, while a private club's peak hour would occur much later, impacting the surrounding neighborhood in a different manner.
Ms. Funk asked if restaurants might be causing more problems than private clubs since enforcement of them occurred less frequently than it did in private clubs.
Ms. Mackey said she did not believe that was the case. Mr. Fife asked if the entertainment this establishment would provide was compatible with this community.
Ms. Egleston said it was and the staff hoped that entertainment would continue even if
Mr. Hughes were allowed to operate only as a restaurant with a liquor license.
Ms. Egleston said Mr. Hughes would not be allowed to operate as a restaurant with a liquor license during the day and as a private club during the evening.
Mr. Ernest Hughes, the petitioner, stated that under State regulations, he could physically divide his building and provide a restaurant in one portion of the building and a private club in another portion. He pointed out that if he were to rent out his building to a private party, the amount of liquor served would not be under his control, whereas, under a private club scenario, it would be. Mr. Hughes stated that he planned to separate his building and operate a restaurant and a private club. Mr. Hughes stated that if the State were to change its regulations to permit him to serve liquor without food only during the times entertainment was available in his establishment, he would abide by that restriction. Mr. Hughes expressed frustration that the laws did not allow any kind of operation between the restaurant liquor license and the private club license.
Mr. Young stated that the Planning Commission was not able to change State laws, that they only had the authority to address the petition for a private club.
Mr. Hughes said his intent had never been to become a private club but added that a private club was the only option he had in order to provide liquor without food during the times he provided entertainment. Mr. Hughes stated that he had already considered making the changes suggested in the staff report but had not made those changes because of financial reasons. Mr. Hughes said he was in favor of improving the area and had been making improvements since he had purchased the property. Mr. Hughes stated that the vehicles on the property belonged to him and were not abandoned vehicles. He stated that if he needed to license them and move them to the back of the property, he would be willing to do so. He added that he had sprayed the vegetation at the rear of his property in order to kill it so that he could replant it and put in a garden. Mr. Hughes explained that he had installed vegetation in the parking strip which had been killed by the snow plows. Mr. Hughes stated that he had contacted the owner of the property to the south of his building who had given him a letter stating his support for this project. A copy of that letter is filed with the minutes. Mr. Hughes stated that the person the Planning Staff had contacted at this address had not been the property owner.
Mr. Young asked if the property owner resided in the building. Mr. Hughes stated that he did not.
Mr. Hughes stated that the only property owners near his establishment who had expressed opposition to his request were the owners of the motel and the Carmans. Mr. Hughes stated that he had obtained a copy of the police report for his address and the majority of the calls for this address had been made by him when he reported thefts. He stated that some of the other reports had used his address as a point of reference because that was where people had been stopped and tickets written.
Mr. McRea asked if Mr. Hughes could and would comply with, not just consider, the conditions listed in the staff report if the Planning Commission were to approve his request.
Mr. Hughes responded that he could comply with some of the conditions but he could not afford to comply with all of them. Mr. Hughes stated that if he had had the money, he would have complied with them already.
Mr. McRea asked if he had any idea of the kind of time frame he would need to comply with those conditions. Mr. Hughes said he could comply as the revenue became available. Mr. McRea stated that one of the conditions was that the Planning Commission reevaluate this matter for compliance with potential revocation of approval within one year.
Mr. Hughes said he did not have a problem with that condition, that he was audited on an annual basis. Mr. McRea asked if Mr. Hughes would be able to implement the conditions within that one year time frame. Mr. Hughes said he could if his business generated enough capital.
Mr. McRea asked if Mr. Hughes intended to continue to provide food in his establishment.
Mr. Hughes said his intentions were to continue to provide food, since that was what he did best.
Mr. Wilde stated that the property owner of record for the property to the south of Mr. Hughes was a Mr. Lynn Peterson. Mr. Hughes stated that Mr. Raymond Felsted had purchased the property from Mr. Peterson about six months ago.
Mr. Hughes stated that his intentions for this property were to demolish the building and construct a new building which would provide a restaurant with a liquor license in one part of the building and a private club in another part of the building. He stated that he already had a commitment from a bank if he could get the revenues up in the existing building.
Ms. Funk asked if those were immediate plans or intended plans for when he could afford to rebuild.
Mr. Hughes said those were his plans when he could afford to rebuild.
Ms. Funk asked if Mr. Hughes was interested in the private club license as a means to increase his revenue. He responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Gloria Hughes, wife of the petitioner, handed out a copy of a statement
responding to the staff report, and read that letter to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with minutes. The statement purports that she believes the opposition to their request existed partly because of past owners, but mostly because of stereotyping, prejudices, bigotry and racism.
Mr. Young said the Planning Commission's job was not to discuss racism or interpretations Ms. Hughes may have gotten from the past, that they were here to act only on the facts.
Ms. Hughes said her comments were a response to the staff report.
Mr. Young stated that the staff report had nothing to do with race, only the activities occurring on the premises of the property in question and its licensing.
Ms. Hughes stated that Ms. Egleston had offered her perceptions and asked why she could not do the same. Ms. Hughes said her comments were her perception of what she read in the staff report. Mr. Young responded that if she wanted to offer her perceptions, she could do so. Ms. Hughes continued and stated that barriers were imposed on them that would require them to spend in excess of $40,000 for approval of this request on a trial basis. She stated that as an Equal Employment Specialist, she had encountered disparate treatment of some individuals in order to prevent them from achieving their goals by regulations being imposed which deviated from procedures and practices for other people. Ms. Hughes said they were a struggling business and their improvements would have to occur in stages. She said she believed the staff report implied they intended to become a 11dive peddling liquor" when she JJread between the lines" of the staff report. She said they intended to become a role model for all cultures, and their intentions were not to create a business that was a JJBiack thing". Ms. Hughes requested the Planning Commission look at the overall picture and their long range goals and that their decision not be based on non-merit issues. She stated that they were not seeking preference, but as an African American business, they were seeking equitable and fair treatment. She requested the Planning Commission approve their request.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Young requested comments be restricted to new comments and not repetitions of comments made at the previous hearing on this matter.
Ms. Veronica King, a resident of the area, stated that she did not want this business to become a private club. She stated that with the previous business they had experienced problems with drunken behavior, parking, and late night noise.
Mr. Young asked if that had been under the previous ownership.
Ms. King said she was not sure about the ownership but stated that since the business had become just a restaurant, the problems had disappeared and the community experienced peace. She stated that she believed some of the problems had occurred while the business was owned by Mr. Hughes and added that she would like to see things remain the same. Ms. King stated that there was more opposition to this proposal than just the two property owners to the south of Mr. Hughes' property. Ms. King stated that until she had come to this meeting, she had not had any idea of the “color" of the property owner and she did not care about his “color" now that she had seen him. Ms. King said she also did not care about the “color" of the patrons of the restaurant.
Mr. Nephi Kemmethmueller, a resident of the area, stated that most of this area was a residential area. He stated that they were not opposed to restaurants or businesses though they were opposed to establishments that would serve liquor in the evening. He said the problems they had experienced with the previous club had been disastrous to the rental property he had owned adjacent to the Hughes property. Mr. Kemmethmueller said he did not believe the property was large enough to provide parking to allow Mr. Hughes to provide both a restaurant and a private club in this building.
Ms. Mary Carman, a property owner in the area, stated that they had owned and operated their business for fifty years and had tried to be a benefit to the community. Ms. Carman stated that they owned several residential properties in the area as rental properties and she felt it was their duty to stand up for their tenants in expressing their concerns relative to this petition. Ms. Carman said she did not believe the building on the Hughes property was large enough to handle the entertainment since the late night music seemed to carry throughout the neighborhood. Ms. Carman stated that her husband's mother lived in this area and was opposed to this request. She stated that her mother-in-law had been so worried about the patrons of the previous club that she no longer dared go outside and water her lawn for fear of being abused. Ms. Carman stated that cleaning up the trash from the previous club had been an every day morning duty they had had to deal with. She asked what the petitioner would do about parking if he put in a garden in the rear of his property. Ms. Carman stated that they were able to maintain the landscaping on their property throughout the entire year. Ms. Carman said she did not believe a business allowed to serve liquor was compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
Mr. Harv Jeppsen, representing his parents who owned the motel to the north of the Hughes property, stated that Mr. Peterson had given Mr. Jeppsen the impression that he still owned the property Mr. Hughes stated was now owned by Mr. Felsted. Mr. Jeppsen said he did not believe this proposal was compatible with the surrounding community and allowing this night club would be a step in the wrong direction.
Mr. Frank Hill, a concerned citizen, stated that he had been friends with Mr. Hughes for many years. Mr. Hill stated that he was here to support Mr. Hughes in his request.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea asked if the existing restaurant had a Class 118" liquor license and was currently able to serve liquor.
Ms. Egleston responded in the affirmative.
Mr. McRea said some of the comments seemed to imply that previously when liquor was served at this site, problems had existed but now that there was no liquor, there were no problems, which was confusing. Ms. Funk stated that the business had previously been a private club. Mr. Hughes interrupted and stated that this business had never operated as a private club. Mr. Wright stated that when this business had operated as the Elks Lodge, it had operated under a restaurant with a liquor license.
Mr. Wright stated that the establishment had voluntarily surrendered their license the year they had had a problem meeting the 70% percent food requirement. Mr. Hughes stated that they had been able to meet their 70% requirement ·from 1 984 until the year they had surrendered their license.
Ms. Victoria King stated that she had moved into this neighborhood in 1989 and since the establishment had become a restaurant, it had become peaceful and without the problems.
Mr. McRea pointed out that the existing establishment sold liquor at this time.
Ms. King said she realized that but pointed out that they were not selling enough of it to cause the havoc that had occurred before. She said she did not want to experience the kind of trouble they had experienced before.
Mr. McRea asked what the parking requirements were for a business like this.
Mr. Wilde stated that the change in use from a restaurant to a private club would not trigger additional parking requirements.
Mr. McRea asked if the existing parking was adequate for the restaurant.
Mr. Wilde said he could not ensure it was adequate for the needs of the restaurant but explained that no additional parking requirements would be necessary. Mr. Wilde stated that the staff had not required parking lot landscaping because it would have reduced the available parking.
Mr. McRea asked if the landscaping requirements for the south and west sides of the property would encroach on the parking. Mr. Wilde said it would not encroach on the parking.
Mr. Fife asked if any of the conditions for approval were enforcement issues.
Mr. Wilde explained that the appearance of junk on the property such as the unlicensed vehicles and the lack of landscaping in the parking strip were issues that could be enforced regardless of whether or not this request was approved by the Planning Commission.
Motion on Petition No. 41 0- 232:
Mr. McRea made a finding that the public opinion seemed to be that the existing situation was not a good situation and he believed if this were left as it existed at this time, would continue. Mr. McRea further found that by moving ahead, improvements could be imposed on this property and stricter control of the operation could be effected. Mr. McRea moved to accept the staff's secondary recommendation regarding conditions of approval and to approve Petition No. 41 0-232 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and that these improvements be approved by the Planning Director. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Ms. Short said she was sympathetic to the financial issues raised by the petitioner and asked if they could work with him to phase in the property improvements over a six month period. Ms. Short said there was nothing listed in the conditions that other petitioners were not also required to do. Mr. Smith said he would agree with the six month phasing on the asphalt repairs but the other conditions were not immensely difficult, particularly since Mr. Hughes had stated that he was a general contractor.
Ms. Funk asked if the approval conditions would have to be met prior to the license being issued.
Mr. McRea said his intent in the motion was that the conditions be met before the business license was issued. Ms. Funk asked if the procedure was that the license would be granted to the petitioner and the matter revisited in one year in order to determine whether or not the conditions of approval had been met.
Mr. Wilde said the Planning Commission could allow a specific time frame for compliance on any of the conditions. Mr. Wilde said the Planning Staff would like to see some immediate action taken on the landscaping issues but added that flexibility on the time ·frame for other conditions was acceptable to the staff.
Ms. Funk asked if her understanding was correct that the City did not have the authority to revoke the liquor license, based on noncompliance with the approval conditions.
Mr. Wright said that understanding was correct but added that the conditional use approval could be revoked. Mr. Funk suggested that the petitioner be required to meet the conditions, with the exception of repairing the asphalt, prior to being given conditional use approval. Ms. Funk stated that the other conditions were not expensive to make. She stated that this would provide greater faith in Mr. Hughes on the part of the community and that after improvements had been made, Mr. Hughes could come back to the Planning Commission for approval of this request.
Ms. Funk stated that according to the testimony offered by Mr. Hughes, the amount of liquor consumed under the private club license would markedly increase and she did not believe it would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
Mr. Young asked if Ms. Funk was suggesting an amendment to the motion. She responded in the negative and requested the motion be withdrawn and a new motion be proposed. Mr. McRea asked what time frame she was requesting.
Ms. Funk stated that whenever the improvements were completed, the petitioner could then request this matter be reconsidered.
Ms. Short asked if the Planning Commission could give the petitioner three months to comply, allowing him to have his license and not requiring he come back before the Planning Commission.
Mr. McRea said he would be willing to accept a sequencing of the approval conditions in his motion.
Ms. Funk asked if that procedure would be allowed. Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative and added that the Planning Commission could request the City not send a letter to the State affirming local approval of this license request until the conditions had been met.
Mr. Wright said that would make the statement that the Planning Commission intended to approve this request subject to conformance by the petitioner relative to the conditions. Mr. Wright added that under that scenario, once the petitioner had met the conditions, the approval would then be delegated to the Planning Director as an administrative process and would not need to go before the Planning Commission again. Mr. Wright stated that if the conditions were not met, the local consent to the private club license and a business license would never be approved.
Ms. Funk said she believed that made better sense but said she was still was concerned about the amount of liquor that could be consumed and that it would be increased with a private club license.
Mr. McRea amended his motion to include that the conditions, with the exception of the asphalt repair be met prior to the business license being granted.
Mr. Wilde stated that upon obtaining a performance bond, the landscaping could be deferred until next spring which was a more appropriate time to install landscaping and could allow the asphalt parking lot to be repaired instead of replaced.
Mr. McRea stated that those issues could be handled administratively. Ms. Funk said that would have to be included in the motion. She pointed out that it was only the beginning of September and she believed there was quite a bit of time to do planting and that it was less expensive at this time. Mr. McRea said he would be willing to amend his motion once again to include preparation of landscaping at this time and to hold off on the asphalt repair/replacement.
Ms. Funk stated that patching asphalt was not prohibitively expensive.
Mr. McRea amended his motion to approve Petition No. 41 0-232 subject to the conditions in the staff report being met prior to business license approval. Mr. McRea said those conditions included the landscaping issues as well as the repairs to the parking lot. Mr. Smith seconded the amended motion. Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea and Mr. Smith voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk voted “Nay”.Mr. Becker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-238 by Maun Alsten for the Travelers Aid Society Requesting a conditional use for an overflow homeless shelter to be located at 399 Andrew Avenue in a Commercial “C-G" zoning district.
This item was postponed until September 19, 1996, due to a lack of quorum during this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING - Receive public comment on a proposal to permanently close two blocks of Main Street to automobile traffic. The two blocks proposed for closure on Main Street are between North Temple and 1 00 South Streets. Main Street between North and Temple Streets will likely be sold to the LDS Church and the land used as part of the LOS Campus. Main Street between South Temple and 100 South Streets will likely remain in City ownership.
Mr. Becker arrived at the Planning Commission meeting at this time and Mr. Young turned the position of Chair over to Mr. Becker.
Mr. Becker stated that this was an issues only hearing and no decision would be made at this time by the Planning Commission. Mr. Becker stated that the primary purpose of this meeting was to ensure the Planning Commission understand all of the issues that needed to be addressed. Mr. Becker stated that people would be limited to two minutes to make their comments and requested repetitious comments be avoided.
Mr. Bill Wright stated that the Salt Lake City Council had requested the City Administration and the Planning Commission study the proposal to close this portion of Main Street in an attempt to analyze the feasibility of managing the pedestrian, automobile and transit experience in those blocks.
Mr. Wright stated that a proposal to close at least one of these blocks had been addressed in master plans as early at 1962. He stated that this proposal was being made at this time in order to coordinate it with a major construction project to develop underground parking beneath Main Street in these two blocks. Mr. Wright stated that Main Street between 1 00 South and North Temple would be physically closed to automobile traffic for some time during the next year in order to accommodate construction of two underground parking structures. Mr. Wright stated that since the design and construction of those underground parking structures would be affected by the type of use above them, this matter needed to be addressed as quickly as possible. Mr. Wright stated that the Utah Transit Authority had requested the public be informed that this was not their proposal. Mr. Wright stated that this matter would be discussed in detail during the month of September with the Downtown Alliance, the Downtown Retail Merchants Association, the affected community councils and the City-wide community council chairpersons. Mr. Wright stated that the staff wanted to make sure that all of the questions that needed to be addressed were voiced. He stated that the Planning Commission would hold its public hearing and review the actual proposal during October. Mr. Wright stated that what the actual proposal would be could not be determined until the analyses were completed. Mr. Wright stated that the City Council would be making their decision on this matter by December 10, 1996. Mr. Wright stated that the City would send out a survey to property owners in the Downtown area requesting their input on this matter. He stated that the staff was also researching other communities that had closed streets similar to Main Street to study their successes and failures.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues involved including the process, relevant master plans, land ownership, retail access and visibility, delivery needs, traffic, urban design, and crime and human behavior issues.
Mr. Don Adams, representing the Sear Brown Group, stated that they had been retained by the LDS Church to conduct a traffic study of the north downtown area. He stated that the study area incorporated 400 West to 200 East from 300 North to 400 South as well as some impacts outside this study area such as how traffic from this area would access areas like the Avenues. Mr. Adams stated that the study scope included data collection, trip generation in the downtown area, trip distribution and an analysis of the intersections and proposed alternatives.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Peter Davis, a concerned citizen, stated that he did not believe that the street should be closed because only one traffic lane would be available. Mr. Davis said if that was the reason for the proposed closure, it would have to go all the way to 700 South because the same conditions existed to that point. He handed out a picture of this area from the early 1 900' s which showed trolleys traversing the middle of Main Street with two lanes of vehicular traffic on each side of the trolley, plus angle parking and a full sidewalk.
Mr. David Revie, a concerned citizen, stated that delivery to retail outlets and businesses in the downtown area needed careful consideration since most of them were not connected to underground parking and their loading zones would be eliminated by this plan. He suggested the street be widened to accommodate light rail and vehicular traffic.
Mr. Mark Chambers, a resident of the Capitol Hill area, stated that impacts to the surrounding historical districts needed to be studied.
Ms. Bonnie Mangold, Chairperson of the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association, suggested a two-week temporary closure be done in order to study the impacts of such a closure. She handed out pictures of a major traffic back-up during a weekend closure of Main Street for an event the previous week. Ms. Mangold pointed out that this occurred during a weekend when traffic was much lighter than during business days. Ms. Mangold stated that safety relative to intersections needed to be studied. She said this matter should be considered with light rail issues, 1-15 reconstruction issues, viaduct changes, and impacts from the new LDS Assembly Hall construction, not in isolation.
Mr. Randall Dixon, representing the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, expressed concern that the study area did not go far enough north. Mr. Dixon said they would like to see traffic from the parking structures go west, not north and that traffic be discouraged on North Main. He suggested a resident parking program be initiated for the Capitol Hill area once the LOS Church Assembly hall was completed.
Mr. David Nelson, General Manager for Crossroads Plaza, stated that they were strongly opposed to the closure of Main Street. He stated that Main Street was the front door to their mall and it would be eliminated by this closure. Mr. Nelson stated that most people in the suburbs had a negative impression of Downtown due to problems with transients and a lack of parking. He said they believed these perceptions would increase if Main Street were closed. Mr. Nelson stated that reduced sales would result in lower achievable rents and less property value which would result in lower property and sales tax revenues. He requested the Planning Commission consider these issues carefully,
Mr. Phil Carroll, a concerned citizen, stated that though many people would like to see less automobile use, that was not a reality at this time. Mr. Carroll stated that the briefing board showed two alternatives, one with Main Street closed and one with one lane of vehicular traffic in either direction. He said this was a very poor place to start and that we should be starting with a full four lanes with parking, not one lane in each direction. He asked if two lanes of traffic had already been ruled out.
Mr. Becker stated that the purpose of this meeting was to raise issues and concerns and that no decisions had been made.
Mr. Wright stated that the agreement on the sale of the underground property between North Temple and South Temple on Main Street required the surface infrastructure be replaced as it is currently designed.
Mr. Bob Farrington, representing the Downtown Alliance, stated that they did not have a recommendation on this matter at this time and invited everyone to attend a meeting to discuss this matter, along with light rail issues and 1-15 issues which had been scheduled for September 18th at 8:00p.m. at the Marriott Hotel. Mr. Farrington urged the Planning Commission to study the economic impacts of this proposal, not just how to move traffic around. He stated that safety issues during times of little business activity also needed to be looked at.
Mr. John Sittner, a concerned citizen, stated that he supported any effort to get more people out of their cars but added that the City needed to be careful not to preclude access to the downtown area. Mr. Sittner suggested the study be expanded to include the impacts to the Avenues area. He said the City needed to determine who would have to bear the costs if the decisions made on this matter were made in error. He said these changes would be permanent and if a major mistake was made, it would be tragic. Mr. Sittner suggested this closure be tested before Main Street was permanently closed.
Mr. James Coles, a concerned citizen, stated that impacts twenty and thirty years from now needed to be considered, not just current impacts. He stated that this was a high density area which needed a balance between transportation uses. Mr. Coles said we needed to understand how this closure would encourage light rail and pedestrian use and encourage a transportation balance.
Mr. Neal Stowe, representing a landowner in the downtown area, said they were concerned about how this closure would affect the businesses location in the southern end of the downtown business district. He requested that future impacts be focused on before a decision was made relative to this closure. Mr. Stowe stated that traffic patterns would be affected for at least eight blocks in any direction of this closure. He suggested the study include research of all season communities like ours, street life activity after the businesses close, and impacts to the business operations in the southern end of downtown.
Mr. Bill Garbett, a concerned citizen, requested the impacts to the already heavy traffic on State Street be studied. Mr. Garbett stated that the traffic on State Street on Friday and Saturday nights was intolerable for the residents of this area. He stated that the Mayor, the City Council members and the Planning Commission would not allow the kinds of disturbances allowed on State Street at night to occur on the street in front of their homes. He requested the impact the closure of Main Street would have on State Street be carefully examined. Mr. Garbett requested the City prevent the youth from breaking existing laws in this neighborhood, that State Street, above 1 00 South Street, be closed from 10:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays to all but local traffic, or a “No Cruising Act" be enacted.
Mr. Scott Anderson, representing Zions Bank, stated that they were concerned about the economic viability impacts for the businesses in this area, ingress and egress for those businesses, delivery accessibility, parking, and access for handicapped individuals. Mr. Anderson asked if a feasibility study had been done on a skybridge linking the ZCMI Mall to the Crossroads Mall. He requested the issue of loitering be studied and whether those activities might be heightened on a pedestrian mall.
Mr. Dave Hardman, Manager of the ZCMI store in the ZCMI Center, stated that he was representing the Board of the Downtown Retail Merchants Association. Mr. Hardman handed out a letter of their recommendations and concerns, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He stated that they had visited with representatives of UTA and the City before making these recommendations. Mr. Hardman said they believed Main Street must remain open, even if only to one lane of vehicular traffic.
Mr. Tom Rogan, Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that the southwest corner of the Avenues area had been severely impacted over the past few years. Mr. Rogan said he believed the study needed to be expanded to include this area and how it would be affected by this closure. Mr. Rogan stated that the incremental erosion of the quality of life for the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown area needed to be carefully studied.
Mr. Becker asked how information would be made available to those who were interested in this matter. Mr. Wright stated that an open house could be held and the staff would also be meeting with the community councils.
Ms. Ty Nelson, a concerned citizen, stated that no one had talked about the quality of life in the downtown area. She stated that an inviting, aesthetic design was needed to attract people to the area. Ms. Nelson requested that the City consider more than just the day time business uses in the area. She said she believed there would be major traffic congestion at the bottom of Main Street and South Temple unless access to 1-15 were created on North Temple.
Ms. Andrea Pullos, Salt Lake County Assistant Transportation Engineer, requested the impacts to the Salt Palace Convention Center be studied. She said they would also like to know how a light rail station at South Temple would affect the Salt Palace.
Mr. Larry Moore, representing the law firm of Ray, Quinney and Nebeker, stated that the concerns he would be voicing were shared by two other large law firms in this area. Mr. Moore said they were opposed to the closure of Main Street between South Temple and 1 00 South Street since they believed this closure would make access to their firms so difficult that clients would stop doing business with them. He stated that under those circumstances, they would be forced to relocate to suburban offices which offered more convenience. He stated that between the three law "firms, they employed almost 500 people. Mr. Moore stated that their specific concern related to the difficulty in exiting parking structures on the north side of 100 South between Main and State Streets where only right turns were allowed. He stated that during the holiday season traffic experienced a gridlock and they believed if Main Street were closed, that gridlock would become a year-long phenomenon. Mr. Moore said the terminus that made the most sense to them was the “ring" proposal where stops would be placed around the downtown area rather than all light rail passengers exiting between 100 South and South Temple.
Mr. Shawn Cummins, representing the Marriott Hotel, stated that they currently promoted the ease with which downtown could be accessed. Mr. Cummins stated that any closure needed to be looked at very carefully and requested they be kept informed and involved in this process.
Mr. Willy Littig, a concerned citizen, stated that he believed closing Main Street was a bad idea. He requested the impacts to the surrounding residential areas be carefully considered.
Mr. I.J. Wagner, a concerned citizen, stated that Will Rogers had done a major study on downtown traffic and claimed the way to solve the traffic problem was to not allow any cars in the downtown area that had not been paid for.
Mr. Robert Crandall, a concerned citizen, stated that he was opposed to the closure of Main Street and added that he felt the decision was premature since the entire congressional delegation had concluded that it would not be possible to complete the funding of light rail at 80% as planned. Mr. Crandall expressed concern that recreation and entertainment were being considered to the detriment of those who conducted business in the downtown area.
Mr. David Revie said he believed the people who drove through Salt Lake City were the City's lifeblood and this proposal would equate to ripping out that lifeblood's heart and throwing it away. Mr. Revie said there was no reason this proposal had to consist of anything less than two lanes of vehicular traffic.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Wright stated that this matter would probably be brought back to the Planning Commission with a specific proposal at their October 3rd meeting. He stated that notices would be mailed out again for that hearing.
Mr. Smith stated that many people had requested the study area be expanded and added that since that study was being funded by the LDS Church, it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to request that they expand the study.
Mr. Wright stated that the study had already been expanded once and if it were to be expanded again, he believed the City should share that responsibility. Mr. Wright stated that the Transportation Division might already have information available that would expand the scope of the study. Mr. Wright stated that if the Planning Commission felt it was imperative to broaden the study area, it would help him, relative to the financial implications of the study.
Ms. Funk asked if the ground between North and South Temple could be leased, long term, to the LDS Church rather than sold. Mr. Wright stated that was something that could be looked at closely, particularly since it was still in City ownership.
Mr. Becker stated that the many transportation issues going on at this time impacted the downtown area and needed to be looked at including light rail and 1-1 5 issues and impacts to a broader geographic area than these two blocks needed to be studied.
Mr. Wright stated that the next meeting would focus on support and opposition to the project rather than issues that needed to be examined.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.