SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 1 26
Present from the Planning Commission were Vice Chairperson Ralph Becker, Jim McRea, Kimball Young, Judi Short, Ann Roberts and Aria Funk. Richard J. Howa, Lynn Beckstead, Diana Kirk and Gilbert Iker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Everett Joyce and Doug Dansie.
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. Becker in Mr. Howa's absence. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at 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. Short moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 24, 1995 as presented. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, Mr. Young and Mr. McRea voted “Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONDITIONAL USE PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-188 by Westminster College requesting a conditional use for a parking structure located at 1200 East and 1 700 South in the northwest corner of the campus in an Institutional zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. McRea asked if this approval was contingent upon the earlier approval for a parking structure at the southern end of the Westminster campus. Mr. Joyce stated that the two parking structures were two separate issues. Mr. Becker asked if the Planning Commission could take further action on that prior approval.
Mr. Joyce stated that the Westminster master plan reflected both parking structures.
Ms. Funk asked if the traffic study had considered the impacts of both parking structures.
Mr. Joyce stated that it had taken both parking structures and the entire campus into consideration.
Mr. Steve Morgan, Executive Vice President for Westminster College, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they wanted to be able to keep all of their parking on their campus. He explained that due to the 106 parking stalls that would be removed during the construction of the library, they believed concurrent construction of the northwest parking structure was needed to reduce the parking problems. Mr. Morgan explained that the parking/traffic study they had obtained had indicated the northwest parking structure should be completed prior to the southwest parking structure but that the study did not recommend abandonment of the southwest parking structure. Mr. Morgan said they believed they would need the southwest structure but not at this time. He stated that they felt the northwest structure would do the most to decrease parking problems.
Mr. Morgan said their plans at this time were to construct the library and the northwest structure simultaneously and then evaluate the need for the southwest parking structure. He explained that they did not want to lose the ability to construct the southwest parking structure at some point in the future if they felt it was needed but added that if their bus program was successful and their attendance numbers changed, they might not have a need for the southwest structure. Mr. Morgan stated that they would be supportive of no parking along 1 700 South Street in order to force the students to park on campus. He requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. McRea asked if the northwest structure was being designed so that it could be enlarged in the future. Mr. Morgan responded in the negative.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Carl Triolo, a resident on 1700 South Street, stated that he was concerned about the impact of traffic on 1700 South during the construction period. He stated that he did not believe the College fully understood the parking problem that existed in this area. Mr. Triolo expressed concern that this matter might already be “done deal" and the public comment would not make a difference.
Mr. Becker assured him that no decisions had yet been made on this parking structure.
Mr. Triolo asked how many parking stalls there were on campus for the entire facility.
Mr. Morgan responded that there were a total of 607 parking stalls.
Mr. Joyce explained that there would only be 40 additional parking stalls with the construction of this structure.
Mr. Triolo stated that during the construction of the library and prior to the completion of the new parking structure the parking problems would be a nightmare due to the loss of the 1 06 stalls on the parcel where the library would displace the existing parking stalls. Mr. McRea asked if Mr. Triolo felt this parking structure would help alleviate some of the parking problems on the street. Mr. Triolo said he believed it would make the parking problems worse.
Mr. Becker asked how the parking situation would be handled during the construction phase.
Mr. Morgan stated that the two lots to the northeast of the proposed structure as well as the parking to the west of the library site would remain available for parking. Mr. Morgan also stated that they hoped to complete the construction during the summer months and have it operational by the time their fall classes commenced.
Ms. Kathleen Anderson, a resident on Blaine Avenue, stated that she was very concerned about the existing traffic, the lack of control of the traffic, and the traffic that would be forced down Blaine Avenue with the construction of this parking structure. Ms. Anderson stated that snow removal in the winter months was inadequate because of the cars parked along the streets. She asked why the traffic from the parking structure couldn't be directed onto the Westminster campus rather than onto their residential streets. Mr. Becker asked if Ms. Anderson was in favor of closure of Blaine Avenue. She responded in the negative but added that she could not see the reasoning for the narrowing of Blaine Avenue. She suggested the
Planning Commission closely examine the structure of Blaine Avenue prior to making a decision on this matter.
Ms. Funk stated that it seemed to her that the construction of the proposed parking structure would alleviate much of the parking problems the area was experiencing.
Ms. Anderson stated that she was not opposed to the structure, only the access onto Blaine Avenue.
Mr. Joseph Rohan, a resident of the area, handed out copies of a letter to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Rohan read his letter which stated that he was opposed to the construction of the parking structure and the conversion of the tennis courts into a parking lot. Mr. Rohan's letter stated that “No one involved in this process, not the designers, not the engineers, not the Westminster administration, nor any of the members of this board would allow this eyesore to be built within 50 feet of their front door, yet you intend to cram this project down the throats of me and my neighbors." The letter goes on to state that none of the members of the board has a clue, or cares about adverse impacts of this project on the surrounding properties.
Mr. Rohan's letter claims that the students do not utilize the existing parking lots and will not utilize the proposed structure, but rather, will continue to park on the surrounding streets as they do now. It also claims that construction of this parking structure will cause his property values to decrease by one-third of their existing value. He further states that he believes this hearing process is a sham and this commission is only here to put a governmental stamp of approval on Westminster's theft of our property values." The letter states that none of the residents in his area were ever invited to community meetings on this matter and requests the Planning Commission to deny this petition or at least postpone consideration of it for a period of one year to allow any detrimental financial impacts to be assessed and the true parking needs of the college more adequately studied.
Ms. Funk stated that she felt the Community Affairs division of the City should make sure residents were aware of major projects in their neighborhoods but added that residents of neighborhoods also had a responsibility to keep themselves informed and to become involved in the community.
Mr. Becker stated that the community council was an excellent way for residents to become informed of development in their neighborhoods but added that hearings such as this hearing were also a means of informing residents of proposed changes in their areas.
Ms. Judi Short stated that she had attended a meeting at Westminster College wherein Mr. Morgan and a volunteer from the neighborhood had agreed to construct a list of every resident in the surrounding neighborhood to be included on a mailing list. Mr. Morgan stated that they had held two neighborhood meetings, the first of which had been a failure due to poor notification; but the second meeting had been well attended by the neighborhood and that Mr. Rohan had attended the second meeting.
Mr. McRea said the problem seemed to be that available parking was not being utilized by the students. Mr. Rohan stated that the students at Westminster did not even have to pay for the parking and they still did not park on campus.
Mr. Richard Brockmeyer, representing Westminster College, reminded everyone that Blaine Avenue and all of the other surrounding streets were not under their Jurisdiction and there was nothing they had the right to do relative to enforcement or parking and/or speeding since the City owned the streets.
Mr. McRea asked if there were any incentives they could use to encourage on-campus parking.
Mr. Morgan stated that that was why they had never established a parking fee system.
Mr. McRea suggested that the lack of desire to park on campus weakened the argument for the need for additional on-campus parking. Mr. Morgan stated that the existing lot on the proposed library site was fully utilized and that parking would need to be replaced.
Mr. Randy Wallin, representing Eckhoff Watkins and Preator Engineering, the firm who conducted the parking/traffic study for Westminster College, explained how they had arrived at their recommendations and how circulation on the campus would work when the proposed parking structure was completed.
Mr. Jim Christopher, the project architect, stated that campus buildings should be located on the interior of the campus and the parking structures located on the periphery from a pedestrian safety aspect. Mr. Rohan pointed out that the perimeter of the college campus was the residents' front yards and they had to live with these structures 24 hours a day.
Ms. Tilly Van Egmond, a resident of the area, stated that there was adequate parking on the campus though it was not being utilized; that she was opposed to any parking structure in any residential neighborhood; that if the parking were not needed, why provide it; and that maybe efforts should be spent to relocate the cars to the available parking, not create additional parking facilities. Ms. Van Edmond stated that she had not received notices of the various meetings relative to these parking issues. She added that if this structure was approved, after this meeting there would then be two parking structures approved for one residential neighborhood and she felt that was a move in the wrong direction. Ms. Van Egmond stated that she knew this matter had basically received a stamp of approval from the Planning Staff but requested the Planning Commission carefully consider this matter and not just go along with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission always considered the staff recommendation but assured Ms. Van Egmond that they did not always agree with the staff.
Mr. Charles Shepherd, representing his parents' trust which owned property in this area, stated that he was discouraged to hear that Westminster did not charge for parking and stated that it was a great disincentive to students driving to school. Mr. Shepherd stated that he believed the north elevation could be depressed about three to five feet and if there was a grade problem on the southern end of the northwest parking structure site, there was a lot of open space in the area around Converse Hall which could be regraded. He stated that he did not see any lighting represented on the site plans and said he hoped none would be installed because of the negative impacts such lighting would have in the evenings. He asked where the construction staging areas would be placed and recommended the 1700 South access be restricted to a right-turn only.
Mr. Steve Graham, a resident of the area, handed out a copy of a letter he had written to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Graham read his letter which expressed his and his wife's “qualified" support for this project subject to the inclusion of several provisions: 1) The narrowing of Blaine Avenue; 2) The placement of signage notifying drivers that there were children at play in the area near Blaine Avenue; 3) Signage prohibiting right turns from Blaine Avenue eastbound onto 1200 East; 4) Signage prohibiting left turns from 1200 East northbound onto Blaine Avenue; 5) Creation of a right-turn only lane on eastbound 1700 South from 1200 East to 1300 East; and 6) Creation of separate left and right turn lanes on 1 200 East northbound and at the 1 700 South parking structure exit.
Mr. Graham suggested a temporary restrictive parking program might work during the construction phase but added that he would not be in favor of such a program on a permanent basis.
Ms. Sandy Hiskey, a resident of the area, stated that she also represented her mother on this matter. Ms. His key stated that their houses fronted on Blaine Avenue and that their driveways were accessed from 1200 East so they were affected by traffic on both streets. Ms. Hiskey stated that she believed the proposed parking structure would solve some of the parking problems that existed and she thanked Westminster College for their efforts to address the problems created by the college but also expressed concern relative to the difficulties she felt they would encounter trying to access their driveways with the construction of
new parking structure.
Ms. Jane Stromquist, a concerned citizen, handed out copies of letters she had written detailing conflicts of interest on previous Westminster College issues she felt had not been declared by various Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment members, copies of which are filed with the minutes. These letters suggest these members should be removed from the various boards they serve on and state the connections these board members have to Westminster College which created their conflicts of interest. Ms. Stromquist suggested in her letters that the previous decision on the parking structure on the southwest portion of the Westminster College campus should be overturned.
Ms. Stromquist asked what the setback measurements were on 1 200 East Street.
Mr. Joyce explained that there was a mandatory requirement of 30 feet but a total of 70 foot setback from the wall of the structure to the property line.
Ms. Stromquist asked how the proposed parking structure would be cleaned.
Mr. Morgan responded that they had not progressed to the point of having that information at this time but assured her that they would be well maintained.
Ms. Stromquist stated that they would probably be cleaned by "whirly" type machines which made a horrendous noise and the neighbors ought to be informed how intolerable the noise levels from those machines were and that parking structures were typically cleaned in the middle of the night. She stated that there was a terrible amount of flying dust during the cleaning process.
Ms. Stromquist also expressed concern that an additional 40 cars would be provided for and concentrated in one corner of the campus and pointed out that there were hundreds of deaths in the Wasatch area on an annual basis caused by air pollution problems. Ms. Stromquist said she believed air pollution studies should be provided to the residents of the area so that they could fully understand all of the impacts of this proposal. She stated that she had been informed by the Environmental Protection Agency in Denver that in order to calculate the air pollution for this area, the traffic on 1700 South, 1300 East and the shopping center in Sugar House would have to be studied to get a realistic picture of the negative impacts to the residents of the area. Ms. Stromquist said she had been informed by the Environmental Protection Agency that the carbon monoxide produced by the cars had the same weight as the surrounding air and would not dissipate but would spread for thousands of feet. She said she felt the people who lived in the area had a right to understand the level of air quality in their neighborhood and the impact of projects to that air quality.
Ms. Kathleen Anderson asked if the traffic study had included Blaine Avenue.
Mr. Wallin responded that during the times when school was not in session they had counted 15 trips, and during school, 22 trips on Blaine Avenue.
Ms. Dana Hiskey, a resident of the area, stated that all the traffic study had done was to count cars, that no survey of the students to determine why they parked where they did had been conducted.
Ms. Tilly Van Egmond asked if the college was required by ordinance to provide all of the parking they would be providing. Mr. Joyce stated that their parking would exceed the amount required by the ordinance.
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. Young asked what the staff thought of initiating a residential parking restriction program.
Mr. Joyce stated that such a program would require the approval of the residential property owners and was a separate issue from the parking request by the college.
Ms. Funk stated that part of the approval for the southwest parking structure had been for the staff to work with the residential neighborhood to resolve parking problems around the college. Mr. Joyce stated that the Transportation Division had felt it was best to delay that objective until the decision had been made on this parking structure since it would alleviate many of the problems.
Ms. Roberts stated that she did not feel prepared to vote on this matter at this time because she felt there were too many unanswered questions involved though she said that ultimately she felt this might be the best solution to the problems in the area. She suggested that the college and the neighborhood get together to resolve some of the existing problems before the Planning Commission took a vote on this matter.
Mr. McRea asked if there was really a need for more parking or if the real issue was getting the cars to the existing parking. Mr. McRea said he felt the traffic study should have addressed why people parked where they did, not just a straight vehicle count.
Mr. Young said he applauded the college for going to this length to provide parking since it was not required of them. Mr. Young said he took opposition to the property owner who had stated that his property values would be cut by one-third if the parking structure was approved since there was a parking lot in existence at this time on that exact parcel Mr. Young added that he was impacted by the traffic accessing the University of Utah and pointed out that to live in a City the size of Salt Lake City meant living with various kinds of impacts involving traffic.
Ms. Funk expressed concern relaive to lighting of the parking structure.
Mr. Jim Christopher explained that the ligt would all be directional lighting focused on the parking structure and away from the surrounding residences. Mr. Young suggested a coalition be formed of college and community representatives to solve the issues involved in this neighborhood similar to the “university Neighborhood Alliance" at the University of Utah.
Motion on Petition No. 410-188:
Mr. Young moved to approve Peition No. 410-188 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions list d in the staff report including placing a condition on the City that the Transportation Division initiate a full study of the residential parking permit program for the surrounding residential areas to help alleviate some of the parking problems in the hopes of forcing the student parking into the college parking lots.
Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Wright explained that it might be determined that a residential parking permit program might not work or might not be supported by the residential community involved, and therefore, would not be initiated by the City. Mr. Wright stated that in. that event, the conditional use~! approval for the college parking structure would still stand. He stated that an initial report could be made to the Planning Commission in 30 days with a final report on the Transportation Division's findings within about 90 days.
Mr. McRea suggested an amendment to the motion that the issue of how to create incentives to encourage on-campus parking be studied in conjunction with the residential parking permit prografl1.
Mr. Randy Wallin stated that they had looked at transportation demand management to determine how to best resolve the parking problems associated with the campus and explained that many of the students attending Westminster were adjacent and not the type who would utilize the available bus services or be disc 1uraged by a parking fee.
Mr. Wallin added that the students were more likely to heck out the peripheral parking lots than interior lots and if the peripheral lots were full, the tendency would be to park on the surrounding streets. Mr. Wallin said they believed that if they offered one major structure, the students would be familiar with the circulation patterns and more likely to utilize it than the various existing parking lots which were spread out over the campus.
Mr. Morgan explained that many of their students in the evenings were adults corning from work who would not utilize the bus services because their schedules required them to have a vehicle. Mr. Morgan said they would be willing to initiate incentive programs to encourage on-campus parking.
Ms. Short suggested an amendment to the motion that as a condition of this approval, the Planning Commission withdraw the previous approval on the southwest parking structure. Ms. Short said the college would still be able to come back to the Planning Commission for future approval of the southwest parking structure but at least this way, there would not be approval for two separate parking structures available to the college at this time, particularly since both were not immediately needed.
Mr. Wright explained that the previous approval had not been granted for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Morgan stated that they had obtained a two year extension to that approval which would be good until August, 1996. A short discussion followed on whether the Planning Commission felt they could withdraw a previous approval. It was agreed that since the college had decided not to proceed with the construction of the southwest parking structure, the approval could be withdrawn as a condition of approval for the northwest parking structure and that in the future, if the need arose, the college could return to the Planning Commission with a request to construct the southwest structure.
Mr. Young accepted the amendment to withdraw the previous approval for the southwest structure.
Ms. Roberts and Ms. Funk suggested it might be wise to postpone this matter.
Mr. Young stated that he preferred to vote on the motion and if the petitioner chose to challenge the withdrawal of the previous approval, they would cope with that matter at that time.
Mr. Wright said he believed there had been enough discussion at this meeting about the lack of need to move ahead with the southwest parking structure at this time to justify withdrawal of that approval.
Mr. Wright pointed out that the consultants on the project had advised the college to postpone construction on the southwest structure. Mr. Wright stated that the southwest parking structure was still a part of Westminster's master plan and would probably come back in the future.
Ms. Short stated that by the time this matter came back for approval, they would fully understand the impacts of the northwest parking structure.
Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young and Mr. McRea voted “Aye;" Ms. Funk voted “Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wright explained the appeal process and stated that any appeals should be filed with the City Council office within 30 days of this meeting. Mr. Wright stated that any appeal had to list an error the appellant believed the Planning Commission had made in order for the appeal to accepted and added that no new evidence would be accepted, that the appeal would be heard on the evidence presented at this meeting.
PLANNING ISSUES
Update on the Sign Ordinance
Mr. Brent Wilde and Mr. Doug Dansie led the discussion on the update of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wilde explained that during the adoption process of the new Zoning Ordinance, the Sign Ordinance chapter had been adopted on a temporary basis in order to allow the staff more time to work out the details in the ordinance.
Mr. Kirk Brimley, representing the Sign Ordinance industry, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wilde stated that the Planning Staff had worked closely with Mr. Brimley to incorporate his input in the process.
Mr. Wilde stated that the expiration date was quickly approaching and the new ordinance would not be completed before the expiration date. He stated that the Attorney's Office had recommended the Planning Commission adopt the existing ordinance as a permanent ordinance and then in the near future, adopt an amendment to that ordinance once the work on the ordinance had been completed. He handed out a schedule of events planned for the adoption process indicating a target date of the end of 1 995 for City Council adoption of the Sign Ordinance amendment. Mr. Wilde handed out copies of a chart detailing sign types, size and height standards for some of the residential and downtown zones, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. He outlined some of the highlights on those charts and informed the Planning Commission that this matter would be brought back before them for adoption of this ordinance starting with their October 19, 1995 meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.