The URL can be used to link to this page

06/15/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 15 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Councilmember Carlton Christensen Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Alice Steiner, Utah Transit Authority Property Consultant; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director; Dan Mule' , City Treasurer; Wayne Mills, Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation Planner; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Rocky Fluhart, Mayor' s Chief Administrative Officer; Dennis McKone, Administrative Assistant/Media Relations Fire Department; Jerry Burton, Police Department Administrative Services Unit Manager; Jim Lewis, Public Utilities Finance Administrator; Blaine Carlton, Bond Counsel Chapman and Cutler; Nancy Tessman, City Library Director; CJ Lawrence, Fire Department Battalion Chief; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 35 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 35 : 16 PM RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE GOALS OF THE DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN FROM ALICE STEINER, PROPERTY CONSULTANT, UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY; TIM HARPST, TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND ALEX IKEFUNA, PLANNING DIRECTOR, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION. View Attachments Alice Steiner, Tim Harpst and Alex Ikefuna briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Simonsen said he wanted input from underrepresented groups who used transit as a necessity. He said flexibility was needed to allow for input . He asked if goals were in place to address those issues . Ms . Steiner said the open house would appear several times over the next two weeks on Channel 17 . She said people were directed to comment by using a form obtained on the website . Councilmember Buhler suggested that information be made available listing times the open house would air. Mr. Harpst said they were checking to see if it was possible to have the show stream across the website on demand. He asked if the Council wanted further input . 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 15 , 2006 Councilmember Buhler said the Council had a Transportation Subcommittee comprised of Council Members Love, Saxton and Simonsen. He suggested the subcommittee look at this issue and come back to the Council . #2 . 6 : 02 : 55 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE ON MAJOR STREET PLAN MAPS, RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDORS MAPS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES. (PETITION NO. 400-05-14) View Attachments Tim Harpst, Wayne Mills and Alex Ikefuna briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #3. 6 : 17 : 38 PM DISCUSS BUDGET FOLLOW-UP ON UNRESOLVED ISSUES . View Attachments Councilmember Buhler briefed the Council . A discussion was held on who would make various motions . #4 . CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED § § 52-4-204 AND 52-4-205 (1) (b) . This item was not held. #7 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 6 : 26 : 55 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS . See File M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 6 : 33 p.m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held June 15, 2006 . bj 06 - 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing: Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart, Louis Zunguze, Ed Rutan,Tim Harpst,Alex lkefuna,Doug Dansie, Janice Jardine This memorandum pertains to a scheduled briefmg about the Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan and related items. Utah Transit Authority Development Consultant Alice Steiner, City Transportation Division Director, and City Planning Director are scheduled to brief the City Council at its work session June 15 about goals and objectives for the year-long Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan study. The study is funded by UTA and the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. The briefing is a follow up to the May 17 breakfast of community leaders where the master plan was discussed.After the breakfast and an open house the goals and objectives were revised. The revisions were presented to the master plan's management and plan advisory committees on June 8.The committees adopted motions to support the revised goals and objectives. The speakers who will brief the City Council have three aims. The first is to see if the City Council concurs with the goals and objectives that will be used for the study. The second is to ask the City Council to review six"guiding principles"that are part of the 1996 Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan and nine City Council policy statements that the Council originally adopted at an October 29, 1994,retreat.The nine policy statements were adopted to use as a way to evaluate transportation projects affecting the City. The policy statements are included in the 1996 Master Plan and have been used to evaluate items such as the placement of freeway exit ramps at 400 South Street, a future high-occupancy-vehicle ramp at 100 South Street, and light rail decisions.The third aim is to discuss with the City Council how the Downtown Transportation Master Plan will mesh with"Downtown Rising" study that already is under way and updates to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan and the 1995 Salt Lake City Downtown Plan.The latter is the adopted master plan for the downtown. UTA and City divisions have forwarded four documents for your consideration: • The revised goals and objectives for the Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan. • The six guiding principles of the 1996 Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. • The nine City Council policy statements used to evaluate transportation projects. 1 • A list of meetings and activities involving the City Downtown Transportation Master Plan and the potential numbers of people information about the Master Plan may have reached. It should be noted that the revised goals and objectives are close to the draft goals and objectives presented at the May 17 breakfast. The first goal has been broadened,but the objectives remain the same. The second,third and fourth goals and objectives are largely unchanged. The fifth goal now appears to be somewhat broadened and omits references to automobiles in the goal statement. However, the objectives remain largely the same. Two items have been added as objectives to the fifth goal: • "Quality mobility options will be available to all." • "Bicycling and all other non-motorized activities will be viable and safe. (This objective originally appeared in draft versions under Goal No. 2.) For comparison purposes, City Council staff has listed 25 goals from an April 27 meeting of the study's management and plan advisory committees.The order listed is not a prioritized list, and the list is based on City Council staff notes of the April 27 meeting. • The transportation system should be easy to use and easy to understand. • The downtown should be a walkable community. • The transportation system should be a truly multimodal plan that integrates modes of travel to create synergy. • Transportation modes in a given right of way should support and be compatible with the land-use goals around the right of way. • Salt Lake City should be a city that enables a person to get to it and travel within it without a car. • If one lives downtown, one should not need a car to get around. • The transportation system should operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. • The transportation system should eliminate dependency on automobiles and parking. • The transportation system should encourage and enable downtown residential transit oriented development. • Transit should be used as a development tool. • Facilities that are regional draws and are high-density destinations should be located near high-density transit modes. • Regional land uses should be located within walking distance of regional transit systems. • Automobile traffic flowing through Salt Lake City should be channeled instead of dispersed through neighborhoods. • People within the downtown study area should be able to park once to reach destinations within the downtown study area. • Cruising for parking spaces should be minimized. • On-street parking should be managed to assure short-term use. • Transportation should be a means to an end,not an end in itself. • The plan should establish mechanisms to manage the availability, visibility and accessibility of parking. • Any improvements to the transportation infrastructure should be designed to minimize adverse effects on properties. 7 • The plan should ensure viable bicycle access to and bicycle circulation within the downtown. • The transportation system should ensure traveler safety—perceived and actual— throughout the downtown. • Transit should be used to link various activities and districts within the downtown. • Downtown should be a regional transit transfer center that would include bus and light rail service. • Transportation efforts should identify,build and operate a complete downtown light-rail transit network to optimize overall downtown system capacity. • Identify a hierarchy of streets to achieve rational automobile circulation within the downtown. Council staff also has listed the study goals that staff presented at the April 27 meeting after checking with City Council Members. • Bus service for Salt Lake City residents should take them into and out of the downtown in a manner that is as reliable, frequent and timely as light-rail service. • A circulator system for downtown should tie together existing commercial, civic, and residential areas with areas targeted for future development and growth. • The downtown free-fare zone for light-rail and buses should extend to the limits of the area under study—Interstate 15, 700 East,North Temple and 900 South streets—as well as the 900 South Trax Station and Capitol Hill. • A downtown bus staging area or consolidated transfer point should be the result of well- considered planning and should not conflict with or detract from the operation of downtown businesses or the value of downtown residences. • A garage and parking lot for servicing, cleaning, and parking buses should be designed in a way that does not detract from other commercial, residential and civic redevelopment efforts in the downtown and the Gateway area described in the City's Gateway Master Plan. 3 SALT LAKE CITY DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Goals and Objectives GET AROUND: SLC Goal No. I—Serving Downtown: Downtown transportation will be supportive of and compatible with Salt Lake City's vision of downtown and downtown land uses, activities and businesses. Study Objectives: Serving downtown means the transportaticn system will: • Support a high quality of life for residents and visitors. • Promote sustainable, quality growth. • Encourage and optimize transit-oriented development. • Support regional commerce downtown, including office,retail and leisure land uses. Goal No.2—Pedestrian Friendly: Downtown Salt Lake Cite will be pedestrian friendly, where walking is the primary mode of transportation. Study Objectives: Pedestrian friendly means: • Transportation within downtown will not require an automobile. • People who live downtown will be able to do so without the need to own a car. • New pedestrian routes will make walking distances shorter, safer, and more appealing. • Regional transit systems will serve regional land uses with walk access. Goal No. 3—Easy to Use: All forms of downtown transportation will be easy to use and understand. Study Objectives: Easy to use means the transportation system will: • Be accessible,predictable, seamless and connected. • Integrate all travel modes to create synergy. • Serve people's needs 24/7. • Strive to ensure both the perceived and actual safety of the traveler. • Be communicated through easy to understand information. Goal No. 4—Enhanced Transit Accessibility and Mobility:All transit resources available in downtown will be used to enhance regional accessibility to downtown and mobility within downtown. Study Objectives: Enhanced transit accessibility and mobility means: • The transit system will provide optimum accessibility and capacity. • Activity nodes or districts downtown will be connected with public transit, including the potential of a dedicated circulator system. • Efficient transfers among various transit modes, including the potential of a transit center downtown. Goal No. 5—Balanced Modes:Salt Lake City will creatively address congestion and enhance mobility in ways that are compatible with the other goals and objectives for downtown. Study Objectives: Balanced modes means: • Quality mobility options will be available to all. • Bicycling and all other non-motorized modes will be viable and safe. • There will be a hierarchy of streets to efficiently move vehicular traffic into and through downtown, minimizing adverse impact on other modes or land uses. • Automobile drivers will be able to"park once" and get around downtown using other modes of transportation. • The availability,visibility and accessibility of parking will be managed to achieve efficiency and other downtown goals. • On-street parking will be managed to encourage short-term use to support retail and other short-stay activities. Approved by Plan Advisory Committee: 6/S/2006 SALT LAKE CITY TRNSPORTATION MASTER PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLES These guiding principles provide the basis upon which present and future transportation issues will be evaluated and decisions made: • Salt Lake City's transportation system will support and encourage the viability and quality of life of its residential and business neighborhoods. • Salt Lake City will create a multi-modal transportation system. Dependence on the automobile as our primary mode of transportation will be reduced by emphasizing other modes. The transportation system will be designed to move people, not just automobiles. • Salt Lake City will take a leading role in addressing regional land use issues affecting Salt Lake City and their link to transportation impacts along the Wasatch Front. • Salt Lake City will consider the impact of various transportation modes on the environment and the community. • Salt Lake City will develop funding mechanisms which are equitable and adequate to meet the capital and operational needs of the transportation system. • Salt Lake City will educate citizens about transportation issues and impacts, and encourage public involvement in the decision-making processes. City Council Transportation Policies (from the 1996 Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan) This master plan is also influenced by the transportation policies of the Salt Lake City Council which he;d a retreat on October 29, 1994 to determine how it should approach a variety of transportation issues facing the City in the next 25 years. The Council arrived at nine policy statements that make up the standard of balancing access to the City and preserving neighborhoods: 1. The Council considers neighborhoods, residential and commercial, as the building blocks of the community. 2. The Council encourages the preservation and enhancement of living environments, particularly the Downtown. 3. The Council discourages through traffic on streets other than arterial streets in residential neighborhoods. 4. The Council will focus on ways to transport people to their desired destinations, not on moving motorized vehicles at the expense of neighborhoods. 5. The Council will make and support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life in the City, not necessarily the quantity of development. 6. The Council supports the creation of a series of linkages (provisions and incentives) to foster appropriate growth in currently defined growth centers. 7. The Council supports more public-private partnerships in which all who benefit from capital improvements participate in funding those improvements. 8. The Council supports considering the impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with the impacts on transportation systems in the transportation master plan and related planning. 9. The Council supports giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan Public Involvement Activities Date Event Approximate Audience Tuesday, March 07, 2006 Downtown Alliance Trans Corn (Chamber) Tuesday, April 04, 2006 Downtown Alliance Trans Corn (Chamber) Tuesday, May 02, 2006 Downtown Alliance Trans Corn (Chamber) Wednesday, May 10, 2006 Interview re Plan and Goals on KCPW est. 10,000-15,000 (TSG) Wednesday, May 17, 2006 DA Community Leaders Breakfast(WFB) 125 Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Open House (City Council Chambers) 20 Thursday, May 18, 2006 DesNews Article on Goals Circulation 75,530 Thursday, May 18, 2006 SLC Tribune Article on Plan Circulation 130,350 Wednesday, May 31, 2006 Plan presentation at Chamber Lunch (Alta Club) 65 Month of May www.slctrans.com Website Hits 339 Thursday, June 01, 2006 Goals presentation to CC Chairs (C&C) 15 Being scheduled SLCTV-May 17 SLC-DTP Open House Unknown Thursday, June 15, 2006 Goals presentation to SLC City Council MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12,2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridor maps CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,Louis Zunguze,D.J. Baxter,Tim Harpst,Alex Ikefuna,Kevin Young, Gary Mumford, Wayne Mills, Janice Jardine This memorandum pertains to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission's Petition No. 400-05-14 to amend and update maps of Salt Lake City's Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridors. The City Council is scheduled to hear a briefing on the issue June 15. The Council also is scheduled on June 15 to set a date for a public hearing on proposed map amendments. The proposed date for the public hearing is July 6.After the hearing the City Council would consider the proposed ordinance contained in the Administration's transmittal. The proposed ordinance would codify the proposed amendments and rename one of the maps. Key Points • The maps are attachments to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. As their titles indicate, one map shows major streets and their classifications in the master plan, and the other shows existing and potential rail transit corridors. • The maps have not been updated since the City Council adopted the Transportation Master Plan in 1996. • Scheduling the July 6 public hearing date is on the Consent Agenda. Options After the July 6 public hearing: • Adopt the ordinance amending the maps. • Do not adopt the ordinance. • Adopt the ordinance,but add any amendments Council Members may wish to make. Potential Motions After the July 6 public hearing: • I move the City Council adopt the ordinance amending the Major Street Plan map and the Rail Transit Corridors map and renaming the latter map the Major Transit Facilities map, pursuant to Petition No. 400-05-14. 1 • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. • I move the City Council adopt the ordinance amending the Major Street Plan map and the Rail Transit Corridors map and renaming the latter map the Major Transit Facilities map,pursuant to Petition No. 400-05-14 with the following amendments (Council Members may add any amendments they wish.) Issues/Questions for Consideration • A consultant has begun a 12-month study that will lead to the publication of a Downtown Transportation Master Plan. Transportation Division officials have indicated that the division intends to revise the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan in conjunction with the study. Given those, will the two maps require further amendments than those now proposed? • Would the Utah Transit Authority's plans for its commuter rail line affect the Major Street Plan's designation of 500 West Street as a proposed collector street between South Temple and Victory Road? • Council staff has attached lists of proposed major street plan changes and proposed transit map changes from the Administration transmittal for quick reference by Council Members. Background/Discussion The Planning Commission initiated Petition No. 400-05-14 on May 22, 2005. The Planning Division then held two open houses—on December 7, 2005, and January 30, 2006. The Transportation Advisory Board adopted a motion on January 9,2006, to support amendments to the two maps. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on March 22, 2006. After the hearing the Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the maps. As mentioned previously, the maps originally were adopted in 1996 as part of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. Many of the proposed amendments reflect projects that have been finished since the maps originally were adopted. Some proposed changes to the maps are designed to anticipate future projects. According to the Transportation Division,the Administration would like to amend the maps to show mass transit corridors along 5600 West Street and in Sugar House. In the case of 5600 West Street the Utah Department of Transportation is conducting a major investment study of the corridor, and the Administration wants to preserve mass transit as an option. In the case of Sugar House,the Administration would like to see the Sugar House railroad spur owned by the Utah Transit Authority developed into a working transit line. The Administration indicates that it would prefer amending the maps now to include the above items on the maps rather than wait roughly 10 months for the completion of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan and the revision of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. Below are some amendments that may be of interest to the City Council. The Major Transit Facilities map includes additions of corridors on the east side of the City for"potential light rail or significant bus service" between 2100 South and Interstate 80 and from Interstate 15 to 2100 East. The latter corridor appears to include the Sugar I-louse spur—a railroad right of way owned by the Utah Transit Authority. 2 The Major Street Plan map contains about 50 changes. Seven streets or parts of streets have been removed from the map.Roughly 30 streets or stretches of streets have been added or changed to reflect their existing uses. A future interchange at 7200 West Street south of the City limit has been added. So has an interchange at 1800 North Street and Interstate 15. One item the City Council may wish to explore is the designation of 500 West Street between South Temple Street and Victory Road from an existing local street to a proposed collector street. The City Council may wish to determine if the Utah Transit Authority's plans to build a commuter rail line to the Intermodal Hub at 600 West 200 South may affect that designation. It should be noted that the Transportation Master Plan defines a collector street as one that provides "connection between arterial and local streets. Collectors can be multi-lane but are meant to carry less traffic at lower speeds ... than arterials. They provide direct access to abutting property and carry a mix of local traffic and commuter traffic headed for nearby destinations." 3 a 3 0 Cl) 0 o © CV \ C / 7 a / m 0 9 2 o o _ ._ 9 o \ - - } a Es a) /o \ / § \ \ £ 2 E 2 y a) 0 \ / 2 / ® ■ CU G ° > 0 � CD Clj 7 / e / Cr) '`- CO 2 ± C 0 2 0 0 0 0 U CO RI e C ® C \ m / 2 / » / 0 D E 9 / / / = 2 2 - -0 2 E ° = 5 ' 2 - @ \ o o ± e o % 2 / 2 — g C 0 0 / \ 0 2 / « k g 3 \ CO NJ 2 0 E \ \ E ,_ a a 3 - 7 2 4 % ° 2 a) w / 0 o0 w / k o ƒ / 0 / / \ ts @ § 0 0 \ 0 \ O 0 0 CL \ 0o 0 o / c. / \ CO o E _I 0 D 2 / \ _0 c 0 R co 2 \ 2 U o / 0 - C / f \ z ) la g \ _§ / 0 ± E y (3 / o .} 2 - 'E • •7 J f 3 ./ 4- \ 0 E 0 2 0 E c e / D C 0 f _o) 0 / \ $ ± 2 O C ° - — .0 / 2 0 / ° - m E \ % 2 % \ ƒ 0 0 > ƒ 0 / / / - 0 t 2 n s s 0 - J / % 3 / 0 \ co `O m r a) 0 (0 C _O a 0 in 0) (II CO (0 N (D U (II TO (6 TO 'X C a) O a a) o O N a) a) a) a) N 0 O '-!_,...-- C t t t o t U O U O t t t U O 0 X O (II (D • -- a .(D _ (p _ - 0 -ri) (B a3 .- (II O v Q) 0 Q) U a s co a co a m o o a CO rn a) 0) 2 o o _� 0 a) H d a) a) c c t o a) 0 C) O 0 c c c c c - a) O U O O co a] O O O a • • Oa) a s U O o 0 C O O n 0 a o) u) -) m v c ca a Q 'X a rn a a) a) X X X Xo a) a) a ma cc so o a c c c o c o c 0 0 a) a) 0 a) Lo o RJ U a s 0 in in in Q m O� n Oa o O o O O �II 0 Oa in U 0 in a 0▪ N a a -o ax) N a)a)) a aa)) -n a) a a a -o -0 -O x x_ _ _ _ _ _ a) c a a a) c a a) („`D > > 0 a a a a a a a U) N a a a a a a = a o 0 0 a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o a) a a a) a) E o 0 �6 o E E oo- -o -o s E a a a -0 oo_ 0n- o0 O O° E a a a a a c Q- o a CD a) -o a -o a) a a a a o a a a -o -a (2) a CI. a. CC CC Q < < < < < < < aa a o_ a. < Q < < < o a ,r, F- 0 C1 w to C 6. O m . ,1 O in CZ co a) -o c -c > 0 in E .0 a (II 0 CO oo = 0 _ L V) U) L L - V) coN > .�, L V) U) U) U) (n CD (II u) a) a) a) .L-. L a) a) a) a) O Y L. ° (0 L o 0 0 > > o o U o a U oo (o m ,n o Q o CD (J) (n 0 Cj) co >, a) O O U) 0 0 0 0 O� o CO E 0 cv Q. -o Z C)N 0 © o 0 o 0 3 j °J 00 (0 o 0 m 0 C. co w -- - co 0 0 () CO ,- CO 0 0 -C 0 o r- (O 10 in IC) a) O o 0 O O O O O N o in 0) a_) O O O O O 0 2O O a) Q _o CO O _ 0 0 S t (p C C L U) o () () U) .- L V) L () U) (n U) o 3 0 o o - o o c c at o cn o o is L c z o 0 o 0 o o .2 .2 a) 3 0 0 o 0 o L o o -L .0 o 0 0 in o 0 ( - 0 0 0 0 - a 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 t 0 J 0 0 ciD co) •ov - Q IC) If) o 0 in 0 U RR IY ti (v oo u~-) (Nn c o CO c 0 a 0 o` >, 0 co a) o s 0 a) 0 a) C a) I (0 a) L 0 E () _C• > CD c L t t -c U) _C U) U) V) U) U) Q) > (i = L fn Z co LCa) t 0 O 0 5 a) a) a) (II a) a) O O C C _ 3' a) p O o 03 (. 0 z z z o c 3 cn co o 0 0 co (I)- c z o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a) o U) co 0 0 CO +, CD O O O O O O > L O N N O O OOOO = OON O (.0 0 O 0 0- (I) > Q -) CO N N N rt in U) in 0 co co ,- N 2 co co co N- u) ,- N COTo co - U) (D (- CO 0) CDN Oco V in a c) CO co C U) (D N- CO (7) )-- .- r- ,- )- ,- N N N N N N D N 0) O C U c O 41 X U O N p) a) a) U Q) p) N a) C)) Q) X (a 0) O) Q) 0) -0 (n t C C t •t t t (0 C C a) 7) C C C C C a) (6 O '� '� (a (6 a1 -p C U .u) X t u) U) U) in O O CO D U -X 'X D co co co 0 73 u) X X U X X X X C). N 0 ° c a) O a) a) a) C c c 0 a) 'x a) N a) Q co Q) a) a) O O O c a) O m O .N .N O O v Q) O o `o ,- 0 0 a @ @ a a @ N = t a) aa)) 2 a`> 0 0 2 aX) aa)) aa)) a 2 ro o o - a) .X 0 0 0 (a 0 t O Q t Q O O o p 0- O 2 ° 0 a) a) a) a) a) (a (II W 0 0 0 0 O U U S y 'O 'D 'D -0 o C "O OL. a) O P O O O O O V fa a) a) > c O O j a) a) a) O O O •- O O O O O O 0) 0 (6 (0 "D U (0 C = O O O U U 0 O O O CI Oi 2 O t0B O O aa)) 2 2 2 O O 'C O O -0 0 t a) a) (0 (0 (0 X G. a_ a a � O o o QC a a a 0 (u o U < w- a) CC O O O O a) F- d d 6. y C i. _ Y O u, -3. (C w -c L o o (1) CO 0 o a) _C 0 13 (O _C _CN 10 _C O' Cr >oU) Rf y 7 7 O U) C) a) L ? > = 0 7 m O O �. _Ca _C CO o n U aoO WO a)c — - (a C. 0a o E o �( CD o a) Xtio O v O o o o c O uo CY Z o ._ _ ° o o > COco U a co U N N C a Z ° OO O O d. @ .- U) V' O 0 0 Z 0 a) a Q a) a) ° ° 2. O OO - L N O O 3Q 0 0 0 Qa _c O L Cn > O O U) U) > c U) a) O ° O O U) _ E O co >a) F- F- (6 O O U) O O O O O c c tf) - L_ O U) > L O O U O f` O O C. CO co w to CO t `-" L) � - 10 O O F- O O O 7 7 O O O O CO f` N (0 r 0 N O a) - co 0 • O co O 0 0 J (.D n N- '- - CO U - n- C — — Z cr ' — LL Z e-- .- f- Cl) (..0 a) 0) C co L U a) a) C y C_ L �. L L ,, Q) _ _ ld u) 7 U) U) (n (n u) u) (n t.• .0 V) (a •0 u) (U >• _C C (O Z a) o a) a) Z U c0 N Q) U 5 U r (0 7 7 N N O CO > > > _ u) 3 _ _ C Z 0 Z ". u( CO L o o a) (0 O O O O O CD O .0 C) C) O O O O C) C N U) U) 5 O CO O C) CT) (o N (0 r) (D O CD O (O CD (0 C.) m - O CD CD CV CO !- CO VT V N CO - N N (N - CD d U CO > ,- C C) O O O Z) (/) V V V V V U) co N N N N '-- Z r- N -- D V co u7 tD N R) (1 CT) f-- CO 6) O C1 CO V I-() CC) (- CO (3) O N CO V CT) (D f- CO 6) c) __-.._ N (V N N (3 r) CO CO co co co CO (o co _ V V N- V V" V V V V V - ) A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE w.:` ' ,.I(121-vF!i1iT�rI� eltP0 II ON, ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR APR 1 9 2006 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTALNSr TO: Rocky Fluhart, Ch ief Administrative Office? ` 'll E: .1 4, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Direct RE: Petition 400-05-14 by the Salt Lake City Planning Co sion to amend/update the Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridors maps. The maps are companion documents to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan adopted in 1996. STAFF CONTACTS: Wayne Mills, Senior Planner, at 535-6173 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: In 1996, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. As part of this Master Plan, the City adopted three companion documents known as the: • Major Street Plan map; • Rail Transit Corridors map; and • Bikeways Master Plan From time to time it is necessary to update the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan map documents to reflect changes to the City's transportation system. In September of 2004, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan,which contains an updated Bikeways Master Plan map. On May 22,2005,the Planning Commission initiated a petition directing the Planning Division and the Transportation Division to update the Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridors maps. Analysis: Pursuant to the Planning Commission directive,the Planning Division and the Transportation Division reviewed the 1996 Major Street Plan map and the Transit Corridors map. In cases where the 1996 maps identified a street or transit project as "proposed"and that 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535.7105 FAX: B01-535-6005 WWW.S LCGOV.COM �� accrc�eo vcncw street or transit project has been completed, the 2006 maps included amendments to reflect those changes. Staff also amended the maps to reflect current studies for new projects, such as, the options for the Mountain View Corridor and future rail transit extensions. The proposed Major Street Plan Map, the existing Major Street Plan Map (adopted in 1996), and a spreadsheet identifying the major changes to the 1996 map are attached as Exhibit 1 in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The proposed Major Transit Facilities Map, the existing Transit Map (adopted in 1996), and a spreadsheet identifying the major changes to the 1996 Transit Map are attached as Exhibit 2 in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Master Plan Considerations: The Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan(adopted in 1996) states that the companion maps to the plan"will be updated on a regular basis." The proposed amendments to the Major Street Plan and the Transit Corridors Map are updates as directed in the Transportation Master Plan. In addition to the Transportation Master Plan,the following community master plans were reviewed as to comments regarding the Major Street Plan and Transit Facilities Maps: • Northwest—Jordan River/Airport (adopted, January, 1992) • Avenues (adopted, July, 1987) • Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, H Rock (adopted, October, 1998) • West Salt Lake (adopted, March, 1995) • Rose Park (adopted, September, 2001) • Downtown (adopted, February, 1995) • Visionary Gateway (not an adopted plan) • Sugar House (adopted, November, 2001) • East Bench (adopted, April, 1987) • East Downtown (adopted, September, 1990) • Capitol Hill (adopted, November, 1999) • Central Community (adopted, November, 2005) The following community master plans make recommendations regarding the Major Street Plan and Transit Facilities maps. The comments following the recommendations reflect whether or not the changes are proposed in the transportation map updates. Arcadia Heights,Benchmark,H Rock Master Plan Recommendation(page 15): Wasatch Drive should be reclassified from a"collector street"to a"local street." Staff Response: In response to the Master Plan recommendation, the proposed Major Street Plan shows Wasatch Drive, between 1300 South and 2100 South, as a local street. Petition 400-05-14—Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridors Page 2 of 5 Rose Park Small Area Plan Recommendation (page 9): 900 West at 1000 North—900 West should be extended northward into the existing bridge, which will connect to the Warm Springs frontage road. Staff Response: Currently, the subject bridge connects to northbound 1-15. Changing that bridge so that it connects to the Warm Springs frontage road can only occur when 1-15, north of 600 North, is rebuilt. Reconfiguring the existing bridge will require more study during future evaluations of an 1-15 North reconstruction project. Downtown Master Plan Recommendation(page 20): Improve 500 West to provide a freeway frontage road/secondary access route from the south that is away from residential areas. Staff Response: 500 West, between 800 South and South Temple has been changed to an existing collector and between South Temple and Victory Road it has been change to a proposed collector in response to the master plan recommendation. Recommendation(page 20): Close or narrow 2nd Avenue at State Street to discourage through traffic in residential areas. Second and Third Avenue should be reconverted to two way traffic. This is to discourage through traffic in the Avenues. Similar measures should also be taken on 100, 200 and 300 South, east of 700 East, to prevent excess traffic from moving onto these residential streets. Staff Response: The recommendations are beyond the scope of the proposed map updates and require further study to determine the overall impacts to the City transportation system. Recommendation(page 21): Victory Road should be disconnected from direct access to Beck Street to encourage commuter traffic to use 300 and 400 West rather than travel through the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Staff Response: Victory Road and Beck Street are Utah State owned arterial streets. Any change of these roadways must be coordinated and studied by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). Representatives from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division meet quarterly with representatives from UDOT. There is no indication from these meetings that UDOT intends to disconnect or change these roadways; therefore, the Victory Road and Beck Street configuration have not been proposed to be changed at this time. The City will continue to work with UDOT in addressing this issue. Petition 400-05-14—Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridors Page 3 of 5 Sugar House Master Plan Recommendation/Policy (page 44): Evaluate the feasibility of reclassifying 1700 South, 2700 South, 900 East, and 1100 East/Highland Drive from"city arterial"to "collector" when the Transportation Master Plan is updated. Staff Response: The Transportation Division finds that these streets should continue to be classified as City arterials because they carry higher traffic volumes from neighborhood to neighborhood, which falls under the definition of an arterial street. Capitol Hill Recommendation/Policy (page 17) : Strongly support a 500 West collector system from Davis County to provide access to Downtown while bypassing residential areas of the Capitol Hill Community. Staff Response: 500 West, between 800 South and South Temple has been changed to an existing collector and between South Temple and Victory Road it has been change to a proposed collector in response to the master plan recommendation. PUBLIC PROCESS: Two separate Open Houses were conducted to obtain citizen comments on the proposed map amendments. The first was held on December 7, 2005; no one attended. The second was held on January 30, 2006 with two people in attendance. One written response was received as a result of the open house notification (the individual responding was unable to attend the open house). The letter is attached as Exhibit 6 in the Planning Commission Staff Report(Exhibit 5b in this transmittal). In the letter, the citizen, who represents the Parley's Rails, Trails and Tunnels (PRATT) Coalition, requests that the Parley's Creek Trail is recognized and included as a component in Salt Lake City's intermodal transportation system and in the Major Transit Corridors Plan. The letter states that money has been obtained to fund the trail. There are two proposed alignments of the trail, one being in the Sugar House rail corridor, which has been proposed as a Potential Long Range Light Rail or Significant Bus Service Corridor on the proposed Major Transit Facilities map. The PRATT Coalition would like to see the rail corridor developed as a bicycle/pedestrian trail with the possibility of a single track trolley as long as it preserves room for the trail. Staff Response: The Parley's Creek Trail is identified on the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as a proposed route. This is the appropriate location to ident5 a future trail and it is not necessary to identify it on the Major Transit Facilities map. The proposed map amendments were presented to the Transportation Advisory Board(TAB) on January 9, 2006. The minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit 5 in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The TAB voted unanimously in support of the proposed maps with Petition 400-05-14—Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridors Page 4 of 5 the recommendation that the Potential Long Range Light Rail or Significant Bus Service Corridor between 2100 South and I-80 be extended eastward to connect with 2100 East (this corridor was previously shown to end at 1300 East). The Major Transit Facilities map was amended to reflect the Transportation Advisory Board's recommendation. A Planning Commission public hearing was held on January 25, 2006. The Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridors maps. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: The Salt Lake City Code does not address standards for amendments to adopted City master plans; however, Section 10-9a-401 of the Utah State Code states that each municipality shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long range general plan for: 1. Present and future needs of the municipality; and 2. Growth and development of all or any part of the land within the municipality. Utah State Code further states that the plan may provide for health, general welfare, safety, energy conservation, transportation,prosperity, civic activities, aesthetics, and recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities. The Major Street Plan map and the Major Transit Facilities map are companion documents to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, which is part of the overall general plan for Salt Lake City. The Transportation Master Plan guides the City in making transportation related decisions, which affects the"present and future needs of the City"and"growth and development of the land within the City."The Planning Commission finds that the proposed updates to the Major Street Plan map and the Rail Transit Corridors map are in keeping with Utah State regulations for general plans (see page 9 of the Planning Commission Staff Report in Exhibit 5b). Petition 400-05-14—Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridors Page 5 of 5 PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION TRANSMITTAL SUBMISSION FORM Transmittal Title: iet/tY/1//A # WO— tita4 Date Submitted to CD: 1-3 DG (Transmittals must be submitted by no later than 12:00 p.m.on the due date.) Scheduled for Council? ❑ Yes Date: No Director's Signature: Comments/Special Instructions: CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance 3. Notice of City Council Hearing 4. Mailing Labels 5. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice with Postmark b. Staff Report c. Agenda and Minutes 6. Original Petition 1. Chronology CHRONOLOGY June 1, 2005 Petition Assigned June 1, 2005 to September 23, 2005 Development of Draft Maps September 29, 2005 Routed Proposed Maps to City Departments/Divisions October 3, 2005 Mailed Proposed Maps to Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Department of Transportation, and Utah Transit Authority October 14, 2005 Mailed Proposed Maps to West Valley City, South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Davis County, and North Salt Lake November 22, 2005 Mailed Notice of 1st Public Open House December 7, 2005 Public Open House (0 in attendance) January 9, 2006 Transportation Advisory Board Review January 12, 2006 Mailed Notice of 2' Public Open House January 30, 2006 Public Open House (2 in attendance) February 14, 2006 Routed Final Draft of Maps to City Departments/Divisions February 21, 2006 Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing Advertised in the Salt Lake Tribune February 21, 2006 Mailed Notification of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Public Hearing March 9, 2006 Requested Ordinance from City Attorney March 22, 2006 Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Ratified 2. Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Two Portions of the Transportation Master Plan: (A) Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification, and (B)Rail Transit Corridors, and Renaming Rail Transit Corridors to Major Transit Facilities) AMENDING TWO PORTIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN: (A) MAJOR STREET PLAN: ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION, AND (B) RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDORS, AND RENAMING RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDORS TO MAJOR TRANSIT FACILITIES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-14. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed two amendments to the Transportation Master Plan: (A) Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification, and (B) Rail Transit Corridors, and renaming Rail Transit Corridors to Major Transit Facilities is in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN. A. The Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification shall be and hereby is amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. B. The Rail Transit Corridors shall be and hereby is amended as set forth in Exhibit B hereto and shall be and hereby is renamed to Major Transit Facilities. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt City Attorn ys Office Date VV By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Amending Major Street Plan and Major Transit Facilities-03-13-06 draft.doc 2 \ ZZ9\ oov 1 p 1 e{Lii go III I I IISe 7� j.7O '� 1` VV Q o �� J U�yN Z •$ E' 6g ��L�\ J� � Yz5$� P e of .0[ o = e ° r •�.c III 1�� o'j X 1 $ f m° 4 ,4/��.� I111111111VIII l _o/) �4 1�1 0 °1 1./1 Iil e g /, 0� Il�idti7,Io ,I�o �;� fi11F. iD € i% f a g p.�0oo00� \o�all000tlouoa, _ al ::d Ei i s fgE i_- cl€ ii6l8 • i J 1(PdL 1IHñ W;s U � � 9�1 ® w Gp a ,,io�av 4 - ), E �EI .. ■��_�%^I , __ l;�°000311 -:�z \� idling.°, Pl! ; 000. boo-"V -0' °T �% & $ Hill y e. �e • ✓�/r� �o°Da.o°a �'�C Q�iI=I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 7�� Ja, 1.; 11 as'i-millio. r' 8a� • • \lt �000°000° ! of ,. �� -AII■;IIIooO ' + I I I t ■ ■ .•�oee000000 {{■a 1 _e•u.�.e 11 o00 7. 1 I� •0000000ao11cllllllll I �'�II I ■ ■ ��o°°.:00000000o Eil! ! III 7r if s3• • - - r. ■IIIIIIE l�, 1� Irl "-=1 I : IIIIIII_ � dam Sao°o°po°oo°°. II nh �I119 ��II1111■_ ,.7.4 UU 7Q 00000c 1A 1 r =oo 1-4 e- I I I I W I I �'- Jlr, ,' III - I_I I�� p�oQa� +�1: I:�l/e oo�C' lira �' iE-Ci:IH111 �o9a000 ■�lrrll `■�@' s�illgll I■ II1VL■.t■U■3W�'aliii III. 1 IIIIF�- JIMMO■11111l■•_■ ;,,ram A NM w�■- - — ./1 VC*M ��,°r°-rg '�i �:I1.a1Hai_ ,1\__se,- T I A■�.�= - .— ==y r „. _ LIB- nn1 ni,In _r�- ��c]tle r' 1i• 1, I` Illtll, I�ZIo = 11111 iIIWj51 G�'d"�oii�o OOG0t1� `�` cd � �: ou � �.- `. ILL II oo- r kipb-1-1-16°._,...Ntx" en i limipi--• i'':71- 11 I-- (.<5 CO a ., in - -n------11:tii,5__ ___%. "" , /'iddRISIIIIIN: Z c 111 II O z lw� �r... a. , i tH >, imMi llr ,j\� ' Na 3 I! . Oak (n 4.44 .„,,,, 411111 Z o < Z I!" ' ,_� t_ .� g N E_ wtoin -:., n <1i r . 1 ... ...: -- , - - J ,N -\ \',,,\ ", • : i 1 fr i I 0 1)) / J r s. M P m / I JOHN GLENN 7 / o I C.... IF § I 1-ill 70D uy 1 }C I � �_ —1 z �E Dig .a1 } IL a. e�oTHeas CI 1-, -= lark \ o 7-4 io` ' .Y Lam' - o�� '�� D�' 6000W °ll MOLL, -._ ,. (may D3800 W /. — Doti [IGrGG! "c- �` -� o I�pf lo, I I� cmn z ` I � ? �'1 �- U�— -_ ER� `A� IL ` ] I-- , :!A, `,., L....LA.-17!;-1 2200 W \ k WI , „,,... • ��o1DYL___; ra h c�1a d�..�� i L1-j 17- o`Q°°u.4.' O , 'IA i _•000ul ") , 4 dG o��1G0obtUri - I 'oJoo °SJJL'� oo°oilloo8 LJ - + _✓/ , 00000"i l,_( 4n Ir r S o0 0 ° GI IGOpCGGOGL a JnCvC3QoISI r- D o 0�130AIo 9 ��o�0000. .-� �`s�❑o o°o CGLvCG LIli�O��TMpQ�o C Iy ,. "L. v 000 Io SIN.Pg GUC L JLdl l91a��lo1 ooFo� z I rD l Y y I,G'�.".j0 1-I EEERJCJOOL NP- a C -- - , E s t� �O000lO�CCoCO� '. e,, ,du zou o co 6- ,=00,W uooE11o�o 1. a _ in k V# CO o D / • Gt1BIGG�GCL °,GG _. I_L-LL "_ L� 04- • 1 v A m mO ° Loo C0_ 1OragrAr (� � A� , r....o.,.,"OO / _ a� G 'ol°^^ao ;, _:i- .• ,L�[r� QL _ ❑U �qo ql—JG000nonul4 � i } L� 1°O � • � zz ToGE_ wEEn011000c_LL ooE a u �� 'c o sl000d11E1"BEIID❑oMEHI❑ C❑❑°°°°° b. , tt IuGGGGIGENIEIEE3o000o❑dC19L 0 1188oEoO:°n. A .I00GGG0 vGGOGBEECfloG L 0I Mn❑CJ°°°°°°° ° °°I2f, 500E.. ,,jc3. - o�o 0��❑°°o°°°oo _ riEM. m1Goo..DOLTl� B= L_. G ❑°°°°r°n ° ., \ r I i0o000011E E000FNLIo I I I co I IL u -AI i=i � Ioo,=,00,o:,�c• o sjc°° ° O °V (\ [ ouoo lGo°000� ° °°° '7I ( il • °°°°1000Iio G�1E=: Po0gG°°O il"� CCCI yi- I o1■i1L O,c°°o )if1 _ -1 + CC CC m g. !D Z O zzL906- �1 1- II 1 EIEFOLa°o° mII --/ mz zz z o m mpp { (aIl000? 1 ll1111111 \ f � Y • ��pQ00C�{trinityY O ' o oo ,1 - 1Goo00NGGIIII1OIIMi � 1 ' poGD> rOOm 0i - FZ " ` � mcgro10]0E V -�vL �GG000 ,� W� m A Dm � M ,�'- ddd I ❑o 0 ,ciw000moiku . zo z $ o x --E&S, IRIEqLKILi GGCGGGoo 9 r � AAm m r Z la ' 'E IZ; INIEM0Guo —\ Miud � O N r Z r 2 C-p ds z14 J •..n .I i ', . 0, , A m O k z L0 III f a F.OA ' � � y * _� — � � ' a I Z o A En W. • • 3. Notice of City Council Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-05-14, a petition initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend/update the Major Street Plan and Transit maps. The maps are companion documents to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan adopted in 1996. The City Council is holding a public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, the Planning staff may present information on the proposal and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: ROOM 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City If you have any questions relating to this proposal,please attend the meeting or contact Wayne Mills at 535-6173, or e-mail wayne.mills@slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the City Council Office at 535-7600; TDD 535-6021. 5. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice with Postmark b. Staff Report c. Agenda and Minutes a. Original Notice with Postmark c r LAl<E C T/, ,scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, February 22,2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters a) UTOPIA, DBA Murray City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Murray City, as part of the UTOPIA project is requesting that Public Utilities grant a standard utility permit to allow the installation of aerial fiber-optic telecommunications cables to cross the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department owned Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property located at approximately 700 East and 6700 South in Murray City. The Public Utilities Department Staff intends to approve the standard utility permit. (Staff -Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karrvn.greenleaf(a),slcaov.com or Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or douq.wheelwright anslcgov.com). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS . b) Petition 400-05-17-A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend/update the Major Street Plan and Transit maps. The maps are components of and are amendments to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan adopted in 1996. These maps cover the entire City boundary(Staff- Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne.mills(c�slcgov.com). c) Petition 400-05-43-A request by Blake Henderson to amend the zoning map to change the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from RMF-35 to RMF-45 to build a new multi-family housing development. The City may also consider rezoning properties at approximately 50 South 900 East and 845 East 100 South (rear)from RMF-35 to RMF-45 to better conform with the existing land uses and be consistent with the proposed changes by the applicant. This proposal will also require an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as medium-high density residential rather than medium density residential. (Staff- Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doua.dansie(a..slcoov.com). 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Petition Number 410-571 -Applicants; Van Cott, Bagley, Conwall & McCartney Profit Sharing Trust, request an additional six-month extension of the approval period for the Conditional Use, changing the expiration date from March 16, 2006, to September 16, 2006. The project is a six-unit Residential Planned Unit Development located at 910 South Donner Way. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be March 22, 2006. This information can be accessed at www.slceov.com/CED/planning. b. Staff Report DATE: March 1, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Wayne Mills, Senior Planner RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE MARCH 8, 2006 MEETING CASE#: 400-05-14 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Planning Commission PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: Not Applicable COUNCIL DISTRICT: District One, Carlton Christensen District Two. Van Turner District Three, Eric Jergensen District Four, Nancy Saxton District Five, Jill Remington Love District Six, Dave Buhler District Seven, Soren Simonsen REQUESTED ACTION: Amend/Update the 1996 Major Street Plan and Major Transit Corridors Maps APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Not Applicable MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, adopted in 1996 Staff Report, Petition#400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In 1996, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. As part of this Master Plan, the City adopted three companion maps known as the: • Major Street Plan; • Major Transit Corridors Plan; and • Bikeways Master Plan From time to time it is necessary to update the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan map documents to reflect changes to the City's transportation system. In September of 2004, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which contains an updated Bikeways Master Plan map. On May 22, 2005, the Planning Commission initiated a petition directing the Planning Division and the Transportation Division to amend the Major Street Plan map and Rail Transit Corridors Plan map. The Major Street Plan identifies and classifies existing and proposed freeways, arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets within Salt Lake City. The street classifications are defined as follows: Freeways/Expressways— State Routes A roadway, which typically has higher speeds, medians, grade separations at all railroads and grade separations or interchanges at selected crossroads. Freeways are intended to provide high levels of safety and efficiency in moving high volumes of traffic at high speeds. Arterials— State Routes These are State Highways operated and maintained by the Utah Department of Transportation that typically operate as arterial streets. Arterials— City Streets Arterial Streets facilitate through traffic movement over relatively long distances, such as from one end of the City to the other and from neighborhood to neighborhood. Arterials are generally multi-lane streets carrying high traffic volumes at relatively high speed limits. These are commuter streets and typically offer controlled access to abutting property. Collector Streets Collector streets provide the connection between arterial and local streets. Collectors can be multi-lane, but are meant to carry less traffic at lower speeds and for shorter distances than arterials. They provide direct access to abutting property and carry a mix of local traffic and commuter traffic headed for nearby destinations. Local Streets Local streets provide direct access to and from abutting property. Local streets are usually one lane in each direction meant to carry traffic over short distances and at low speeds. Staff Report,Petition#400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 2 The Major Transit Corridors Plan identifies existing and proposed rail corridors as well as areas to be evaluated for significant bus service. The changes proposed to both maps reflect completed projects and recommendations from other Salt Lake City Master Plans and regional transportation studies. The proposed Major Street Plan Map, the existing Major Street Plan Map (adopted in 1996), and a spreadsheet identifying the major changes to the 1996 map are attached as Exhibit 1. The proposed Major Transit Facilities map, the existing transit map (adopted in 1996), and a spreadsheet identifying the major changes to the 1996 transit map are attached as Exhibit 2. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS COMMENTS: City Departments/Divisions The proposed maps were routed to the pertinent City Departments/Divisions on two occasions. The first draft of the maps was routed on September 29, 2005. The final draft was routed on February 14, 2006. The comments received from pertinent City Departments/Divisions are attached to this staff report for review (see Exhibit 3). The following is a summary of all comments/concerns received: A. Public Utilities: No comments received. B. Engineering: l 100 South Street, between 4800 West and 5600 West, should be shown as an existing collector. Construction of 1 100 South was completed last year as part of the Union Pacific Hub project. Planning Staff Comment: The Major Street Plan has been amended to reflect the Engineering Division's comment. C. Building Services: The Building Services Division has no comments regarding the proposal. D. Transportation: The Transportation Division supports the proposed changes to the Major Street Plan map and the Major Transit Facilities map of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. E. Fire: The Fire Department has no objections or comments regarding this proposal. F. Airport: The following comments refer to streets on and near the airport. 1) Draft Major Street Plan, dated September 6, 2005 (22" x 36") Staff Report, Petition#400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 3 a) The terminal loop road is shown as a local street directly connecting to Interstate-80 and has been rerouted since this street map. This is a unique roadway that does not meet the definition of a collector or arterial road. Namely, this road does not carry traffic long distances, does not connect city neighborhoods, and the speed limit is low at 10 miles per hour in front of the terminals. This road should remain as a local road so that the near future changes to the loop road can be made. The Airport recommends no change to the airport loop road classification as a local street. b) The loop road exit road has been relocated and is not shown correctly. Additionally, 4000 West does not allow public access under the two taxiways as indicated. 2) Existing Major Street Plan, dated April 16, 1996 (1 1"x 17")along with 3) Spreadsheet identifying the significant changes to the Major Street Plan a) West Davis Highway (Spreadsheet #1)—Agreed that this street should be removed from the map. b) 2200 North (Spreadsheet #4)—4000 West and 2200 North Streets are located completely on-airport with only airport-controlled access. These streets do not meet the definition of a city arterial street. Namely these streets do not carry traffic from neighborhood to neighborhood and terminate at the airport's north support area. These two streets should be further discussed to ensure the correct classification is assigned— that being local or an arterial street. c) The Terminal road system should be classified as a local street, rather than an arterial or collector street. It does not meet the definitions for either classification as previously discussed in I a) above. d) 3200 West Street, north of 2200 North, should be classified as a local street. It is a dirt road. 4) Draft Major Transit Facility Plan, dated September 6,2005 (11"x 17") a) The map is correctly shown for a single in/out light rail track serving the airport. The map is shown correctly. Planning Staff Comment: The comments received from the Department of Airports are reflected on the maps proposed to the Planning Commission. G. City Council Staff: On the map marked Major Transit Facilities there is a tan box bordered by North Temple, 200 East, 900 South and the I-15 freeway. The box is labeled Potential Downtown Circulator. Is there any way to drop the word Potential from the label, and is there a way to extend the blue Planned Light Rail line down 400 West Street and east to meet the existing light rail line at 700 South 200 West? Staff Report, Petition#400-05-I4 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 4 Planning Staff Comment: In response to the comments received from City Council Staff the proposed map identifies the transportation corridor surrounding downtown as the "Future Downtown Circulator" instead of"Potential Downtown Circulator. " The comment regarding a planned light rail line down 400 West and connecting to the existing light rail line requires future study. The recommendation may be studied in a future downtown transportation study and any changes recommended from that study would be covered on the proposed transit map under the "Future Downtown Circulator" designation. H. Mayor's Office No comments received. Other Agencies/Organizations A draft of the proposed maps was mailed to representatives of: • Davis County • City of North Salt Lake • City of South Salt Lake • Salt Lake County • West Valley City • Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) • Utah Transit Authority (UTA) • Wasatch Front Regional Council The only agency to respond with comments was West Valley City. A summary of the comments are as follows (full comments are attached as Exhibit 4): 1 . Years ago there was a discussion with Salt Lake City regarding the possibility of an interchange at 4800 West from SR-201. The idea was that an interchange could be helpful to the developing properties around it and reduce some of the demand on Bangerter Highway and 5600 West. Would this be beneficial to pursue in a future expansion plan for SR-201. Planning Staff Comment: Representatives from the Planning Division and Transportation Division remember having discussions regarding 4800 West and SR-201; however, the discussion was regarding the possibility of bridging 4800 West over or under SR-201. At the time, West Valley City was not willing to protect the right-of-way necessary for the 4800 West corridor. Due to the past discussion, the 4800 West issue was never pursued and Salt Lake City does not foresee pursuing this in the future. 2. What are Salt Lake City's thoughts on the extension of 2100 South to the west from 5600 West. The proposed maps show the road as a collector, probably just collecting traffic from the West Valley City side. The road has not been discussed much in the context of the Mountain View Corridor. Should Salt Lake City and West Valley City mutually promote the road connection to 5600 West as an added expense of the Mountain View Staff Report, Petition #400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 5 Corridor? 3. 7200 West is the other alternative for the Mountain View Corridor. What are your thoughts concerning that alignment? Planning Staff Comment on items 1&2: The specific details of the Mountain View Corridor will be addressed upon study of the future alignment. Salt Lake City will work with West Valley City to determine which alignment addresses both jurisdiction's needs and recommend that alignment, as well as links to the alignment, to the Utah Department of Transportation. Generally, Salt Lake City's planning efforts seem to be harmonious with West Valley City. Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) The proposed map amendments were presented to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on January 9, 2006. The minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit 5. The TAB voted unanimously in support of the proposed maps with the recommendation that the Potential Long Range Light Rail or Significant Bus Service Corridor between 2100 South and I-80 be extended eastward to connect with 2100 East (this corridor was previously shown to end at 1300 East). The Major Transit Facilities map was amended to reflect the Transportation Advisory Board's recommendation. Citizen/Community Comments Two separate Open Houses were conducted to obtain citizen comments on the proposed map amendments. The first was held on December 7, 2005 with no attendance. The second was held on January 30, 2006 with two people in attendance. One written response was received as a result of the open house notification (the individual responding was unable to attend the open house). The letter is attached as Exhibit 6. In the letter, the citizen, who represents the Parley's Rails, Trails and Tunnels (PRATT) Coalition, requests that the Parley's Creek Trail is recognized and included as a component in Salt Lake City's intermodal transportation system and in the Major Transit Corridors Plan. The letter states that money has been obtained to fund the trail. There are two proposed alignments of the trail, one being in the Sugar House rail corridor, which has been proposed as a transit corridor. The PRATT Coalition would like to see the rail corridor developed as a bicycle/pedestrian trail with the possibility of a single track trolley as long as it preserves room for the trail. The Potential Long Range Light Rail or Significant Bus Service Corridors designation in question is a swath encompassing the area between 2100 South and the rail corridor from I-15 to 1 300 East. The designation identifies the area as a potential transit corridor, but the specifics of the corridor have not yet been evaluated. The Parley's Creek Trail is identified on the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as a proposed route. Staff finds that this is the appropriate location to identify a future trail and it is not necessary to identify it on the Transit Facilities map. Staff Report,Petition#400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 6 ANALYSIS: Pursuant to Planning Commission directive, the Planning Division and the Transportation Division reviewed the 1996 Major Street Plan map and the Transit Corridors map. In cases where the maps identify a street or transit project as "proposed"and that street or transit project has been completed, the maps were amended to reflect those changes. Staff also amended the maps to reflect current studies for new projects, such as, the options for the Mountain View Corridor and future rail transit extensions. The proposed Major Street Plan Map, the existing Major Street Plan Map (adopted in 1996), and a spreadsheet identifying the major changes to the 1996 map are attached as Exhibit 1. The proposed Major Transit Facilities map, the existing transit map (adopted in 1996), and a spreadsheet identifying the major changes to the 1996 transit map are attached as Exhibit 2. Master Plan Review The Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (adopted in 1996)states that the companion maps to the plan "will be updated on a regular basis." The proposed amendments to the Major Street Plan and the Transit Corridors map are updates as directed in the Transportation Master Plan. In addition to the Transportation Master Plan, the following community master plans were reviewed as to comments regarding the Major Street Plan and Transit Facilities maps: • Northwest—Jordan River/Airport (adopted, January, 1992) • Avenues (adopted, July, 1987) • Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, H Rock (adopted, October, 1998) • West Salt Lake (adopted, March, 1995) • Rose Park (adopted, September, 2001) • Downtown (adopted, February, 1995) • Visionary Gateway (not an adopted plan) • Sugar House (adopted, November, 2001) • East Bench (adopted, April, 1987) • East Downtown (adopted, September, 1990) • Capitol Hill (adopted, November, 1999) • Central Community (adopted, November, 2005) The following community master plans make recommendations regarding the Major Street Plan and Transit Facilities maps. The comments following the recommendations reflect whether or not the changes are proposed in the transportation map updates. Arcadia Heights, Benchmark,H Rock Master Plan Recommendation (page 15): Wasatch Drive should be reclassified from a "collector street"to a"local street." Staff Report,Petition#400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 7 Staff Response: In response to the Master Plan recommendation, the proposed Major Street Plan shows Wasatch Drive, between 1300 South and 2100 South, as a local street. Rose Park Small Area Plan Recommendation (page 9): 900 West at 1000 North — 900 West should be extended northward into the existing bridge, which will connect to the Warm Springs frontage road. Staff Response: Currently, the subject bridge connects to northbound 1-15. Changing that bridge so that it connects to the Warm Springs frontage road can only occur when 1-15, north of 600 North, is rebuilt. Reconfiguring the existing bridge will require more study during future evaluations of an 1-15 reconstruction project. Downtown Master Plan Recommendation (page 20): Improve 500 West to provide a freeway frontage road/secondary access route from the south that is away from residential areas. Staff Response: 500 West, between 800 South and South Temple has been changed to an existing collector and between South Temple and Victory Road it has been change to a proposed collector in response to the master plan recommendation. Recommendation (page 20): Close or narrow 2"d Avenue at State Street to discourage through traffic in residential areas. Second and Third Avenue should be reconverted to two way traffic. This is to discourage through traffic in the Avenues. Similar measures should also be taken on 100, 200 and 300 South, east of 700 East, to prevent excess traffic from moving onto these residential streets. Staff Response: The recommendations are beyond the scope of the proposed map updates and require further study to determine the overall impacts to the City transportation system. Recommendation (page 21): Victory Road should be disconnected from direct access to Beck Street to encourage commuter traffic to use 300 and 400 West rather than travel through the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Staff Response: Victory Road and Beck Street are Utah State owned arterial streets. Any change of these roadways must be coordinated and studied by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). Representatives from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division meet quarterly with representatives from UDOT. There is no indication from these meetings that UDOT intends to disconnect or change these roadways; therefore, the Victory Road and Beck Street configuration have not been proposed to be changed. Staff Report,Petition#400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 8 Sugar House Master Plan Recommendation/Policy (page 44): Evaluate the feasibility of reclassifying 1700 South, 2700 South, 900 East, and 1100 East/Highland Drive from "city arterial" to "collector" when the Transportation Master Plan is updated. Staff Response: The Transportation Division finds that these streets should continue to be classified as City arterials because they carry higher traffic volumes from neighborhood to neighborhood, which falls under the definition of an arterial street. Capitol Hill Recommendation/Policy (page 17) : Strongly support a 500 West collector system from Davis County to provide access to Downtown while bypassing residential areas of the Capitol Hill Community. Staff Response: 500 West, between 800 South and South Temple has been changed to an existing collector and between South Temple and Victory Road it has been change to a proposed collector in response to the master plan recommendation. FINDINGS Issues that are being generated by this proposal Analysis: The Salt Lake City Code does not address standards for amendments to adopted City master plans; however, Section 10-9a-401 of the Utah State Code states that each municipality shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long range general plan for: a) Present and future needs of the municipality; and b) Growth and development of all or any part of the land within the municipality. Utah State Code further states that the plan may provide for health, general welfare, safety, energy conservation, transportation, prosperity, civic activities, aesthetics, and recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities. The Major Street Plan map and the Major Transit Facilities map are companion documents to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, which is part of the overall general plan for Salt Lake City. The Transportation Master Plan guides the City in making transportation related decisions, which affects the "present and future needs of the City" and "growth and development of the land within the City." Finding: Staff finds that the proposed updates to the Major Street Plan map and the Major Transit Facilities map are in keeping with Utah State regulations for general plans. Staff Report,Petition #400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 9 RECOMMENDATION: In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments to the Major Street Plan Map and the Major Transit Facilities Map. Wayne Mills Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit I — Proposed Major Street Plan, Existing Major Street Plan, Spreadsheet of Major Changes Exhibit 2—Proposed Major Transit Facilities Map, Existing Rail Transit Corridors Map, Spreadsheet of Major Changes Exhibit 3—Department/Division Comments Exhibit 4—Other Agency/Organization Comments Exhibit 5—Transportation Advisory Board(TAB) Minutes Exhibit 6—Citizen Letters Staff Report,Petition#400-05-14 March 8,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Division 10 Exhibit 1 Proposed Major Street Plan, Existing Major Street Plan, and Spreadsheet of Major Changes • a. I w pQoLL ,2w --F-�—: wZ wai ao o QQ o4 % IIIUI e i .� < ay iou LL Sa `i tj} 80„,LL w UNw=F O aZZpO vj O�W� • ••iLViAW P\ I�• 'i � �wr►ir.-,.-1' —, §I ...2ii '04 65,Tw% g8g2,XQ WW2 'e' • . )w �M" ��((({ '� f' i y �� '1 �3m 4,8g2 c�,0bY.<oi aw,a. i' .,��f� 1 or '`I .0 <Z ggqgakOid'I Jd JUl11 ii rc o W I ',°'� 111i -t- — '5w� w fii • -14S1 1t� �j ,'1. ir HIOHIPla III,%I ``cq.8. IIII iW Ij a�sz ILilili �+,m m mm J' \ 11 1111.12 i i�,i Y n111ir _ ., • +ur-: zal pk ' . 1' �k , . r an" '":it111-1y�11 1 • �.. 6.>Rnz11t � �.. C 01 t..f.:N11U% ;NOR z" �fi1 r� .r. �J r' 1�1- __ 1 tl , t1allil C sf„r °' �F t i- J ��1> �7ilt"..1lIIL7#tr/ ■ i'iS• 1181 f AMIlli • W LL F 9: 3 l I .. 1 / i 4 '. � F .`t 's + r ji �! I • I— } .-._ r .�� — � � _.._.._._. ....... _ awn • �«, ir ill --II .1 • i %. p 3 • 4 k_`�'1� l0 • I . •L.. pg r_f-===).eiD .) 1 - 1 7----Iiii I w n w -4.. Icl t I "�1.f� �W,...Iwo r h • -: 1 " '• I ._ L. � I Ico ! 9 g k, i F . I_....._.._._.. f 61 i !r : B Z rII I' CW) I I ?--.,,'nla.- --r+.-.-•-.-• — --'-- — — —.—.__ r. i I ._. SQ Ili • •QWh2D8-, ___ J 0 I i 1 v D 01) -arm , -6., ,' c U JJI , ___/ -r- 1= i zD i1 C in f c 11111 �J ,,, , a*e; ID n 7. o - i_ I; ( :A- C r- 1 MI N � 9� �J�no01 _ $ � � 0 00 p,f1iI Y 1 =' _ it o_ D ittirlit4'711 ��rinnaE 1 _ � ill _ __-I z �`�.' w .. ��..co„ .1 �op� �'11 c w I .....L __._. �..,_.- - ...MEW . + ,,4Y1.a7mmEIP ■ re cn 1, _r+.i1rl l_ III .t 'alll._' •1' ar!■�N I ' g g 55 i JII!li -,__,o'p u r i'il ; I' 9 �g I' g & ��kgeg 1{ } ` i 1117111111p, lio l �� PN ' alir $1 0o 0l� �aoa� � � . .•� , im ❑ ; ;?,r___._ 46-'4-5 , �o I o n•�1�lil1 �,. - I d I- I� (j/ao '=11111�IWIIII III li�1� I': Ii� \� ti e lino ilk_ ;11 1 z l -. J4 NNE 10 I.• ,o a ;_ _ 1 ti 1 $�=zom / ,,' �1�t o� I 1 St; tit 11 S _-�j 3,. , _ ,fin F rvz Cp0 mH! • �ZOz • a) o t a) U O C O _ -D . - O ^ ^ ^ ^ in a) (Op a3 U N N (6 (o •X C at O ` O N a) a) m a) O O ` y 03 (o N `O (0 N N a) U N t (v (o O N 0) U a) V a •� N a m m 0 CO o 92 o a) a) a) a) a) o o aP o a) m 0 0 c c t 0 a) O 0 o O c c c c C a) O U o '- o a) a co - to O O m o .a U -0 - - - V c U U m 0 U C O O 'in O O a) v, U ( in V) U t O O 0) O) Oa N U) N N N N O N N a) a3 0 a) r. 2 i. O O U O O L O 0 a Q O .in W U) a CO in Oa 0 0 0 0 0 �p Oa in U 0- tn. ,= v x .x .x ••x .X a-) .x x m 13 V 13 a) a a) a 0 a a) Cl. -a -o v -a C� co a) a) a) a) a) a) a aD t .- a a a) a a) a. C 0 > 00 0 N N > ate) N N N 0 0 0 0 0 CO N ate) N N N E 0 N la O E E c- -a -o V E -a -a -a a a a a a a E -a -a •a a a c a -5 0. a cc a) a Q Q Q ct Q Q Q Q a a a a a < < < < < o n. < F- d 'L al L 4.0 .. ►. m �. a Ct o v) E Tia n3 6- r) o� (A N Co co a) aa)) L - L a)a) L L M > Y >a) a) a) >a) O " > W o (9 _ > o 0 0 > , ' 0 o O > > O N N CO N N a Z N O 0 0 0 O 03 O 3 0 _C co O 0 0 0 CO O (D LU N • (D a. CO E ' M 0 a U) O) <- M o O L 0 (D U') ' E 1.0 a) O O O O O 0 O O N O O �_ O v 0 O O O 0 O f0 C 0 .2 c.! O O O = to C c (!) N N r _c N0:1 N 5 Y (n in' fn o 3 C� 2 o o C c c 0 o > u) o o ✓ L C Z o 0 0 0 0 V) 2 0 0 o Cr) 3 0 0 V1 0 0 0 s o t o 0 0 0 � a o 0 0 o C 10 o o 0 0 0 0 t o • 0 O c) (D N O '— ` N (C)) 0 CO CO CU O Ca O N ‘--- O N- N to 0o J Z -) N U) co ,a- ' Q to .- co 0 in 0 0 a) ( ti N co in to to C C V) C O Q 0 O T 'a RS Z:-) _c Cl a) U °) t a) co y I CO > C a) E to L Q .c .cU a; 5 (o C C t r r U) _c ) NV)" V7 N N N _c _c _c inZ cow g> t o o o a) O a) a) a) .-- a) a) O O N c C 7 O 7 ( (o co .,. o (o (.5 o Z z Z 0 3 E co o 3 co co 3 0 0 0 Cl) C Z O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 - C O 0 O .-- 00 E O O O O O o O O O O O N O O O o O O o O O N (n > Q OD N N N U) N N 00 O . .� (D O O O N -O .- U) U) U) 0 C') CO 1- N (D M ('') N U) r- a) _ _ 1-6 _ -a O '-- N CO •'t U) CO N- CO CT) O N CO V U) a N CO V U) CO N 00 0) '- '- '"' '- r' N N N N N N J N 8 0) O C ) p X 0 O a) o) _ o — — — (0 _ C (II CO (0 (0 � 0 Q1 _ a) U p) p) U) a) a) t m 0) X t0 0) O) 0) 01 QII (A t t N C C t t t t a) t p) C C a) in 5 C C C C U X (0 co -IT) '� N (0 (0 N -a (0 c N .� .X C in N in N O N o) -0 U 'X 'X -0 o) o) O1 0 'o N •X .X U c0 'X .X .X 'X a N U) O C a) O N a) a) C C C p a) 'X a) O a) p L o) a) a) a) a) 2 a1 To o U - - a (A O o) O C L a a) (v - X a 1 6 O a .X• -X -X 2 a 70 03 2 U .N O O O O 0 C L a) a) 2 O O O 2 a) a) a) a 2 Ct UO UO - L N 'X U U 0 0 O 0 t 0 Q d 0 0 0 0 0- UO 2 o 0 a)) U) a) a) a) c0 C .a ct ca 0 0 0 0 0 U o 0 0 0 0 N a U -o -0 L "o "o 'o C "o O C O o 0 0 0 U C 0 N > C O 0 j N N N O j O O o j O O o O 0) C O o O 0 c0 U U 0 O o O E o .03 U U U .1 O c6 a a a E @ a) U) E a a a C E ai °, °) u E `m m m m O 0 U 0 O O N O O O O) U) t 7,112 o D O t CC 0 0 0 0 N d. a. a a 0 0 U a a n m ca 0 0 Q H d a+ N G N` L O tti D cn 0 0 0 o d O Q O (0 o o p V' 0 00 N > N C O• o E U r a L (0 (n r a 3 '- O O a) „co t V 0 a) o c.) E Q. � X p O O a) U) X 00 L O O cn o O _ o o C o w in Z 0 o o a) > ao a- L cc:..)) O a o >a) ►- o o 0 0 a 6. U a r- U al N N d •C a Z > O YO a N o O O O 0 0 0 0 Z co o .o o a) ca o o - rn CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 p a a U 3 3 m ct) 5 o N o W E -moo O a) L N E E O• Uj j __ _ ) > 0 00 (/O) C/) > E U) a)a) o O H 0 CO = E o W O F- F- v 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 _° o c L In - -0 ,n 00 o Fa) ui o o a > c� - o 0s- O O O CO r N (0 t` O 0 N <- O a) <- M O O co O 0 0 r- U) r` N- .- r- CO U - a C _ Z CL .- LL Z . *— N cn cn a) 0) C ca t U L a) Y U C L • N O a) a) Q) N 0 a, a) N a) p p a) z 0 (Cl L u) to (I) 3 3 3 o 3 3 3 Z o 3 (n Z Y w in ` 0 0 ) (D • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 C d O CO 0 O a) U') N (0 CO CO 0 O O CO 0 (>0 O '( - O O O O -.C-1 Y 00 t- a0 V V N o0 N N- N .- O �t Z > N G D C) Cr) (n to o (Cl CO N- a0 a) 0 N CO V (!) CO (---- 00 0) O N CO V' (f) (0 r- 00 a) a N N N N c0 C') C) (0 CO M CO CO CO CO V V V 1' I' V' V V rt. V Exhibit 2 Proposed Major Transit Facilities Map, Existing Rail Transit Corridors Map, and Spreadsheet of Major Changes 111 i . I }r J ES 9 w a LL ig �� A44. if$ ed o6 o i o ' 4 i °ed /a o f z yf �y, ...,.m, v J �O y.0 ? 2 1!0 \ - .30012 - .� 2 cW75 0'' �.r - ��r ! I WI € 0 1 okj.sgO a �5�$ & �„ w .1 Im A. 127.11.6.1 Jr9' r bl w 1 „r nrA We a g a CC COw COEZrr LIMA.. ; Z I. 4 I— g oAmK O I si a I .. ._. _ 1CO i i U W J u 'iiQ IP BllWII LLIJ < Ql O W i ycci tyj I J j,. j. ! 1 1 • • A j J 0 f" 1 , Dr ...-----; .2----k*:4-z r iI I / a m ' 1 al,' 3 III; — ICJ .- Ze s_� ,.mow i5r r ) - , � n 1 t Z ten Cn 0 � - . W -1 0o IM, liL _... I Ur -' dD _ _ , — W - O -n --1 D illaooII w i r- — rail -1- --i- Hal , ) 1 . Tn. Z fit J— "-'K , 0 h ' c D RiON@I J -- i __ 1� mow M .j ik�; It - r�a ,r ' J rI 11r= II ,_ _11__ il 9_ tsl'_1 J 1 _l o nn l �Tv REDWOOD___,1 -'.l' A4.1 l 01, r I t r__ it -G 4 z Jb/ ot,I .... yam- ' __ '* ,r. r ]n BWmp a0 +_ x N O 41 /I ''. M._i 200E ��f wit pi"- NO Z g ,- E T ,i�� ` 1�,i\, rri q .n �' I E i 7�1 11,I i tut,-J t]C]u1.1� l J. 600E � -. r -1 ppl II111aaac._W _ 1 � ■I N, I inimiudLD z 3111ITIIIII ilt== _0'*1 1 g• - J TA" Or o00 1100I� 1 -� Lr J z c c o '� v X• 'ld� 1 ��'ILbllit["} IJ�..- =.1 m -I co-1 C c -=i �.. p c m rti I L` �r1, m ^I-I m m o m z o II �' I I, f` 1 VIRGINiA - O A y— O O C o nr O G� > D " I[I01 IIIIIIIIIIi ,I�1�1�t - r. - �L,. 1. �§ E. c > F 2, ,` -�__�, 1001111 UIIIIII o 2. o ! z 1��6cU t o iJ Gl��Ju�jsA h' o v X p 2 I u I nccaoc��cu�9��c07ca9 .► m o N m m F I I II I�dII101000E ir7 ,aca �� z� NNo Id I atI% -�i 9 z Ti o f <X A X -0 D ;,III v .:I as�1 >z -Io > 0 �` L - mm g m r v�'f aI z ,wU •_'ate- ___r i. r if a imh. III 3 L 45 O O O O O o +' CVO C a) - N U .0 a) CO p a) -o 'O. C C _o O (U 0 O a) U U _ _ U. L. a) U) C 7 E (U J -Q .- t' o "a = C C N (U in vim- O Fa U V W 03 a) C w 4-- O �• a) L C C oO pJ O >, O) .Q) co 03 .r C E 0) _ J to 00 .p .0 fV O c i o ` O 0 .cU O N V p O O .... a) N _ L() V (U (U Li_ +. = r- CCC 0. 2 -o N a) (0 _o (`U G C 0 0 E C = t E a a) = O C O th V! > -o -o a) 6 'a -O 'a 0) .� O 0 t6 O C Q O C C a 0 c C Q C .—C, C C E c 00 aC _ a) FO E x Q E O x x a) c6 •X 0 0 - O •C a CC w W 0 o W W Z O W a o Q as 'v 0) U) o O C. C ) O o asb. 0 -a a) c s- a) oo o 7 c - b O O O as o J U • a U — -• C' U �U 0 • (U fU (J) '� C O 4-, O E O a) ▪ C CU C U — L. O a) co O N O —` 'B 0 O L "a 'as a) a) _ t" O C _c U O E as o C c O 0 C C 0) .N _ E 0) O) •— C '� 'U ,-- as p C O .� X O � N a) C O 0 •a) a) d a� c) : ' .0 E O O) O Q. -0 N a) 0) O +' U _Q CC C N (U = (0 O U (U (6 (U V >, a) co p. 0 -0 O -C E C C C o a- Q Z Tit a. Q N D Exhibit 3 Department/Division Comments 1 u6%. i v• I Mills, Wayne From: Johnston, Richard C *-3'`'Iss-rz.NG�\ � Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 1:46 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Major Street Plan WAY N E I reviewed the maps you sent and the only comment I have is that 1100 South (4800 West to 5600 West) should be shown as completed. Construction of 1100 South was completed last year as part of the Union Pacific Hub project. RICK 2/16/2006 Mills, Wayne From: Young, Kevin (-«7._)sPorz--1-47-io1.3) Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:03 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Transportation Master Plan Maps Wayne, The Transportation Division supports the proposed changes to the Major Street Plan map and the Major Transit Facilities map of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. Kevin Kevin J. Young, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer Salt Lake City Transportation Division 349 South 200 East, Suite 450 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 535-7108 (801) 535-6019 Fax 1/31/2006 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF INTER-OFFICE MEMO r74VI PORTS Planning & Environmental svr wau cm Date: October 26, 2005 To: Wayne Mills From: Allen McCandless Phone: 575-2231 Subject: Petition 40-05-14, a proposal to amend the Salt Lake City Major Street Plan and Rail Transit Corridor Maps Thank you for sending the four maps and two spreadsheets for the Major Street and Rail Transit Corridor maps. Steve Domino, Director of Capital Planning & Programming, has also reviewed the following comments. The following comments refer to streets on and near the airport. 1) Draft Major Street Plan, dated September 6, 2005 (22" x 36") a) The terminal loop road is shown as a local street directly connecting to Interstate-80 and has been rerouted since this street map. This is a unique roadway that does not meet the definition of a collector or arterial road. Namely, this road does not carry traffic long distances, does not connect city neighborhoods, and the speed limit is low at 10 miles per hour in front of the terminals. This road should remain as a local road so that the near future changes to the loop road can be made. I recommend no change to the airport loop road classification as local streets. b) The loop road exit road has been relocated and is not shown correctly. Additionally, 4000 West does not allow public access under the two taxiways as indicated. Upon request, I will be glad to provide a current traffic circulation map. c) A classification and description for local streets should be included in the Legend. 2) Existing Major Street Plan, dated April 16, 1996 (11" x 17") along with 3) Spreadsheet identifying the significant changes to the Major Street Plan a) West Davis Highway (Spreadsheet #1) —Agreed that this street should be removed from the map. rage i of 4 Mills, Wayne ST-A c, From: Weeks, Russell (GlT0 F Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:44 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: RE: Major Street Plan Update Categories: Program/Policy Wayne: My only comments to the maps are these: On the map marked Major Transit Facilities there is a tan box bordered by North Temple, 200 East, 900 South and the I-15 freeway. The box is labeled Potential Downtown Circulator. Is there any way to drop the word Potential from the label, and is there a way to extend the blue Planned Light Rail line down 400 West Street and east to meet the existing light rail line at 700 South 200 West? That's it. Thanks for asking. Russell. Exhibit 4 Other Agency/Organization Comments Mills, Wayne From: John Janson [John.Janson@wvc-ut.gov] it: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:34 PM Mills, Wayne Cc: Joseph Moore Subject: SLC Transportation Plan I am sorry for the very slow response to your request for input on the City's transportation plan. It has eventually landed on my desk and been waiting for a little bit slower time. So here are my comments: 1. Many years ago I had a conversation with Doug Wheelwright about 4800 West. At that time we didn't think it could ever have much priority for an interchange along 201. Yet we discussed the idea that an interchange could be helpful to the developing properties around it and reduce some of the demand on the Bangerter and 5600 West. I am wondering if that is still the case or if you all are thinking it would be beneficial to pursue in a future expansion plan for 201. 2. We would also like your thoughts on the extension of 2100 South to west from 5600 West. I doubt that there will ever be much development on the north side of that facility due to the old landfill and the wetlands. You are showing that road as a collector, probably just collecting traffic from our side. The road has not been discussed much in the context of the Mountainview Corridor. Should we be mutually promoting the road connection to 5600 West as an added expense of the Mountainview Corridor? 3. 7200 West is the other alternative for Mountainview. What are your thoughts concerning that alignment? Generally, your planning efforts seem to be harmonious with ours. 1 Exhibit 5 Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) Minutes SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Minutes of the January 9, 2006 Meeting Present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Kelly Gillman, Joe Perrin, Steve Sturzenegger, Randy Dixon, Scott Atkinson, Tim Harpst, Jeanetta Williams, Bonnie Mangold, Mark Smedley, Frank Algarin, Keith Jensen, Jim Jenkin, and Milton Braselton. Also present were Kevin Young, Scott Vaterlaus, Sherry Repscher, and Wayne Mills. The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m. by Chair Kelly Gillman. Kelly asked the board for approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2005 meeting. Motion: Jim Jenkin moved to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2005 meeting. Bonnie Mangold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Scott Vaterlaus explained to the board that the City is working on an ordinance regarding pedicabs. Pedicabs have been operating for several years under a revocable permit. The City has decided that it would be best to have an ordinance in place to govern the operation of pedicabs. Pedicabs are considered by law to be controlled as motor vehicles. They will be able to operate on city streets and must obey all traffic laws, including applicable parking restrictions. The ordinance will not regulate the number of pedicabs or the streets on which they can operate, but the ability to do so is retained if problems arise. Jim Jenkin asked other board members if pedicabs should qualify for free parking at parking meters, the same as fuel efficient vehicles. After discussing this issue, the board decided not to pursue this issue at this time. Scott said the City Council will hold a public hearing and then look to adopt the ordinance. Bonnie Mangold said the City should encourage this type of enterprise. r-------17-1/ayne Mills informed the board that the City is in the process of updating the Major Street Plan and Major Transit Facilities maps. These maps are documents that are part of the City's Transportation Master Plan. Wayne explained to the board the major changes to the maps. The adoption of the maps will go through the City's master plan amendment process, which includes the Planning Commission and the City Council. Tim Harpst recommended the board take a position regarding the proposed changes to the maps. Keith Jensen asked about the extension of Pioneer Road between 500 South and 900 South. It was explained that due to land development, railroad tracks, and other constraints, a continuation of Pioneer Road between 500 South and 900 South would not occur. Bonnie Mangold asked about the extension of 500 West north of North Temple being shown as a proposed collector. Tim said that due to existing and proposed conditions and constraints and future unknowns, it was decided that showing 500 West as a proposed collector allows for the most flexibility in the future. Jim Jenkin asked why there was no extension of an east/west transit corridor in the 2100 South/I- C-DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGSMW90491,OCA14 V4113INGSTEMPORARY INTERNET FILESOLK9D01-9-06MIN.WPD items for this meeting include a follow up discussion on Amtrak service and a discussion on pedestrian traffic signals. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGSNIW904nOCAL3VWGSTEMPORARY INTERNET FILESOLK9DE I-9-06MIN.WPD Exhibit 6 Citizen Letters U. . . $ s Mk. • PARLEY'S TRAIL January 31, 2006 PRATT Board of Directors Wayne Mills, Community Planning/Land Use & Transportation Salt Lake City Planning Division Sen. Karen Hale, City& County Building, Room 406 Chair SLC UT 84111 Rita S. Lund Dear Mr. Mills, Vice-Chair Bill Hebei As the Salt Lake City Transportation Division proceeds with its update to the Rail Vice-Chair Transit Corridors Plan map,the Parley's Rails,Trails, and Tunnels(PRATT)Coalition is Juan Arce-Larreta anxious to make sure that the Parley's Creek Trail is recognized and included as a Vice-Chair component in Salt Lake City's inter-modal transportation system and in the Major Transit Corridors Plan. Suzanne Weaver Funding for Parley's Trail was authorized in last year's federal Transportation Bill, Treasurer SAFETEA-LU. With the local match, a total of$13,125,000 will be available for the s Olson project. $285,000 of the local match will come from Salt Lake City through the 2003-04 Secretary COP authorizations. At present, Salt Lake City is participating in meetings with Salt Lake County and Utah Department of Transportation to plan for the trail. An inter-agency Bill Farrand, NPS agreement for design and construction of the project is pending. Environmental studies are Executive Director due to start this year. Milton Braselton The Parley's Creek Trail Master Plan shows two parallel trail alignments from Sugar House to the west Salt Lake City limit.The northern route is located in the UTA rail Robin Carbaugh corridor at approximately 2200 South. The Sugar House Rail corridor has been proposed as Geoff Ellis a transit corridor.The PRATT Coalition wants to see the UTA corridor developed for a bicycle/pedestrian trail, and believes this is the appropriate use for that corridor. However, Joshua Ewing recognizing that the corridor is owned by a transit agency and eventually may be used for transit, the PRATT Coalition's Board of Directors passed this resolution at our Jan. 24, Helen M. Peters 2006 meeting: The PRATT Coalition supports the concept of a single-track trolley along the UTA corridor as long as it preserves the room needed to accommodate Parley's Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail, and serves the transportation needs of all the neighborhoods on the route. Sincerely, Lynne Olson, Secretary PRATT Coalition Parley's Rails,Trails and Tunnels(PRATT)Coalition www.parieystrail.org P.O.Box 22105 — SLC UT 84122 — 801-741-1012x125 — Bal_Farrand@nos.gov c. Agenda and Minutes NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, February 22, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters a) UTOPIA, DBA Murray City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Murray City, as part of the UTOPIA project is requesting that Public Utilities grant a standard utility permit to allow the installation of aerial fiber-optic telecommunications cables to cross the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department owned Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property located at approximately 700 East and 6700 South in Murray City. The Public Utilities Department Staff intends to approve the standard utility permit. (Staff - Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.greenleafCc�slcgov.com or Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwrightCc�slcdov.com). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS b) Petition 400-05-17-A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend/update the Major Street Plan and Transit maps. The maps are components of and are amendments to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan adopted in 1996. These maps cover the entire City boundary(Staff— Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne.millsCa)slcgov.com). c) Petition 400-05-43 -A request by Blake Henderson to amend the zoning map to change the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from RMF-35 to RMF-45 to build a new multi-family housing development. The City may also consider rezoning properties at approximately 50 South 900 East and 845 East 100 South (rear)from RMF-35 to RMF-45 to better conform with the existing land uses and be consistent with the proposed changes by the applicant. This proposal will also require an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as medium-high density residential rather than medium density residential. (Staff- Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansieslcgov.com). 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Petition Number 410-571 -Applicants; Van Cott, Bagley, Conwall & McCartney Profit Sharing Trust, request an additional six-month extension of the approval period for the Conditional Use, changing the expiration date from March 16, 2006, to September 16, 2006. The project is a six—unit Residential Planned Unit Development located at 910 South Donner Way. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be March 22, 2006. This information can be accessed at www.slcgov.comICED/planning. 1 Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 8, 2006 aerial fiber-optic telecommunications cables to cross the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department owned Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property located at approximately 700 East and 6700 South in Murray City. The Public Utilities Department Staff intends to approve the standard utility permit. Chairperson Noda noted that there were no comments or questions from the public or Commissioners. The matter was approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition 400-05-17—A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend/update the Major Street Plan and Transit maps. The maps are components of and are amendments to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan adopted in 1996. These maps cover the entire City boundary. (This item was heard at 5:50 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Wayne Mills from the Planning Staff and Kevin Young from the Transportation Division to represent the petition. Mr. Mills stated that the request is to amend the Major Street Plan and Transit Corridor maps, which are companion documents to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan adopted in 1996. The Master Plan stated that the maps should be updated on a regular basis as alterations are made to the transportation system. The proposed amendments to the Major Street Plan reflect completed street projects, proposed changes to street classifications, and proposed new streets and highways. The proposed amendments to the Major Transit Corridor Plan will include the expansion of transit study areas and transit projects completed (and planned) since 1996. The proposed maps have numerous changes and can be seen on the maps found in the Staff Report. Spreadsheets have also been included in the Staff Report to easily identify the proposed amendments. Commissioner Seelig requested more information relating to the Rose Park Small Area Plan and the I-15 reconstruction. Mr. Young responded that the previous on/off ramps were partial interchanges, but upon the rebuild of 600 North on/off ramp a full interchange was created. When UDOT discusses eliminating the 1000 North on ramp, they are proposing the connection of 1000 North to Warm Spring Road to create a full interchange option. Commissioner Seelig requested a timeline for the proposed 1-15 North construction. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the 1-15 North project was scheduled to occur immediately after the Olympics, given that the Legacy Highway in Davis County was to have been completed before the Olympics. Due to the incompletion of those projects, the 1-15 North project has been delayed until at least the year 2010 for further consideration. Commissioner Scott requested further understanding regarding the flexibility of defining a road to be a particular classification. In particular, she referred to 900 East at 400 South going southbound and its classification as an arterial road. Mr. Young stated that classification can vary at each location because of the differing uses. At one point in time, the view of an arterial road was to mean that the road was planned for widening. By classifying 900 East as an arterial road, the City did not presume the widening of the street at a specific point in time; rather, the arterial road of 900 East has been redefined to allow full-time parking on the street and alter the road to one lane in each direction to allow a lessened highway effect. This redefined view of 900 East is an example of the flexibility the Transportation Division utilizes to best define the use of roads. 2 Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 8, 2006 Commissioner Chambless requested information about the light rail possibilities to the airport and in the east area of the City. Mr. Young stated that the future extension of a light rail line to the airport is of high consideration and is included on the Transit Map. He also agreed that a light rail line is being considered in the area of Foothill Boulevard and 2100 South. The proposal has not yet been studied and is not presently a priority. Commissioner Chambless requested further information regarding'future annexation of the City and if it was considered in the map amendments as well as growth in the area west of the International Center. Mr. Wheelwright stated that annexation is anticipated to the northern area of 1-215 and 2200 West at 2100 North, as the City's water services are requested. Annexation to the south of the City is nearly impossible due to the recent township legislation. He also noted that the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan will include a framework of arterial and collector streets for the area west of the International Center. Mr. Young noted that the Major Street Plan map illustrates the potential for an arterial street to be located on 7200 West and a possible continuation of 800 North. As development occurs, more concrete plans will be made for street placement. At 6:01 p.m., Chairperson Noda opened the Public Hearing and requested any comments from Community Council or public. There were no comments. At 6:01 p.m., Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and the Commission went into Executive Session. I____________ Motion for Petition 400-05-14—Based on the public comments, analysis, and findings in the Staff Report, Commissioner Muir made a motion to transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council.Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.All voted "Aye". The motion passed. Petition 400-05-43 —A request by Blake Henderson to amend the zoning map to change the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from RMF- 35 to RMF-45 to build a new multi-family housing development. This proposal will require an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as medium-hiqh density residential rather than medium density residential. (This item was heard at 6:02 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Staff member Doug Dansie presenting the petition. Mr. Dansie introduced the petition as a rezone of the area generally located on the northwest corner of 900 East and 100 South. The property is south of the Sunset Tower Apartments and east of the Market Street Condominiums. The site is presently zoned RMF-35 and is presently occupied by a non- conforming medical office building. The property slopes to the south. Two homes are located on each side of the medical building. The applicant is proposing to demolish all three structures and build a condominium complex. The complex would be three-and four-stories tall. The taller portions will be located towards the northeastern portion of the site, with the three-story on the southwestern portion. The new building meets all criteria of the RMF-45 zoning requirements. Mr. Dansie stated that the Planning Commission is considering the request for a zoning change. If the zoning is approved, a permit would be issued for the building as there are no conditional or planned development requirements for the proposed building. All parking for the development will be underground. If RMF-45 zoning is approved, the site plan found in the Staff Report meets all ordinance requirements. It was noted that the proposed development would be lower than the existing Market Street Condominiums. 3 6. Original Petition PETITION NO. i/dD PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 90C- __ _ Petition delivered to Planning GA/as- - Petition assigned to: Jo acne ' )I5, w.K Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover Chronology Property Description (marked with a post it note) Affected Sidwell Numbers Included 1� wH Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils tdn.A. Mailing Postmark Date Verification ►�^-� Planning Commission Minutes Planning Staff Report Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. } �'ti• Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. WaYN� ►-��5 Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office